California Bar Slaps Trump Lawyer John Eastman with 11 Disciplinary Charges for ‘False’ Election Fraud Statements

[DeluxAuto]

The problem the State bar

They let you take the BAR sans proper education.

 

[Rightguide]

No, this isn't true. There's no comparison. Have you read the State Bar complaint against Eastman? I have. In addition to allegations based upon his memos and his speeches, there are allegations based on pleadings and papers he filed with courts that contain allegations of voter fraud that he almost certainly will NOT be able to substantiate. When an attorney signs and files papers with the court that contain factual allegations, he must have reasonable grounds for making those allegations, as a matter of ethical and professional duty. It's pretty clear that he was either lying or that he was reckless with regard to the facts. An attorney is free to publicly voice opinions about the Constitution that are extreme outliers, but it's another thing to file court papers in one's name that contain false statements, and it appears that's what he did, in a scheme to undermine the Constitution. That's not protected by the First Amendment.

Gore's attorneys did no such thing. In Bush v. Gore, the issue wasn't voter fraud. It wasn't a factual dispute. The issue was a legal one: how should the system in Florida respond when the election was very close and some ballots were marked in unclear ways? That's a legitimate legal question about which reasonable lawyers can disagree. Trump's team, on the other hand, advanced claims based on outright false statements about what happened in the 2020 election. It's extremely unlikely that Eastman is going to be able to come up with a lick of evidence to support the factual claims he made. He's in deep trouble, and it's not at all clear that the First Amendment will protect him against all of the charges (maybe some).

It seems to me, and I'm not an attorney, that they have to prove his intent was to lie and/or that he knew what he was advocating to the court wasn't the truth.

 

[stxjimmy]

It seems to me, and I'm not an attorney, that they have to prove his intent was to lie and/or that he knew what he was advocating to the court wasn't the truth.

Doesn’t seem to onerous

 

[SimonDoom]

It seems to me, and I'm not an attorney, that they have to prove his intent was to lie and/or that he knew what he was advocating to the court wasn't the truth.

Intent is proven by circumstantial evidence every single day in courts and tribunals across the country. It's a rare case that you get somebody admitting, "Yes, I meant to commit a crime." That doesn't stop convictions from happening. Eastman admitted he thought his scheme had little chance. He knew in his heart it was bogus.

Moreover, the standard is stronger when filing papers with the court. You have to have a reasonable basis for believing what you allege. It's not enough to say, "I have no evidence for it your honor, and I know it's crazy, but I believed it anyway!"

 

[Rightguide]

Intent is proven by circumstantial evidence every single day in courts and tribunals across the country. It's a rare case that you get somebody admitting, "Yes, I meant to commit a crime." That doesn't stop convictions from happening. Eastman admitted he thought his scheme had little chance. He knew in his heart it was bogus.

Moreover, the standard is stronger when filing papers with the court. You have to have a reasonable basis for believing what you allege. It's not enough to say, "I have no evidence for it your honor, and I know it's crazy, but I believed it anyway!"

That's not what he is saying, is it? He doesn't have to say anything at this point. They have to prove the illegality of what they allege he said. This is an attack on the legal profession by Democrat radicals with far-reaching ramifications. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Yes, and I predict, you won't like the outcome.

 

[SimonDoom]

That's not what he is saying, is it? He doesn't have to say anything at this point. They have to prove the illegality of what they allege he said. This is an attack on the legal profession by Democrat radicals with far-reaching ramifications. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.

There are bad political motives on all sides. I have no doubt that there are Democratic political operatives who will stop at almost nothing to get Trump and his acolytes. But what 2020 showed us is that Trump and his acolytes will stop at absolutely nothing to subvert the political system to remain in power. There's absolutely no evidence that Trump was denied victory as a result of voter fraud, but he keeps undermining our system by saying so. He tried to browbeat the Georgia of Secretary of State into "finding" votes. Trump told Pence, when Pence said he wouldn't decertify the votes on Jan. 6: "Mike you're too honest." I mean, how much of a smoking gun do you need that he was acting dishonestly? If the political roles were reversed and Biden had done what Trump had done, you and every single Republican would be spouting exactly the opposite line and calling for punishment to rain down on the Democratic wrongdoers. Trump's clown show of attorneys knew exactly what they were getting into, and they did it anyway, because of the seduction of power, and they may very well get what's coming to them because of it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here's where you're wrong in this:

When a lawyer files a complaint, unless it's what's called a "verified complaint," it only contains allegations. For pleading purposes, all of the allegations in the complaint must be taken as "true." Thus, the pleadings filed by Eastman contain no "false" statements as a matter of law.

