Hat-tip to Neshanian: The long-awaited disbarment hearing for John Eastman, former Chapman University law professor and legal architect of Donald Trump’s treasonous attempts to steal the 2020 election, including the attempted January 6 coup, is today starting at 10. Here is the link in case you want to check it out for yourself:
https://calbar.zoom.us/j/97985435232
Greg and Vern both have very busy days today, but Vern is going to liveblog it as well as he can; hopefully Greg can take over later. And any commentary from Neshanian or anyone else (especially attorneys) will be welcome. Check back over the course of the day, or listen for yourself!
**************
11 counts of misconduct. Judge mentions outrageousness of Eastman’s contention that Pence was legally able to call the election.
Eastman’s lawyers are trying to qualify an “expert witness”, Mr Fried, who is a CPA who purported to find “anomalies” in the 2020 election, hence Eastman’s actions were “tenable.” Fried’s qualifications to judge elections are ridiculed. He’s been a CPA for 40 years but he only got involved in elections in…. 2021! Eastman’s counsel tells judge he thinks she should be “ravenous” to hear from Fried!
Now they’re trying to qualify an expert witness called Mr Valentine, who also purported to find anomalies. Judge doesn’t see relevance of either witness, as they both published their BS AFTER Eastman’s actions.
Prosecution: Valentine wouldn’t even let us look at his data – reason enough to exclude the bastard.
Dr Matthew Seligman will be only witness allowed to watch proceedings as he will have responses to the miscreant himself, Dr Eastman. Justified because Eastman didn’t bother filing a deposition. JOHN YOO will also testify. Ugh. The testicle crusher.
Both Seligman and Yoo will be allowed to observe (not sequestered) but it sounds like Yoo may not be available. So many children’s testicles, so little time! But seriously, he’s not available? This must not be that important to him. And Eastman’s camp is acting like he’s IRREPLACEABLE.
List of witnesses Eastman decided NOT to call includes goofball Peter Navarro.
***********
A ten minute break turned into 30 minutes. Perhaps Dr Eastman was pooping. I recall how long and hard Chapman University strained to expel HIM.
They came back at 11:50. Yoo will deign to drop by sporadically tomorrow! Yoo and Seligman will be allowed to hear each other.
Opening statement from plaintiffs. Look at Eastman’s conduct from a larger perspective. Jan 6 and Pence was only last ditch attempt at many efforts to overturn legitimate election. Made knowingly false and frivolous statements and privately acknowledged his theories would never convince a court. He knew he was damaging the nation.
Quotes Pence counsel Greg Jacobs emails: “This was gravely irresponsible of you. Encouraged Trump, riled up violent people, would never have accepted this shit from Democrats.” State Bar will ask for disbarment.
Statement from Eastman’s counsel. Will paint with broad brush for now, there is so much.
1 tenability. 2 advocacy. 3 protected speech. 4 missed it, driving. Main point, there was so much suspicious about the election, and all Eastman was doing was trying to create some DELAY to straighten things out.
LUNCH BREAK! Back at 1:45.
*******************
Now I’m hearing this whole thing could take 3 days, or 8 days. And I have to work from 2:30 to 4:30, so somebody should take this over. (Past 2, they’re still on lunch break.)
Eric provides this twitter liveblogger link: https://twitter.com/nhanson_reports/status/1671204974859259906?s=61&t=jhF3cKeD-1cIlr3qzgvZmQ
And Greg Diamond comes to the rescue! The following (until otherwise noted) is from Greg:
2:42 pm
While I don’t have time to watch four freaking days of hearings, I do have some ime to talk to various people (both lawyers and intelligent laypersons) between and after the daily sessions about their impressions of the trial. I’m going to lump all of my sources together into a composite pseudonymous figure whom I will call “Legal Kneagle” — pronounced “Kuh-nee-gull,” of course — who as a result of that may sometimes offer contradictory perspectives.
Kneagle’s overview was that this is a weird and novel case, and unpredictable given that it’s taking place in California. Why? Because of the entertainment industry, the high cost of housing, and the wide variety of international and fusion cuisine? No: because California’s disciplinary court has shown different values than those in most states.
