Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Republican Party indictments: Thirty-two [32]-count indictment linked to associates of House Majority leader

Update Prosecutor Ronnie Earle allegedly drops charges aginst indicted corporations in exchange for political contributions.
Earled "dropped felony charges against several corporations indicted in the probe in return for the corporations' agreement to make five- and six-figure contributions to one of Earle's pet causes" [Ref. Byron York “Dollars for Dismissals” Jun 200 2005, national Review Online. June 20, 2005, 9:10 a.m.]

Original blog

Public boasting ensnared Delay, who is closely connected to the indicted, and under possible House ethics investigation; provided assistance to the group targeted in the indictments. This was Delay's PAC, and the three indicted were consultants to that PAC. The money flow; related to IAMI: How's that for "applying" the law?

31 indictments linked to the Republican Party. Delay and denial.

Eight other corporations also indicted, including: Sears and Roebuck, Westar Energy Inc., Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and Bacardi USA

  • Ellis, indicted, one count of money laundering,

  • Colyandro, indicted, 14 counts of money laundering and accepting unlawful political contributions, $450,000 in illegal contributions

    Ellis and Colyandro indicted for taking $190,000 in corporate donations and giving it to the Republican National State Elections Committee, which then gave like amounts to seven candidates for the Texas House of Representatives.

  • Robold indicted, $250,000 illegal contributions, 9 counts of making and accepting unlawful political contributions.

    Internal report at Whiting.

    2003 New Statesman.

    Minton surprised: His client was Texas Association of Business; said Minton: "I don't expect any indictments on the people I represent"

    Ouch! How you liking that surprise?

    Minton was in the Texas Air National Guard 1956-59. Small wonder why a Republican-related scandal involves...well, Republicans who were once in the Air National Guard.

    You don't suppose he knows anything about George Bush, do you?

    Minton is surprised:

    Three days later Roy Minton (the attorney who represented the arsonist, Eli Garza) issued a threat to my wife (who worked at the Minton firm) that I'm going to be disbarred if I continue with my complaints of judicial misconduct. That's when all my problems started because suddenly Roy Minton was facing arson liabilities. . . . Roy Minton told my wife that he, Judge Lowry, and Judge Meurer intended to have me disbarred as mentally impaired unless I quit with the appeal . . . jury found my complaints of judicial corruption and reserve fraud were not frivolous and not filed with the intent of harming third parties.ref

    Minton once again proves he can't perform:

    I was taking the deposition of attorney Roy Minton in the Erik Moebius case. I was representing LULAC and it was amazing, we got some major information out of the old boy. But then he got up and he says `the deposition's over now. I quit. I'm going home.' "That's highly unusual -- and on our way out of the deposition Minton looks over at the state bar lawyer, Mike McKetta, he says `Mike, I want you to get rid of Milum. Get rid of him now.' I was kind of amused by that. I didn't think nothing of it, you know. Three days later I get a letter from the State Bar of Texas saying `Hey, we're suing you, Nick.' They've sued me three times. I beat them all three times ref ."

    He's got a CV-rating with this kind of track record?

    Texas' Craddick has Minton as an attorney. Sorry.


    Minton's State Bar No. 14196000,, phone.


    The Applicants refusal to testify was the reliance on clear and indisputable law stating that political speech and freedom of association must be insulated so long as the speaker does not venture into express advocacy.

    Applicants also relied on clear law stating that the information sought by a grand jury must be substantially related to criminal investigation.

    Therefore, given that Minton represents clients that have been indicted, and Minton is surprised, this would raise reasonable doubts, concerns, questions, and skepticism about Minton's ability to:

  • monitor the case;
  • know whether the prosecution has the information needed to bring an indictment;
  • adequately manage case;
  • understand the merits of the case:
  • his ability to translate information contained in a potential indictment into something resembling a public comment to the media.

    We do not speculate as to whether Minton actually has the requisite mental capacity to advise clients because such questions might raise substantial doubts in the publics' mind as to his mental capacity. He is indeed a fine man. He is doing a great job. No problem.

    Indeed, the document has been up on that site for how many years, and still not taken down? That seems a reasonable basis to ask some tough questions about his conduct:

    Has he actually threatened to take action against another attorney on the basis of simply getting revenge?