This means your statement that he was either lying or reckless in regard to the truth is not only incorrect but it attempts to substitute a conclusion without legal or material support to claim Eastman violated his ethical obligations. Essentially you skipped the part where he gets the chance to prove the allegations made in the complaint to summarily conclude he cannot and therefore he must have lied and should be punished.

The basis for this conclusion is that he made claims he cannot prove. This is interesting because, outside of the basis that you have no findings of facts to support such a conclusion, many lawyers make claims in the complaints they file which ultimately end up not being proven once all the evidence is placed on the table. Yet, unsurprisingly, few to none of them are ever disciplined for it. The reason for that difference is very clear and seemingly can be summed up in 1 word. Trump.

I don't know whether this is the operative basis for the ethics complaint or not. What I do know is that it appears that Eastman is being targeted for something which, as far as I know, isn't any different than what thousands of lawyers do every day. I could be wrong because, as I said, I'm not familiar with the evidence which supposedly supports the ethics complaint. All I can say is that this doesn't pass the smell test because it seems to be based on conclusions of wrongdoing without facts to support that conclusion.

This isn't quite true about an attorney's obligations regarding the allegations of a complaint.

Every pleading filed in federal court must conform to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It makes no difference whether the complaint is verified or not. In fact, federal complaints generally are not verified, unlike many state complaints. The operative language is this:

(b) By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

It's perfectly fine for an attorney to file a pleading the facts of which are debatable, and ultimately proved wrong. But the attorney MUST have some evidentiary grounds for believing the allegations. It is irrelevant whether the complaint is verified or not. A verification is signed by the party, not the attorney, and its primary significance is that the party denying the allegations of the complaint must do so specifically and not generally.

So my guess is it's going to go like this: the State Bar will present its case, and demonstrate that every single factual allegation in the complaint signed by John Eastman was complete nonsense, and the tribunal will turn to John Eastman and ask "What have you got?" And he won't have anything. He literally won't be able to say anything to support what he claims he believed without digging his hole deeper, because there really isn't anything. My guess is he'll be disbarred, and it will be entirely his fault, not the fault of people out to get him.

 

[butters]

Trump told Pence, when Pence said he wouldn't decertify the votes on Jan. 6: "Mike you're too honest." I mean, how much of a smoking gun do you need that he was acting dishonestly? If the political roles were reversed and Biden had done what Trump had done, you and every single Republican would be spouting exactly the opposite line and calling for punishment to rain down on the Democratic wrongdoers. Trump's clown show of attorneys knew exactly what they were getting into, and they did it anyway, because of the seduction of power, and they may very well get what's coming to them because of it.

exactly this, and i'm guessing most democrats would be, too

 

[SimonDoom]

exactly this, and i'm guessing most democrats would be, too

There's a lot of this sort of thing on both sides these days, and it's a good reason why people should pull back a little and admit that we all know less than we think we do.

Republicans are correct that Democrats spent years totally convinced that Trump was colluding with the Russians, but while there's plenty of evidence of suspicious behavior, Mueller concluded there was no evidence of collusion.

Republicans are convinced that Joe Biden has corruptly obtained money from Ukraine and China. Maybe. But there's still no clear evidence that this is true.

The one thing we DO know for sure after almost three years is that the "Trump lost the 2020 election through vote fraud" narrative is total BS. His own administration personnel denied it. No evidence has emerged to support this nonsense.

 

[jaF0]

Moreover, the standard is stronger when filing papers with the court. You have to have a reasonable basis for believing what you allege. It's not enough to say, "I have no evidence for it your honor, and I know it's crazy, but I believed it anyway!"

You know, it might not have been so bad if they had included their 'evidence' in the original filings. Then, you'd be able to say they made a honest try and were just wrong in their conclusions. But they didn't even do that. They just said ' give us a trial date first and we'll show our stuff then'. That's basically admitting you have nothing to begin with.

 

[SimonDoom]

You know, it might not have been so bad if they had included their 'evidence' in the original filings. Then, you'd be able to say they made a honest try and were just wrong in their conclusions. But they didn't even do that. They just said ' give us a trial date first and we'll show our stuff then'. That's basically admitting you have nothing to begin with.

Well, except to be fair, nobody in federal litigation does that. Parties make allegations, and they produce evidence in due course much later through the process of discovery. But what they CAN do is allege facts specifically, which is what Jack Smith did in his two complaints against Donald Trump. Jack Smith has been doing this long enough that it's pretty clear he must have evidence that he can show to try to prove the allegations. In Eastman's case it was all just abstract flim-flam.