Laypersons (our word for “non-lawyers”) often think — based partially on that damned entertainment industry! — that lawyers always have an almost unfettered right to present wild legal arguments even if there’s no basis to do so. In real life, not really true. Lawyers can and do get into all sorts of trouble for making unsupportable arguments in court and related procedures, and for giving clients unsupportable advice to rely on.
At least, that’s how it works in most states.
But California — by which I mean the state’s judicial system, or more specifically the California Bar Association, or even more specifically than that the independent judges of the State Bar Court — is well to one end of the spectrum: it places comparatively high value on the First Amendment. As a result, it is more hesitant than other states to second-guess the legal strategies that lawyers take, both in court and in advising clients, and to respect their right to make judgment calls.
California is no less harsh than other jurisdictions on possible violations that don’t involve the First Amendment — financial improprieties (especially self-dealing), ones dealing with the formalities of representation — but where other state’s courts might literally drag a lawyer into the dock for criticizing a judge or otherwise bringing the legal system generally into disrepute, California is averse to rein in anything that smacks of free speech. So if you want to call Justice Thomas a lying, self-serving grifter, Kneagle thinks that it’s helpful to be barred (here meaning a member of the bar) only in California.
But there are obviously limits to that. If, for example, one were to concoct a novel legal argument that it is permissible to murder used car dealers because used car dealers don’t have souls, and on that basis advise a client that they can go ahead and murder the dealer who sold them their 1978 Gremlin supposedly retrofitted for plug-in electric power because the murder laws were intended to prevent the killing of people with souls, one would be in trouble on two fronts. First, the notion of an exception to the murder laws is so off-the-wall and unjustifiable that it no longer qualifies as legitimate legal advice. More importantly, if someone does murder a used car dealer — sending a message to them all !!!1! — in that circumstance, they will raise the defense that they were acting on advice of counsel — which, at some level of a less ridiculous scenario, might even work. This is because we don’t want lots of murders of used car dealers — seriously, we don’t — and more generally we really don’t want people.to be able to get away with literally anything because they can find a lawyer stupid or craven enough to tell then that it’s OK.
This brings us to Rudy Giuliani, but also — more surprisingly — to John Eastman.
The prosecution argued in its opening statement that Eastman did not make a colorable legal argument (one that is serious enough to take seriously) that Vice President Pence could simply ignore the electors sent by their states. (This could mean “at all,” or “at least in the absence of strongly compelling evidence of identifiable and consequential fraud, which in any event would generally be adjudicated by the states themselves. Until the Supreme Court changes that, later this month or early next year.) Eastman’s goal in presenting arguments that he admitted in writing were specious (special call-out here to the righteous betrayers at Chapman University and its College of Law!) was simply to delay the process for long enough that the horrendous and antiquated provisions of the 12th Amendment could kick in, giving each state delegation one vote — meaning that California has the same say as Wyoming — in who should be elected President.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a coup. And there’s no basis for a lawyer to give legal advice to a client to justify a coup and thus exculpate him because he was “acting on the advice of counsel.” I believe that we take oaths to uphold the constitution, which does not mean grabbing it by the neck and holding it up in the air until it strangles…
3:20 pm
In their opening statement, Eastman’s lawyer — whom my composite source Kneagle considered somewhat surprisingly less-than-stellar — argued that the question of whether advising Team Trump that Pence could just refuse to count those electoral votes was not clear cut and was in fact a matter of scholarly debate. But examples — a footnote here, an offhand comment there — were weak.
Kneagle noted that a scholarly article lamenting that the VP did not have more flexibility determining whether slates of electors were valid and should be counted (or discounted) is certainly possible and permissible — but that’s only complaining about the law, not using such musing as a basis for putting a plan of having the VP overturn a vote into action.
And there are some aggravating factors here;
First, Eastman wanted to delay the certification for investigations into voter fraud, based on certifications that did not have the earmarks of seriousness (such as coming from percipient witnesses) but that we now know to be spurious. Maybe Eastman would not be charged with knowing that they were warmed-over hooey within a week of the election — but it should not have taken him long to conclude that they was nonsense and even collecting affidavits from people who had no foundation and basis for their declarations was done without integrity.