    Applicants also relied on clear law stating that the information sought by a grand jury must be substantially related to criminal investigation. Under this clear law, the Applicants should not have been ordered to answer the questions before the grand jury, and should not have been held in contempt or ordered to jail.

    So, if your client is indicted, this means that your client actually had to answer questions before the grand jury; and that means the question that the grand jury posed were substantially related to a criminal investigation.

    Gosh, let's take a look at the Enron "payout" to shareholders. Pennies on the dollar. Attorneys typically call "pennies on the dollar" a substantial payout.

    So let's apply that black law dictionary> definition of "substantial" to this situation: "A small amount." Meaning: That your clients were called before the Grand Jury, not because they had nothing to do with it, but they were actually indicted because there was a reasonable basis to not simply question them but actually charge them with a crime.

    What do you say in public?

    "I don't expect any indictments on the people I represent"

    That you didn't expect anything. That your clients, those you represent, who were later charged, didn't have anything to which there was a basis to bring charges against them."

    Yet....what happened: They were charged. All the motions failed. You were not able to stop the grand jury. Unable to prevent the probing questions. All those motions filed. Yet, you didn't expect anything. Didn't expect them to face any consequences.

    Nope. No indictments. No problem. Don't worry about it.

    Wow, but suddenly it all changed later didn't. 32 indictements, and one of the defendants was your client. You didn't expect it.

    At least, publicly you stated you didn't expect it. Why were you surprised? What was there in the indictment that surprised you: Was it the prosecutor's willingness to hold you client accountable for standards that are generally not enforced or prosecuted; something that a reasonable prosecutor that falls under the Texas State Bar might otherwise be persuaded to drop because there was a documented allegation that the defendants-attorney had engaged in a scheme to disbar a fellow attorney for engaging in some "daring to stand up to arrogance" conduct?

    We need not be surprised why the US Attorney, DoJ, and the fascists in the White House are doing what they are doing in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

    They fall under the Texas "legal" system. A system where the lawyers say things about other lawyers, and then threaten to take action to have them disbarred.

    Yet, according to the information posted for four years, not taken down: Must be true if it is not taken down ... we'd expect there to be a lawsuit over libel.

    What do we have? We have an attorney in the Texas Bar system that can't really make a reliable public statement about what's likely to occur -- rather he says "he doesn't expect something." let's not be surprised why the arrogant iditos who work for Enron.... [wow, they 're from Texas too] aren't also having problems.

    Gosh, Cheney and Bush are from Enron. You don't think that somehow this CV-rated lawyer [who says one thing about what he expects, but reality is something else] could somehow be connected to the Republican Party?


    Plumbing around the world. Throwing people in jail. Making excuses to threaten others. Why do lawyers like to threaten other lawyers who dare stand up and question the arrogance and misconduct of others?

    Surely, we do not have the silly aristocratic lawyers running around being such filthy scumbags in Texas, and then presume to actually have the civility and decency to run the country, advise the president. Oh, such sharks. Such evil filth. This vile blithering gutterful gale of gorge.

    Who are these people! They know not of the constitution? They speak as if they know nothing of paper, they feign ignorance. Deny what they might otherwise be asked to proclaim is purely self-evident...yet they say, "Oh, these accusers are mentally ill. They suffer from some mental defect."

    Indeed, this is how the White House wins its wars. But the military overseas are wondering.

    How many of the votes against the President will be thrown out?

    Can Minton read? Why are complaints brought against another attorney, and the suit wins three times in a row?


    Texas rules of professional conduct.

  • Respect of rights of third persons

  • Truthfulness of statements to others

  • Prohibited discriminatory practices

  • Misconduct

  • Quality of service

  • Self interests vs public interests

    "The desire for the respect and confidence of the members of the profession and of the society which it serves provides the lawyer the incentive to attain the highest possible degree of ethical conduct."

  • Not possible, but probable: "The possible loss of that respect and confidence is the ultimate sanction." No, the ultimate sanction is a lengthy, exhaustive defense before a grand jury that fails, and your client is bankrupt!

    "A lawyer is required to give an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a clients conduct.

    Never did Minton imagine that there would be a grand-jury indictment; so his "honest" opinion to both the client and the public is clearly out of step with the pulse of the grand jury. What was the surprise, oh Great Wizard Minton. You profess to be a CV-rated lawyer with great acumen, to which we not question.