 

[jaF0]

If the political roles were reversed and Biden had done what Trump had done, you and every single Republican would be ...

Go back through my posts and you'll see where I've said the same thing ever since that November. Keep everything exactly the same, all of the numbers, states, all data, but reverse ONLY the names, nothing else. Donny and the 'Pubs would be glowing about how perfect and wonderful everything was.

The Dems might have griped a bit, but none of the rest would have happened.

 

[jaF0]

Well, except to be fair, nobody in federal litigation does that. Parties make allegations, and they produce evidence in due course much later through the process of discovery. But what they CAN do is allege facts specifically, which is what Jack Smith did in his two complaints against Donald Trump. Jack Smith has been doing this long enough that it's pretty clear he must have evidence that he can show to try to prove the allegations. In Eastman's case it was all just abstract flim-flam.

Their whole case in what ... 60 some filings? .. was along the lines of 'we know it happened because .. well we just know .. because it couldn't have been any other way and we're certain of that no matter how many experts disagree with us, because it's Donny and he just couldn't have lost because, well he's Donny!!!!'



.

 

[HisArpy]

This isn't quite true about an attorney's obligations regarding the allegations of a complaint.

Every pleading filed in federal court must conform to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It makes no difference whether the complaint is verified or not. In fact, federal complaints generally are not verified, unlike many state complaints. The operative language is this:

(b) By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

It's perfectly fine for an attorney to file a pleading the facts of which are debatable, and ultimately proved wrong. But the attorney MUST have some evidentiary grounds for believing the allegations. It is irrelevant whether the complaint is verified or not. A verification is signed by the party, not the attorney, and its primary significance is that the party denying the allegations of the complaint must do so specifically and not generally.

So my guess is it's going to go like this: the State Bar will present its case, and demonstrate that every single factual allegation in the complaint signed by John Eastman was complete nonsense, and the tribunal will turn to John Eastman and ask "What have you got?" And he won't have anything. He literally won't be able to say anything to support what he claims he believed without digging his hole deeper, because there really isn't anything. My guess is he'll be disbarred, and it will be entirely his fault, not the fault of people out to get him.

The problem is that you're substituting your belief that Eastman couldn't have had a reasonable basis for the allegations for Eastman's belief in the basis of the allegations.

And then saying that YOUR belief is why he's being disciplined.

Conclusion, meet kangaroo court.


The reality is that Eastman could have filed the pleading for any number of legitimate reasons. HIS BELIEF in the allegations is sufficient. Whether the alleged facts can be ultimately supported or not isn't the question, it's if he truly believed that the allegations had some basis.

The question of belief is akin to questioning someone's faith. No one outside of the individual themselves knows if a person has an actual religious faith or how devout they are. For you to come along and say that they should be punished because YOU don't believe they have faith is the position you've put Eastman into.

The worst part of what you wrote is that it encourages people who don't understand the minutae to believe as you say here. That Eastman "couldn't have" had a reason to believe his allegations so they substitute their beliefs for his.

And while this seems proper, it isn't. None of us get to tell someone doesn't have faith, or that they don't really believe in miracles. It's not up to us because we're not them.

Thus, we have to look at what surrounds the statements made in the court filing and see if we can attach anything to those statements. What events took place. What the public reaction to those events was. Could a reasonable person understand that the events and the reaction were indicative of what the statements assert?

If your answer to those questions is that Eastman obviously lied in his pleadings because there was no election tampering, then you've only proven that you believe the devout are faking it.

 

[SimonDoom]

The reality is that Eastman could have filed the pleading for any number of legitimate reasons. HIS BELIEF in the allegations is sufficient. Whether the alleged facts can be ultimately supported or not isn't the question, it's if he truly believed that the allegations had some basis.

The question of belief is akin to questioning someone's faith. No one outside of the individual themselves knows if a person has an actual religious faith or how devout they are. For you to come along and say that they should be punished because YOU don't believe they have faith is the position you've put Eastman into.

No. This is incorrect as a matter of law. Look at the Rule. You cannot file a legal paper based on faith alone. It must be REASONABLE. You must have some amount of evidence on which your allegation is based. He is an attorney. He is held to a standard higher than what you are suggesting is acceptable.

Assuming the State Bar is able to establish a prima facie case that he filed papers without any grounds for doing so (which it probably will), then he will have the burden of proving not only that he in good faith believed the allegations, but they have some basis in evidence. If he cannot present any evidence, then it's likely that the tribunal will find that he had neither good faith NOR reasonable grounds for making the allegations that he did.