Second, Eastman knew that he was being asked to give legal cover for a coup. In fact, he knew that he had been sought out for just that purpose.
Third, did I mention that this was done to aid in a coup?
But here we reach a core issue in this trial: if this were a college student body election, would Eastman really be sanctioned by the State Bar with potential disbarment for giving spurious and tendentious advice? If not — and we can safely say “not” — and if it looks like it’s giving cover for a coup was the same sort of intellectual practice — then do we treat this as fundamentally different as a matter of attorney ethics simply because the stage is so consequential?
Kneagle thinks that, yeah, we probably do. If First Amendment terms, this was “yelling fire (at cops) in a crowded theater (of conflict between police and armed protesters.”)
But that’s only what should happen. You, Dear Reader, want to know what will happen. Kneagle is still willing only to call it as a coin flip. This is a proverbial “hard case that makes bad law”: we (and most importantly the trial and appellate judges in the State Bar) don’t want to tell lawyers that they can rend themselves out as “get out of free” cards for clients who want to bend the law into unrecognizable shapes — especially with immeasurable consequences. But neither do they want to have lawyers looking over their shoulders in advising clients for fear that — despite their best efforts, often making split decisions in active combat with an adversary — they might be second-guessed to the point where they are heavily fined or disbarred.
To some extent, there’s a check on this because the Bar Court may attend most carefully to lawyers who break the same rules repeatedly. But it’s hard to imagine that Eastman would be doing something like this again, simply because the opportunities for it are so scarce. On the other hand, it may be that the sheer consequentiality of this act makes relying on recidivism unnecessary. That’s why “scope of the consequences” may be the key fact that distinguishes this from other cases. In other states, Eastman might be strung up. But the State Bar Court in California, leery of suppressing legal actors trying to do their best, is reluctant to clamp down too hard on lawyers. But if the scope and the audacity of it distinguish this from garden-variety claims, that may allow them to decide that allowing this sort of action without consequence is a bridge too far.
When judges have a case where the law leads them towards a choice of perils, Scylla or Charybdis, they will often try to issue a narrow ruling based on the specific facts, a ruling that will not have much precedential value. If Eastman is disciplined at all — let along disbarred — it will be because the facts of what he did and how he did it were so specific, peculiar, and damning that the Bar Court can act against him without putting terrible fear into the hearts of most of the state’s practicing lawyers. If he’s not disciplined, or only weakly disciplined, it will be because the consequences for the profession (and thus for clients in legitimate need) are just too great.
Onward towards the evidence!
4pm
Court just came into session.
Cool, my old teacher and colleague Charles Stewart has an expert report admitted to this case!
4:37 pm
Thrust and parry, thrust and parry, over expert reports and whether Eastman read them and relied on the report that Stewart criticized. Prosecution is not making a whole lot of progress there.
Now we’re getting to the “alternate electors” issue, which was presented by Trump and/or Eastman with RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, in which she has testified to the Jan 6 panel she says that they asked her to help the campaign gather “contingent electors” just in case they won a court battle in a given state. Eastman doesn’t recall the substance of the call. He says that they were assembles just to stay under the “safe harbor” provision by meeting in Dec. 14 to vote.
I want to say that this “rights preserving” action is evidence of an illegal plot, but if it were truly simply for contingency purposes and the electors knew it then maybe it’s permissible. But my sense is that the electors didn’t see themselves as merely contingent on winning a court case; they seemed to think that they were being asked to have their votes selected to count according to Pence — or at least used to neutralize both delegations and thus send the election to the state delegations.
The judge is taking a very assertive role in trying to pin Eastman down re conversations about contingent electors; he’s squirming out of it, but at the risk (or certainty) of pissing off the judge.
The Lib Oc had a post on this yesterday
Really. Dan is live-blogging the proceedings? Go away fool.
Check the spelling of the last name. It’s a parody, and a sorta funny one.
Dearest Dan – Your blog blows goats.
Eastman takes the stand almost immediately after they return from afternoon recess.