    Yet, why were you surprised why the outcome; why was "what you said" not expected? Are you misstating your actual position before the public and that you thought your client was in trouble; or were you simply asleep, far busier with other client matters, so as to not really be able to make a reliable public statement about the unfolding developments in the grand jury.

    Was there something about the grand jury's questions that led you to believe that there "was no problem" and we are to believe that you are less adept at reading body language; or are you simply stating something in public that indicates you truly are out of touch with the prospects of your client?

    The truly interesting thing about this entire affairs is that your client is indicted; and there was sufficient basis to bring information before the grand jury, and your client got nailed. Your defense failed them.

    What kind of information did you actually provide to your clients that would lead you to believe that "you didn't expect" anything bad to happen; and how many other clients are similarly situated taking your advice and comment about "what is lawful," only to now find themselves in a precarious situation: Who are these people, what kind of advise are they being given, and is there a question in their mind that you are somehow less reliable, less adept, or providing them with information that may not stand up as a defense before the grand jury...unable to quash a subpoena.

    However, a lawyer may not knowingly assist a client in criminal
    or fraudulent conduct.

    So, are we to believe that these clients suddenly created this PAC without any legal advise, both into trouble, then ran to you at the last minute; or are you saying that by your "expectation" that nothing would happen that you have a long-standing relationship with the client and actually believed their conduct was within the bounds of the law, despite the grand jury clearly asserting in their defense of the law, that your clients were wrong?

    How adept is the legal advise when the grand jury does something that is not expected. Because prior to this entire mess, someone sat down with 'the client" and said, "This is the law" and "this is OK." They did that.

    Are we to believe that they set this up without consulting their lawyer; surely such a Republican-controlled money-gravy-train could not possibly have been fabricated without some legal assistance.

    We need only turn to the record in re Enron; Let us look. Are those offshore special accounts a creature of nature, somehow divinely inspired from the wake, spewing forth, rising high above the seas on a plume form a deep sea submarine, from far off land?

    Nay, Captain Ahab! Those creatures are the produce of lawyers. Minton, were you involved in the establishment of the PAC-related activates of other Republicans like Mr Delay, or are you saying that "it was something else" and that by the rules of the court, it has nothing to do with what you are saying and that you know nothing, just as you are ignorant of the prospects of the grand jury brining an indictment against your client?

    There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of
    legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime
    or fraud might be committed with impunity.

    What kind of analysis did we have Roy, was it detailed discussions, or was it simply more of the "we expect there to be no problem". Did you give the green light, or did another lawyer in another state give advise to Texans? Surely, not a lawyer in a state like Connecticut; and are they authrized to practice law in Texas? Minton, do you know them; are you awake; or did you not expect a question about your glasses, mustache, and fine health.

    But let us not stop there. Surely, a fine lawyer with great CV-rated ability would stand before the grand jury, proclaim your clients defense, and stand there with confidence that you are doing the right thing. That you are standing before almighty God in a grand crusade to ensure the Republican-fascist-party, I mean Republican Party continues to get their defense; that your clients can provide funding to this noble cause, crusade, undertaking, where men are sent to their death in defense of liberties and freedoms not practiced at home.

    When a clients course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyers responsibility is especially delicate.

    So imagine ourselves, in the grand jury room. It has been empaneled. Roy is duking it out, fighting for his client, walking around with a really nice grin on his face, and his glasses are sitting there smirkly on his face.

    Roy is thinking, "I"m a great guy. I'm a hot short lawyer. I have a mustache that all the women on the grand jury love. I think we're going to get out of this." Is that what they said, Mr Q-man?

    Well enough of that. So here we have these soon-to-be 32 indictments unfolding; what was your client thinking when they decided to give the money? Oh, nobody will ever look into this; and if they do, My Buddy Roy is going to get us out, because My Buddy Roy says its OK. Is that what they said?

    So all this time, they've been sending money around. More than a few thousand dollars according to the 32-indictment. Were you completely in the dark about this misconduct that the grand jury has no indicted; or were you simply hoping to spew out more frivolous non-sense before the media and say, "I do not expect anything."

    Indeed, the Roy Q- CV-rated Minton prances before the media in a fine suit, of dashing performance and says, proclaims, exhales with confidence, "I do not expect..."