This is what happens in courts every day. People in trial say they believe something, under oath, but courts find that they're not telling the truth, based on all the evidence. This isn't kangaroo court justice, it's justice, period. It's the way things are done all the time. There's nothing different or unique about the way Eastman is being handled.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No. This is incorrect as a matter of law. Look at the Rule. You cannot file a legal paper based on faith alone. It must be REASONABLE.

Pfft....Simon, Hisarpy is a LAWYER. He has often schooled us on the nuances of the application of law, how statutes are technically "advisory" in nature and how a lawyer's BELIEFS trumps everything else.

 

[zipman]

It's comical to watch Jewleanny with his lips sown directly to trumps asshole. I'll bet trump owns the G mans business suit.

Any would you call him "jewleanny?"

Are you antisemitic, stupid or both. I'Am betting on both.

 

[icanhelp1]

It seems to me, and I'm not an attorney, that they have to prove his intent was to lie and/or that he knew what he was advocating to the court wasn't the truth.

Does Comey still have a license?

 

[icanhelp1]

No. This is incorrect as a matter of law. Look at the Rule. You cannot file a legal paper based on faith alone. It must be REASONABLE. You must have some amount of evidence on which your allegation is based. He is an attorney. He is held to a standard higher than what you are suggesting is acceptable.

Assuming the State Bar is able to establish a prima facie case that he filed papers without any grounds for doing so (which it probably will), then he will have the burden of proving not only that he in good faith believed the allegations, but they have some basis in evidence. If he cannot present any evidence, then it's likely that the tribunal will find that he had neither good faith NOR reasonable grounds for making the allegations that he did.

This is what happens in courts every day. People in trial say they believe something, under oath, but courts find that they're not telling the truth, based on all the evidence. This isn't kangaroo court justice, it's justice, period. It's the way things are done all the time. There's nothing different or unique about the way Eastman is being handled.

You seem to be versed in legal matters. My concern is with the NY bar. How can an AG or county prosecutor who campaigned on prosecuting an individual to garner votes and after winning a position in the legal system proceed forward with prosecuting the individual. How is that fair and equal protection under the law. That appears to me to be abuse of power or prosecutorial misconduct. IMHO

 

[SimonDoom]

You seem to be versed in legal matters. My concern is with the NY bar. How can an AG or county prosecutor who campaigned on prosecuting an individual to garner votes and after winning a position in the legal system proceed forward with prosecuting the individual. How is that fair and equal protection under the law. That appears to me to be abuse of power or prosecutorial misconduct. IMHO

I don't support politicians politicizing prosecutions, or making such promises. But remember that both sides do this. Trump has always pushed to have his political opponents investigated or prosecuted. He did that in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. He did that when he tried to pressure Zelensky into launching an investigation of Biden.

That has nothing to do with the merits of this Eastman matter, however, which is an effort by the California state bar to disbar Eastman.

 

[jaF0]

Which is the same with the Bar Associations and courts going after Giuliani, Powell, Wood and the others. Those actions are based on what the people did, or didn't do in court in furtherance of the Big Lie. No political bodies are involved in those, only legal and judicial bodies.

 

[icanhelp1]

I don't support politicians politicizing prosecutions, or making such promises. But remember that both sides do this. Trump has always pushed to have his political opponents investigated or prosecuted. He did that in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. He did that when he tried to pressure Zelensky into launching an investigation of Biden.

That has nothing to do with the merits of this Eastman matter, however, which is an effort by the California state bar to disbar Eastman.

I was changing the subject and asking your opinion.

 

[Lazaran]

I don't support politicians politicizing prosecutions, or making such promises. But remember that both sides do this. Trump has always pushed to have his political opponents investigated or prosecuted. He did that in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. He did that when he tried to pressure Zelensky into launching an investigation of Biden.

That has nothing to do with the merits of this Eastman matter, however, which is an effort by the California state bar to disbar Eastman.

•
I only disagree with a few point you have made in this thread:

a) Mueller DID find evidence of collusion with Russia involving the corrupt orange traitor’s campaign, but nothing that could be clearly proven as being a criminal conspiracy. Mueller was also constrained in pursuing the financial connections between Russia and the corrupt orange traitor.

b) I don’t believe “both side’s” politicized political prosecutions. An AG running on prosecuting an obvious criminal who is / was hiding behind their elected office is not political. - No one is above the law.

 

[icanhelp1]

Posted for posterity.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”