Eastman shucks and jives. Basically stating his prior testimony and positions were misleading because they were based on inaccurate data/analysis of third party of which he learned of only after submitting testimony and taking those positions.
I don’t recall. I had Covid. Eastman is not coming across as credible. He has great recollection of some things but none of others. Kind of sounds like William Barr.
Eastman claims he was merely giving a legal opinion as requested on unchartered territory.
His opinion was based on the hypothetical that the election was conducted illegally not on the contention it was.
Eastman testifies Georgia Secretary of State made misrepresentations regarding the amount of registered voters who were underage and there were state laws that were violated.
Basically, Team Trump was merely seeking advisory opinions.
Article III courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions because it violates the case or controversy requirement.
Proceedings resume. Initially, housekeeping related to a proposed order re exhibits and pending argument re attorney client privilege re line of questioning of Eastman endured yesterday.
Testimony began with Eastman around 10:30 and you would have thought he was an officer at the Department of Corrections prefacing or framing his answers based on corrections and clarifications including one of his revised exhibits.
Testimony interrupted to call state’s witness Greg Jacobs – Pence’s counsel during J6. Among other bombshells, Eastman agreed his theory re rejecting electors would lose at the Supreme Court 9-0, if it even got there. Eastman also considered it a political question which the courts would refuse to hear. Political questions and advisory opinions.
State is cow-tying Eastman to the reality of the situation and his actual actions contemporaneously with J6 debunking Eastman’s earlier testimony re his earlier opinion(s) being based on inaccurate data/analysis and being hypothetical.
Eastman’s credibility continues crumbling. Crumble. Crumble.
Heh, Department of Corrections.
Thanks for filling in Eric, my days are crazy today and tomorrow.
That “would lose 9-0” comment is not a bombshell; if I recall correctly, that was part of what was included in the tranche of “emails on work computers” that Chapman University heroically coughed up.
The order re exhibits this morning was re the state’s motion to take judicial notice.
The court refused to receive testimony from a witness whom Eastman designated as an expert – the CPA.
And, the court denied media requests for expanded coverage of the proceedings.
It’s a bombshell now that his own admission that his position was a loser is now evidence that may be used to strip him of his license.
I think the theme for today was “Too bad renowned constitutional law professor and scholar Dr. John Eastman wasn’t living in a vacuum leading up to and during J6.”
After having tried to watch this trial, in bits and pieces, over the past few days, I have the following observation. It is a giant snore-fest. While Judge Roland is clearly taking her time, being thorough and detailed, it is far less exciting than watching paint dry. Maybe her careful, calm method has its benefits, but it sure is not geared towards moving this case along to a resolution according to a reasonable time frame. I do think she is thoughtful and careful in her approach, and maybe that is appropriate given the license to practice which is at issue.
John Eastman’s defense seems to be to characterize his complete lack of interest in presenting fact-based, legally meritorious positions in court as normal lawyering. It’s not. Lawyers who do such things are considered scum while they are in the profession, and that approach often leaves them outside the profession due to professional licensing issues.
Methinks Mr. Cottonhead would have gotten away with it if he weren’t being so damaged unethical with regard to subverting the Constitution and enabling a coup attempt. This is California, and it apparently takes something very serious, repeated, and unmitigated in order to get the book thrown at you by the State Bar.
And unfortunately, John Eastman and his attorneys are every bit as boring. He just sits there sheepishly in his gray suit, looking like he wants to eat some lukewarm toast and go back to pretending to be a ConLaw scholar. And thanks to his bullshit, we were under siege.
Hey isn’t this the person who commented back in March under the name “My Dog Ate My Bar Card and Pooped it Out into a Pile of Alpo?” Welcome back!
If this were a civil (jury) trial, it would be on the block for mistrial.
Explain why. Who has messed up in a way that would lead to a mistrial?
It will go longer than originally set. That’s why. Eh.