    But he is surprised. CV-rated. Highly rated. Grand-rating. Surprised? Nice mustache. I like it.

    Oh, but the defense Roy Q has: "The lawyer may not reveal the clients wrongdoing,". Meaning, even if you know that your client has listened to lame advice to engage in unlawful conduct, as did the attorneys who gave Enron the "advice" to "create" those offshore SPEs, you are not allowed to reveal it. To anyone.

    Thus, you are given absolution. You are a great guy. Of course you would say, "I do not expect..." as if you were to say otherwise, this would be both revealing the grand jury information, and also admitting a conclusion that would be consistent with the probable conclusion that your clients has sufficient basis for the grand jury to charge your client with a crime. To say anything else would mean a violation of the Texas State Bar Attorney Rules.

    In other words, we need not give any weight to the statements made before the press in re standing of your client, because to tell the truth might actually result in public loss of confidence.

    Have you made sure you've talked to your client about what you are saying about them in the media?

    Or did you client ask that you make a statement about your expectations that are consistent with "good public relations" but actually unrelated to the grand jury indictment.

    So let's run through some examples. President Bush is accused of war crimes, and illegal wars. You represent the client who is a corporation: Do you advise your client to turn over documents that would ensure the conviction of the President before the Senate during an impeachment hearing; or do you claim lawyer-client privilege and say, "That's speculative."

    If the information that you get is through "other sources" and is not priviledged; that means you are not bound by it. This means that the disclosure that you're making about a client that is about to be indicted is not related to the public sense of justice, but soley to your clients needs and not the reliability of statements in the Press. Are you saying that something that you say that appears in bring is not to be relied upon?

    in other words, "effective representation" [in your universe Roy Q] means asserting that you don't think X, even though the Grand Jury is doing the opposite. Wow. So your statements have nothing to do with getting reliable information, and everything to do with providing information in your clients interests. You mean your client isn't paying you to provide reliable information in a free and open republic, but is actually paying you to avoid consequences for misconduct that the grand jury indicts?

    So, you're kind of a ... lawyer, whereby "effective representation" has nothing to do with complying with the law, only with 'doing whatever is required to advance your client/s interests; and if the constitution gets subverted, people threatened [but no actual harm done] then that's OK. Wow.

    In your view, "defense" means saying one thing about "what you expect" knowing full well that your statements have absolutely nothing to do with what the grand jury is likely to do.

    How did that conversation go with your client?

    I'm sorry, you're toast; or was it, "Hay, I know you paid me alot of money, but what we need to do is just hope for the best" or was it, "Hay, not to worry, the President is going to start a draft; by the time the public figures out the Republicans gave alot of money that they were not supposed to do, we'll be in Ira." No, that sounds a little too..."oh, what do we call it.." a little presumptuous to believe we'd actually have enough troops there.

    Wait! This must mean there's going to be a we can invade Iran!

    One of the interesting things is when someone is engaged in criminal conduct...In the case of a client that is planning to give money, and publicly says so... would it not be surprising for us to read:

    When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that a client is likely to commit a criminal or fraudulent act that is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm to a person, the lawyer shall reveal confidential information to the extent revelation reasonably appears necessary to prevent the client from committing the criminal or fraudulent act.

    This means either: The clients asked for advice, went ahead and did it anyway, fully thinking nobody would do anything; or the CV-rated attorney provided information that said, "Hay, no problem."

    Which was it? Because if you honestly believed it "wasn't a problem" why would the grand jury suddenly do something that you wouldn't expect. We've already established that you have the duty to lie when the interests of the client as you to say "We do not expect the grand jury to indict the client" even though you may honestly believe something else. Because "expect" is such a vague word; I do not see it in Black's law book. It isn't defined, so we have no precedent.

    Speculative. Uncertain. Is it permissible for an attorney to feign ignorance about something that is uncertain in the future? Indeed, because if it were impermissible to express a view about the future, then we would ask that the attorney be prevented from exercising their "private right to free expression" even when that expression is designed to not answer a question from the media.

    Because you had a duty under the Attorney ethics of Texas to reveal information about fraud or imminent bodily harm, you could reasonably have a defense of "this is why I did nothing" if you in fact "expected" that there would be no bodily harm; and that the "transfer of money" was an exercise of free speech.

