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

[butters]

not before time!

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...-charges-for-false-election-fraud-statements/

The State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel George 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.”

 

[Lazaran]

I’ll assume that’s British for “It’s about time!”

 

[adrina]

Only 11? With all the crap that came from them, I'm frankly surprised it's not more.

 

[butters]

mike pence's attorney is expected to be a key witness against eastman

In hearings that kicked off Tuesday afternoon, Eastman will be subject to several days of ethics proceedings this week in Los Angeles to decide whether he should keep his license to practice law in California. Eastman himself is expected to testify today.

The Trump-allied lawyer — who infamously argued that then-Vice President Pence could reject electors from contested states in an effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory — is facing 11 disciplinary charges that allege he violated the California State Bar’s business and professions code by making false and misleading statements that constitute acts of “moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=f9c88a3ca12a42fae3767cfaf22fc675&ei=48

 

[jomar]

All the best people

 

[jaF0]

Hell, even Ghouliani can't look at the guy without laughing.

 

[butters]

Eastman, who is facing11 disciplinary charges from the California State Bar, said during his fourth day of testimony that he didn’t know the so-called “whistleblower” behind his debunked claims of election fraud was a truck driver with a side gig in the paranormal realm.

Jesse Richard Morgan in the aftermath of the 2020 elections alleged in an affidavit that he delivered 24 bins of vote-by-mail ballots from New York to Pennsylvania that aimed to tilt the election in favor of Joe Biden.

Shortly after Morgan’s claim was made public, The York Daily Record, a Pennsylvania newspaper, reported that Morgan was an "amateur ghost hunter" with "a lengthy history of drug abuse, mental health issues and allegations of domestic violence" who with his brothers made a documentary film about their paranormal experiences.

you can't make this shit up. he can, along with giuliani and trump and santos, greeme and boebert, but your regular person? nah

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=465de4165cfe47db9800827a8b13a609&ei=55

 

[HisArpy]

The problem the State bar is facing is that they're trying to punish someone for doing his job. In order to do that they're blowing smoke and insinuating character flaws rather than sticking with the facts.

I don't know whether truth and logic will prevail under the current political winds. Either way, the State bar loses.

 

[butters]

A California judge has ruled that Trump lawyer and co-conspirator John Eastman cannot receive a postponement on his hearings to have his law license in California revoked just because he happens to be under arrest in Georgia.

Yvette Roland, a judge on the California state bar court, ruled that since Eastman testified in June against his own disbarment without asserting his 5th Amendment privilege, he effectively waived his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination; stating that he had acknowledged his upcoming indictments in Georgia and Washington, D.C.

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/ca...s-request-to-postpone-his-disbarment-hearings

 

[LLCox]

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

 

[Pad_Foot]

They should pay ALL of the court expenses when they want the court to consider SHIT! Even for reading it! It's their fucking JOBS not to waste the court's time! OUR MONEY!

 

[Bray123]

It's a terrible day for lawyers when they are punished for moral turpitude and corruption.

'I'm just doing my job.'

 

[icanhelp1]

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

He learned that trick from Merrick Garland.

 

[LLCox]

He learned that trick from Merrick Garland.

Garland is going to make you sad.

 

[Rightguide]

All of what he said is protected by the First Amendment and in the end it will be judged as such.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

He learned that trick from Merrick Garland.

awww someone's heard the call to white knight for Trump again.....

 

[phrodeau]

All of what he said is protected by the First Amendment and in the end it will be judged as such.

The First Amendment doesn’t protect one’s license to practice law. That is just stupid.

 

[HisArpy]

All of what he said is protected by the First Amendment and in the end it will be judged as such.

I'm having a discussion on another board about what a lawyer can and can't do when representing his client. The center of that discussion is that everything the lawyer does has to have "merit."

As a lawyer you can't just say or do or file anything you want, there has to be some kind of support for what you're doing/asking for. One of the things you can do is argue against a law or its application to a specific individual/class of people and that the law needs to be changed as long as what you're doing is done in good faith. The key is that "good faith" bit. As long as what you do is done in good faith, the argument has "merit."

The "merit" requirement limits what a lawyer can do/say as part of his representation of a client so "free speech" doesn't apply.

I'm not familiar with what Eastman is alleged to have done so I can't say if the Bar is overstepping or not. I do know that lawyers have fabricated evidence, tampered with witnesses, and committed outright perjury to the court and were not disciplined. That the Bar is attempting to discipline Eastman for representing Trump in his efforts to challenge the election results may be overzealous.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm having a discussion on another board about what a lawyer can and can't do when representing his client. The center of that discussion is that everything the lawyer does has to have "merit."

As a lawyer you can't just say or do or file anything you want, there has to be some kind of support for what you're doing/asking for. One of the things you can do is argue against a law or its application to a specific individual/class of people and that the law needs to be changed as long as what you're doing is done in good faith. The key is that "good faith" bit. As long as what you do is done in good faith, the argument has "merit."

The "merit" requirement limits what a lawyer can do/say as part of his representation of a client so "free speech" doesn't apply.

I'm not familiar with what Eastman is alleged to have done so I can't say if the Bar is overstepping or not. I do know that lawyers have fabricated evidence, tampered with witnesses, and committed outright perjury to the court and were not disciplined. That the Bar is attempting to discipline Eastman for representing Trump in his efforts to challenge the election results may be overzealous.

There are obvious limits to a lawyer's free speech in the courtroom, but outside in public a lawyer would have all of the rights to free speech that anyone else has except speech that might be in violation of an attorney's Rules Of Professional Conduct or the rulings regarding such in the findings of the SCOTUS; after all, as an attorney, he/she has accepted the fact of being officers of the court and are therefore their conduct and speech is constrained by the court. The left has decided to persecute lawyers who represented Trump because they had the gall to represent Trump. They did nothing more than what Al Gore's attorneys did in the 2000 election battle.

 

[ll74]

They did nothing more than what Al Gore's attorneys did in the 2000 election battle.

False equivalency. Florida in 2000 was nothing like 2020.

 

[SimonDoom]

There are obvious limits to a lawyer's free speech in the courtroom, but outside in public a lawyer would have all of the rights to free speech that anyone else has except speech that might be in violation of an attorney's Rules Of Professional Conduct or the rulings regarding such in the findings of the SCOTUS; after all, as an attorney, he/she has accepted the fact of being officers of the court and are therefore their conduct and speech is constrained by the court. The left has decided to persecute lawyers who represented Trump because they had the gall to represent Trump. They did nothing more than what Al Gore's attorneys did in the 2000 election battle.

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).

 

[Dribble]

Another liar

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I do know that lawyers have fabricated evidence, tampered with witnesses, and committed outright perjury to the court and were not disciplined.

I may be a bit off base here ( this does apply to my two professions) , but I thought if you as a Lawyer had direct knowledge of any of the above, it is your duty to report that. Seems either I'm wrong, or you have fabricated this, or by not reporting, broken the rules of your profession.

 

[HisArpy]

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).

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.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All of what he said is protected by the First Amendment and in the end it will be judged as such.

Urging someone repeatedly to break the law is not "protected speech".