Some color. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/06/27/arizona-plays-leading-role-in-effort-to-disbar-attorney-john-eastman/70358024007/
Trump and Eastman by association get rebuked by the Supremes.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-independent-state-legislature-theory-election-law-case/
More color.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/deadlinewhitehouse/blog/rcna91266
And, once more for posterity sake. California courts YouTube page provides footage of Eastman accepting compliments as a constitutional scholar (along with VOC advisory board member – and my bar review professor – Dean Erwin Chemerinsky) by Southern California presiding appellate court justice while portraying attorney in Korematsu reenactment before local legal community. https://youtu.be/F9rp6lCzJp0
California courts and judicial and court officers enabled this man.
The “enabling” of Eastman was literally affirmative action. There was literally no conservative constitutional legal scholar in (my former boss) Chemerinsky’s league in OC. Eastman was as close as it got.
FYI. Yesterday’s proceedings (6/27) were formally taken off-calendar by minute order indicating Eastman’s attorney fell ill.
https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/DownloadDocumentFile/Download?d=3pot2L1OUxsUCujyHqNUWQ2&c=-60Jj8mumvqGooncgoM4wQ2&l=uFt5JF1y9ZwaIczdINKITw2&cn=1nJD0fEVCoo3CRok3UjaEg2&fileName=SBC-23-O-30029%20-%20Minute%20Order&docTypeId=13&isVersionId=False
Today’s proceedings also went off-calendar presumably for the same reason.
Proceedings are set to resume tomorrow (6/29).
https://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets.aspx (search “Eastman, John”
A preview of one of Eastman’s witnesses scheduled to testify today, June 29th.
https://madison.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/michael-gableman-john-eastman/article_530227e8-15e5-11ee-a2de-07b914632cf8.html
Eastman interview with Chair of Claremont Institute regarding 2020 elections.
https://www.themainewire.com/2023/06/claremont-institutes-tom-klingenstein-and-john-eastman-discuss-2020-election-fraud-in-new-interview/
https://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-the-justice-system/bitter-pill (Is Eastman’s conduct protected by the 1st amendment? Me thinks not.)
The bar can keep you out of practice for your beliefs, it’s can likely remove you for espousing false beliefs that are contrary to the oath administered upon admission. Your expressed beliefs can demonstrate that you are no longer qualified to practice law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/36/
The proceedings recommenced today 6/29 at 10:32 a.m.
The state bar attorney cross-examining Eastman is not very good at cross-examination. On multiple occasions, he asked for yes/no responses and instead permitted Eastman to provide a response that went beyond call of question without objecting non-responsive, striking the answer and demanding a response in the affirmative or negative.
Oof. Surprising and distressing.
They have taken their afternoon lunch break.
If I were grading Mr. Carling’s cross-examination of Mr. Eastman up to this moment, I would give him a C-. He has given Mr. Eastman too much deference and allowed him to provide meandering, narrative answers to questions which by the call are limited to “yes” or “no”.
He often does not test the testimony provided in those non-responsive answers allowing them to remain unchallenged.
He does not appear to have any real purpose to his cross-examination except demonstrating that Mr. Eastman has the uncanny ability to recall events and facts which he believes are neutral or favor him and be unable to recall facts or events which appear to be unfavorable to him.
And, if Carling does have a road map, outline or purpose beyond demonstrating Eastman’s lack of TOTAL RECALL, Eastman is outfoxing him in that regard. I don’t think Eastman’s bar card is in the balance because he has a poor memory.
When the judge is asking the witness who is being cross-examined to clarify his narrative answer to a question calling for a yes/no response, you’ve got a problem.
Does Eastman come off as lacking credibility? Yes.
Is the State Bar taking way TOO LONG to cross-examine him? Certainly.
Will the court need more than two (2) days in August to wrap this matter up? It sure is looking that way.
————-
Evidently you think Trump supporters are considered spineless blind monkeys. John Eastman had such power over the Jan 6th audience that people rabidly followed his instructions like zombies? What was his double secret code word that triggered the citizens who entered the Capitol escorted by guards? Many are rotting in jail as we speak, thanks to the FBI operatives. The lovely Beverly Hills doctor, Simone Gold, went to jail for making a statement in the rotunda. Anyone who was in DC and owns a Trump hat has had their doors broken down by the FBI. Liberal voices have the general media, five branches of government, (including the WHO), Hollywood, every large business, NGOs, some religions, and now the Bar Assn to repeat the lies.
https://rumble.com/v2x0iym-weve-crossed-the-rubicon-devin-nunes-on-what-it-will-take-to-defeat-the-swa.html
As pointed out in this long interview, conservatives were forced to begin their own platforms because they were banned and censored off of every media outlet. It started two weeks before the 2020 election to anyone who said the election was questionable. At the one hour point, we find out that Gary Gensler, head of the SEC is the one who approved payment for the Steele dossier.