    See how that works! Change it from "fraud" to "exercise rights" and you have no duty to report conduct that would otherwise violate the law; and bring you under the watchful eye of the comatose Texas State Attorney Bar Association. [Groups like "arrogant lawyers" strangely do not have the right to bring suit for defamation; isn't that interesting how a government-entity has no right to defend against a suite, but the individuals who make up a criminal enterprise can bring a cause of action, even if it is frivolous in order to delay, annoy, and harass long as the court can be convinced that the case was ~not~ made in bad faith, and there as some merit to it. ]

    Brilliant. Is this what happened?

    lawyer may disclose information by admitting a fact that cannot properly be disputed,

    In other words, you can "admit a speculation about the future" in cases where the "future prospects" [an event that has not happened] cannot be disputed, a those events have not happened yet, and "opinions about the future" are a protect right, even when those opinions are unrelated to your personal observations before the grand jury, and their responses indicating that your client might be toast, butter side down.

    Now that it is "generally known" that your client has been indicted, and that you wear glasses and a slick-mustache, do you plan to make any comments about whether or not you look like a cartoon character; or do you plan to exercise your right to free speech, all the while threatening anyone who dares speak out against you with disbarment. Are you going to get them; where does it stop; how slippery of a slope did Hitler's lawyers go down when they said, "Legally, there is a rational basis for the Holocaust. We think it is a good thing." Is that what you are asking us to believe "can't happen" ... because it's actually 'in the lawyers professional interests to continue saying, "That's OK" so as to continue retaining a stream of revenue from highly positioned clients who are now indicted by a grand jury.

    Leach. Where's the constitution in all this? I don't see it. I see a "whatever the client wants" and "let's call fraud something else besides fraud so we can claim it is a right." I'm not seeing anywhere that anyone has the right to violate the law; nor do they have the right to give money when the law says they cannot. Yet, the way your clients are acting and your statements I seem to think, and this is just my opinion, that you're trying to play both sides of the tennis court.

    On one hand, you're out there saying that your clients have this private right to engage in free speech [that is actually a transfer of funds that violates the law]; and at the same time, any attorney that dares challenge you and similarly engages in free speech [that your clients are entitled] suddenly you call for a disbarment.

    That really doesn't seem all that nice. I mean: Why do your clients have a special standing and position before the courts and media that you deny to your fellow attorneys. Apparently, if we are to believe the statement about what was said of you [and it has not been retracted], you actively said about another attorney that he should be gotten, disbarred, even though there was insufficient evidence to bring about that action.

    How many times will you go after someone; should there not be a private right to "no double jeopardy" when it comes to allegations of professional misconduct; or do the "private right of no double jeopardy" not apply to professionals in the Texas Bar?/ Surely, if we truly live in a land where people are free to associate, this also extends to attorneys -- yet the records suggest that you are willing to oppose those who dare raise questions that are a little uncomfortable. Why does your client have the right to certain rights of free speech, but your fellow professionals in the bar are denied that right and apparently threatened with professional tar and feathering through disbarment for engaging in the same practice you so vigorously defend for others? I'm all for double standards when it means lawyers can get away with lying to the media, while the public is prosecuted for lying to the media ... but then again, who is this nation to think it can parade itself as the bastion of liberty and freedom when it shows a double standard for the world to see. The record is clear: The client, your client, now indicted by a grand jury, has been indicted for engaging in unlawful transfer of funds in relationship to an election. Those are very serious charges that you said, you didn't expect." Yet, look at the records we have before the Iraqis--we are fighting for their right to be "free" ... yet or example shows that this "freedom" actually means the "Freedom to engage in free speech" when it is, according to the example of your client, is actually something that is designed to circumvent the law.

    Isn't' that the basis by which the US went to war against Saddam: That although he was in "technical compliance" there was the reasonable suspicion of evilness, so we need to invade. Now that the world is condemning the war crimes committed in Iraq; suddenly we are asked to believe that the clients right to free speech is important, even though its actually a means to circumvent the law.

    Seems to be a little bit of a double standard: Fight for freedoms we deny to attorneys in our own State Bar [freedom of speech] but actually go to war against countries that we say are committing abuses and frauds [which actually match the misconduct that our own clients commit when they engage in indictable misconduct[.