Here is a short Eastman interview:
https://warroom.org/john-eastman-democrats-destroy-democracy-with-attack-on-state-legislatures-defy-founding-fathers/
Up until now, Americans had a right to question election results.
However, Catherine Englebright and Gregg Phillips, who produced 2,000 Mules, went to jail for not naming an anonymous source.
Millions of people all over the country know the election was stolen. Eastman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some like Mike Lindell have spent tons of money to keep the proof out there. Some are just regular citizens wondering how suitcases of ballots can be pulled out from under tablecloths after the Republican workers were sent home. When a private company works for the government, it is called outsourcing. Such a company like Dominion had internet access to foreign operatives, linked to every state that employed them, including California. The election was not secure. Newsom asked the legislature to RETROACTIVELY give CA the legal right to send out mail-in ballots. Newsom had mandated it, but faced a lawsuit, hence his Sacramento minions to the rescue…again. It is laughable that the issue of election fraud is thrown on John Eastman. Like Trump whose popularity goes up with every indictment, so will Eastman’s. He is now a shining martyr and in good company with the saints of truth, no matter what the court does to him.
John Eastman is now a shining martyr and in good company with the saints of truth. Thank you for your unique opinion.
You lost most of your credibility BEFORE you mentioned the idiot-lunatic Mike Lindell. There went the rest.
Concur! Return of the pillow pusher! Don’t let them call you a crackhead!
https://youtu.be/NqDImoaae9M
Didn’t Karl Rove promise to win the 2012 election?
https://www.newsweek.com/why-rove-went-denial-election-night-226695
https://youtu.be/eQLV7nqD3CA
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/karl-rove-donald-trump-campaign-adviser.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-election-result-wont-be-overturned-11605134335
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/karl-rove-blasts-republicans-who-back-trump-s-false-2020-claims#xj4y7vzkg
Martyr yes. Shining, not much. Shi%%ing.
Proceedings recommence. 10:16 a.m. on 6/30.
House cleaning first. Respondent arguing that expert testimony tendered yesterday re Eastman’s representations of disciplinary charges should be excluded as opinion was not provided during deposition. Basically, defense is claiming they were not given notice of expert providing opinion on subject matter – “bucket” testimony – and testimony performed work/investigation to reach opinion offered. See de palma v rodriguez https://casetext.com/case/depalma-v-rodriguez
Petitioner points to expert designation referred to testimony provided and expert file was given to other side. Respondent cries trial by ambush.
The court tentatively overruled the objection to expert’s testimony.
The Petitioner recalls it’s expert Justin Grimmer at 10:37 a.m. Grimmer testifying about bucket of unreliable analysis re rejected ballots in GA election.
Here is a good resource re experts. I would shepardize the statutes, code and case law thought if you plan to cite them to insure it’s still good law. But, this area is relatively static except for the dreaded Sanchez opinion. Oh you dirty Sanchez.
https://ponistlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Expert-Presentation-Syllabus-BASF-Final.pdf
https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2022-january/using-case-sanchez-case-to-your-advantage
Petitioner concludes direct of Dr. Grimmer at 12:03 p.m., cross-examination of him by Respondent to begin at 12:10 p.m.
Buckets of unreliable (purported election fraud data) testimony.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Lunch break just before 1:30 p.m.
Some more useful information re expert testimony. (Non necessarily related to testimony in this case – yet)
https://casetext.com/case/sargon-enters-inc-v-univ-of-s-cal
https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/preparing-experts-post-case-sargon-case
https://www.nysun.com/article/at-disbarment-trial-a-trump-attorney-john-eastman-is-accused-of-pushing-election-fraud-claims-from-people-who-lacked-basic-logical-reasoning (Dr. Grimmer’s testimony in a nutshell is in the heading of this article)
Basket of unreasonables and bucket of unreliables. Legal theories lacking basic probable cause. Boom!
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rule_3.1-Exec_Summary-Redline.pdf
Barring any out of court events or emergency applications, this thread is dead as proceedings are set to reconvene on 8/22.
Speaking of 22, did you catch the catch-22 reference in the last episode of BEEF?
Anyways, a little color on Justice Manuel A. Ramirez who couldn’t help but introduce Mr. Eastman as a saint of the Constitution before a congregation of court and judicial officers and dignitaries.
Did you know Justice Ramirez readily admits that he created false identities for his own educational gain and brags about how it actually helped his legal career.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CCR_06Winter.pdf
(see pg. 21 – he made up false identities to make up for lost time and prior poor performances)
Making up shiat is in this cat’s DNA. He’ll make up law.
What he did to overcome his modest background is create false identities to gather credits he could not otherwise obtain fast enough.
Justice Ramirez is an intermediate appellate justice, although he has sat on the California Supreme Court pro tempore for four time periods by designation).
While I agree with you about Eastman (and am saddened by his defense of the may), and I generally haven’t favored the views of Deukmejian’s judicial nominees, picking out the worst thing a person is known to have done is unfair. Saying that it’s “in his DNA” is both unfair and somewhat racist, given that one’s DNA is (aside from the occasional cosmic ray or mutagen) passed down from one’s ancestors (in his case, Latinos). You could say that “it runs deep” without impugning his ancestry, but even that is unfair: you have no evidence that his character at that time has pervaded his later views and actions.
Sadly, relevant to one of our recent conversations, this just leads me to wonder whether Justice Ramirez has even made comments or taken actions against Armenian interests or favoring Turkey, Pakistan, Israel — or Azerbaijan itself — for you to drag out your slime machine like this.
Haven’t yet watched BEEF. It’s on my list, after Season 2 of The Bear.
Here’s what Justice Ramirez to lead Eric to claim that “Making up [shit] is in [Ramirez’s] DNA” and justified not trusting him with the law.
Eric, this is the sort of thing that would lead me not to trust any characterization you would make inside a courtroom.
Trying to earn extra units in contravention of a college’s policy is a venial sin, and was recognized and treated as one, rather than the mortal sin you imply. And his being forgiven so readily suggests that there was probably a lot that was good about him. I’m sorry that he turned out to be someone who would defend Eastman like this — but this sort of hatchet job is repulsive.
It’s called education fraud despite your characterization
otherwise.
He admitted to education fraud – more specifics identity fraud – as he obtained units he quicker than he might have had he used his real name only.
He proudly admits what he did.
But, you perceive what you want to Greg.
You made me look up “education fraud.” This is not it.
It is also not identity fraud, which generally involves taking someone else’s identity. False identities (although this technically wasn’t one) can also lead to criminal liability if one uses them, for example, to obtain double benefits, but this isn’t really that. The “benefit” of the opportunity to take extra units was paid for and worked for. This is not actually a legal issue at all, but a school disciplinary issue, and they didn’t react as you did. To the extent that signing up for units under both “First Name/Middle Initial” and “First Initial/Middle Name” is a fraud — presumably using the same student number, presuming that had such things then, which would have undercut its being fraudulent at all — it is extremely attenuated.
Let me guess: have you ever had a case come before Justice Alvarez? If so — as if I’d even have to follow up — how did it go?
Identity fraud not identity theft fraud. Fraudulent and an act of moral turpitude nonetheless.
Moral turpitude? How are you defining “turpitude”? By all means, file a bar complaint against him if you think you’ve gotten him! I’ll just sit here and watch while sipping tea.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CCR_06Winter.pdf (This link works, see pg. 21)
I’ve corrected the link in your original content so that it goes to this page.
In related resurrection news, Georgia accepts Lin Wood’s retirement in lieu of proceeding with disciplinary charges against him.
https://www.ajc.com/news/lin-wood-outspoken-trump-defender-and-libel-lawyer-gives-up-law-license/UK3XPLRMX5BCBGAH6KGJC4Q3AY/
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1676570282360807426?t=MPbhWZ5tLPvepyiofPQ1jA&s=19 (Resignation letter)
Did you mean “insurrection”? Have we been talking about someone getting resurrected?