    Who is the US to parade itself before any Iraqi court when we have principles of duty, honor, and liberty squandered by a legal profession that does not put the constitution first, but simply puts the clients right to commit fraud [and so reliable an exercise of constitutional right that is denied to others] ... who are we to proclaim ourselves worthy of fighting on behalf of anything.

    We are not fighting for freedom; nor are we defending liberty. We are creating a new arena so that people might otherwise commit abuses and infractions that can be twisted and hidden as an "exercise of rights." That is the disease that I though was exposed in Enron; but alas it is clear that this country when it "fights for freedom" isn't actually fighting for the rule of law, but the right to commit abuses, the ability to hide those abuses by calling them "an exercise of the right to defend."

    Defend what? Defend whom? Not the Iraqis. Not the constitution. But the client: In this case the arrogant Republican party's right to get money from corporations that are otherwise denied that right.

    This is the same non-sense that got Nixon in trouble. Oh, have not figured it out. You mean, all this time: Delay, speaker of the house, the man, the guy who set up this don't honestly believe that because he was a federal official that somehow he walked down the road and said to Orin Hatch, the notorious imbecile who refuses to take timely action about the Sibel Endmonds don't think that Delay and Hatch got together or communicated indirectly to see if they might not dissuade the FBI from investigating the wire-transfers of money.

    Wow. Patriot Act. Wire tranfers. And you thought those laws were only written to go after terrorists. So, we've got all this money flowing around; Hatch is sitting on his fine Republican butt doing nothing about the abuses committed under the Patriot Act; meanwhile the Texas Rangers call up the DHS and say, "We want some really nice information on where these dudes are so we can take control of the government." Fine, DHS under Ridge says, "Hay, no problem ... we'll help get the Republicans in charge. We're right on it."

    And your client is there, with the money, despite the law, and saying, Hay, this is free speech.

    I give up Mr Roy Q CV-rated: Why does your client call "violating the election law" free speech and not sanctionable; but then when an ABA-certified attorney wants to engage in free speech: Suddenly it's "hey, you can't do that, I'll have you disbarred."

    How many other people have been threatened in the State of Texas with loss of job, or sanctions for daring to speak their mind; I mean it's been three times, you've taken the guy to court. And now your defendant is one on the list of 32-indictments handed out.

    Who's going to believe the word of a Texas Lawyer, when the FBI and DoJ are tracing money around, and it's winding up in the bank accounts of a committee set up by the Republican's dude in the House.

    These Republican's are out of control. They've got lawyers running around claiming "their right to engage in violations of the law" is actually an exercise of free speech; and at the same time they're running into the White House [Gonzalez] saying, "Hay, Mr President, you want to violate the Geneva Convention, go ahead; and Mr President, the Reason we're taking action and writing these memos now, is that well...someone [har har] got the memos that Rummy=boy signed, and is actually using them. So we can't actually let you get into trouble; so we'll create all these memos, write all this stuff, kick it out, and then there will be "evidence' that something was done.

    Never mind the fact that the Cheney White House refused to reveal the Energy Commission. No. This time everyone's going to believe "the reason they're revealing the memos is that there's a true story here"..

    When in fact, the real matter is: Despite issuing those memos, there was no order, oversight, or action taken to ensure anyone actually followed the law.

    And, besides that... even though the law was clear, there was no action taken to stop that misconduct.

    Which brings us back to the Texas State Bar. Who in their right mind could possibly think that a "violation of the State election laws" is "only a state matter" when, in fact, by electing state-level officials, the ~national~ and ~federal=level~ legislative leadership was affected.

    In other words, you can't argue that "this is a local matter for Texas" when the national interests are affected; and you can't claim "we need to retain control of the disciplinary system of lawyers" when those lawyers are "saying fraud is actually ok because it's not fraud it's an exercise of free speech."

    State-level lawyers are giving a green light to ~federal~ level institutions, bodies, individuals, and people having material impact on the lives of all 50 states.

    The time for Federal-level regulation for the State-level attorneys has arrived.

    Do we need more "green lights" to fraud given in the name of "special purpose entities"? How many more violations of the law are going to be stated are "OK' because they're rally not violations but there actually engaging in the practice of "speaking freely."

    it's not a violation of the law, it's not fraud, it's free speech. Never mind the deception, never mind the law, just let them flow the money around and say, "I don't expect an indictment."

    There you go!

    What's the deal with that CV-rated Q-boy?