DC disciplinary committee recommends Rudy Giuliani’s disbarment for claiming massive election fraud with “no evidence of it.” ICYMI, his NY license remains suspended with no notice of any further disciplinary proceedings pending re disbarment for the same shenanigans.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1677381342017773580?t=GJf-BeZhJ0B8nEitE-HEfw&s=19
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/07/disciplinary-panel-calls-for-rudy-giulianis-disbarment-00105220
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/31/01/7879B0D7-7874-414C-9CEA-CBA0E5700EB7/tmp.gif
Oh, look! You found some actual moral turpitude!
Jeffrey Clark, once Trump’s man at the DOJ, is facing disciplinary charges in DC over is objection the proceedings should be placed on hold while he seeks an appeal to stop the proceedings altogether.
Make attorneys get attorneys!
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/attorney-ethics-case-against-trump-ally-clark-moves-forward-dc-2023-07-07/
Or alternatively, “My Attorney Got Arrested.”
There is a long history of soon-to-be-losers who sue their State Bar organizations while facing discipline. It’s frankly not that creative, or surprising. Those things tend to always play out a certain way. I guess Jeffrey Clark doesn’t want to have to learn how to ask such important questions as “why did I try to subvert Western democracy?”, “why shouldn’t I be disbarred for attempting to undermine the U.S. Constitution?”, or perhaps even “do you want biggie size with your burger?”
TBT
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/10/us/at-the-bar-an-outspoken-lawyer-tests-the-limits-of-free-speech-in-court.html
And what’s THAT, for those of us whose NY Times paywall seems to have closed back up?
Whatever it is, it’s from 19 years and a month ago.
Simple math. Sheesh.
Oh, snap.
You might want to consider being less cryptic with your precioussss links.
The articles should follow when you scroll down. One Steven Yagman. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-06-05-me-623-story.html
Yagman? Jeez. I’m glad I didn’t pay my way past the wall to read that old story!
Yagman claims Chemerinsky gave him ineffective assistance of counsel as part of his habeas corpus petition. All roads lead to Chemerinsky?
https://www.laweekly.com/stephen-yagman-vs-chemerinsky/
That article was published in 2011. Why are you presenting it like it’s something currently relevant?
It was merely independent corroboration of the “long history of soon to be losers”. I was bolstering your statement. Nevermind.
Douchebag gets sanctioned for frivolous AZelection based claims on behalf of Kari Lake.
https://twitter.com/derektmuller/status/1679912957176578050?t=tdbM_ouWU8unsr_rOBxG1w&s=19
https://www.pinalcentral.com/arizona_news/dershowitz-to-pay-portion-of-sanctions-imposed-in-lake-finchem-trials/article_93e5bffa-1c47-59fe-a62d-b998a9844640.html
Lin Wood claims he wanted out of GA bar because he determined it’s infiltrated by Freemasons and other secret societies and its symbols are satanic.
https://www.threads.net/@petestrzok/post/CuXskxxv7o1
Newly convicted insurrectionist Alan Hostetter shared the same concerns. He insisted on representing himself; he said he’d accept a LEGAL ADVISOR, with the caveat that this advisor must have no association with Skull & Bones, the Freemasons, “or any other organizations that require oaths or vows of secrecy.”
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2021/10/bad-yogi-san-clemente-insurrectionist-alan-hostetter-back-in-the-news/
Accepting a legal advisor is a real thing, and I suspect that putting stipulations on it as regards personal associations may be permissible.
I think that both I and Eric satisfy these criteria. I’m completely willing to do it once I finish reviewing my material on insanity pleas.
The OC Register has an article today that this loser has raked in half a million in donations from supposed Christians who think Eastman is fighting a battle against demons. He may be, just not in the way they think. The demons are all his, and those of Donald Trump. I look forward to his imminent disbarment.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4108875-trump-target-letter-hints-at-surprise-approach-from-prosecutors/amp/