  • Constitutional implications

    So, what comes first, Mr Defense lawyer: The constitution, or the client.

    What's first in your mind: The law of the land, or your client?

    Where do you stack the pyramid: International law through Article VI, or the private right to engage in "free speech" that is actually an effort to manipulate an election and unlawfully transfer money?

    On the other hand, a client who knows or believes that a lawyer is
    required or permitted to disclose a clients wrongful purposes may be inhibited from
    revealing facts which would enable the lawyer to counsel effectively against wrongful
    action. Rule 1.05 thus involves balancing the interests of one group of potential victims against those of another.

    According to the "state" rules, the lawyer [if he can convince himself that his clients violations of the law is free speech] has no obligation to step in when the national-level federal=level officials are influenced, affected, or otherwise corrupted by funds.

    Indeed, the Grand Jury has already returned an indictments. 32 counts. That money was given to a Republican PAC.

    yet the way that the State-level rules are written, is that if the lawyer "honestly believes" [whatever that means, Mr Donut-head] that his client is engaging in "free speech"'s OK.

    Wow, is it "free speech" for the President to lie to Congress about WMD: free speech for the Vice President to go before the CIA and say that all the information needs to be "reconsidered" in a manner that is consistent with policy not facts; is it free speech to advocate unlawful acts, war crimes, and unlawful invasions of a sovereign power on the basis of illusory evidence; it is free speech for the Vice President to continue to stick to the illusion that, despite the findings of the 9-11 commission, that there was, might have, could be a link between some government and some guy wearing a towel around his head so we need to invade?

    Cuz if that's your "idea" of free speech, pack your bags. Go to Iraq. Join the rest of the soldiers who are fighting for "free speech" in Iraq. Body count above 1,000. Over 10,000 wounded.

    What are they there for. Or are you hoping that you can get your clients off the hook, avoid another 32-indictment-charge, and get someone else to say, "Hay, that's no problem...we'll just continue to fight and die for things we do not practice; we'll gladly let our blood be spilled in the streets of Filuja in the name of principles we do not practice.

    Rally around the flag boys! Cuz, we're here to woop some butt, take names, and commit atrocities, but we're going to call it "public safety."

    Wow. Isn't that interesting. What's this lawyers idea of 'public safety" ...get the state bar to disbar anyone who speaks out against misconduct.

    "Public safety" is t put the client before the law; to call fraud and illegal acts "free speech" and "public safety" is to get the world to bow down to our arragance, and then use their outrage at our arrogance as "evidence" that they are the problem.


    This absurdity is outrageous. This country's leadership has continued to give a green light to these arrogant lawyers who call unlawful acts, fraud, and criminal war crimes simply "free speech." We're not giving anyone free speech:

    The attorney's silence eachother with threats so that they cannot remain accountable; just as the FBI and Secret service threaten the Press to not talk to those who have been abused, detained, and otherwise mistreated.

    This country's idea of "free speech" is to silence with threats those like Sibel Edmonds who speak out against the arrogance in the Republican Party when people like Senator Hatch do nothing about the misconduct in DoJ.

    That's not freedom. That's not a great society. That's more arrogant non-sense that this country was founded upon to fight, fight again, and destroy on the fields of battle: At Bunker Hill, and taught in the class rooms at West Point.

    We fight for noble causes because American are noble; and they dare stand up for principles when it matters..

    But what do we have in its place? We have a sniveling lawyer, couching unlawful behavior that has been indicted as "free speech". He does not expect consequences.

    Just as the White House expected there to be nobody in Iraq to stand up to an invasion; levee en mass--the locals have taken up arms to fight there very "defender of liberty" that has replaced the Soviet Union as the threat to peace, and has now become the scorn of the world.

    And you call yourself a "fine grand lawyer in Texas" boldly defending the right o of your client to engage fraud in the name of "free speech."

    Fraud is on the streets of DC, and its is called liberty; fraud is committed in the name of winning contracts, and it is called "negotiations.'

    Where are these agents. Who lets this filth called "lawyer" even enjoy the liberty to have such rules written in such a manner that it will faciliate unlawful conduct and call it "Free speech."

    Scron! This legal profession deserves to be rebuked. Oh, where has the legal profession been in these many days of "a fight for freedom." Sleeping on the road, as the Guantanamo Bay detainees were held.

    3 years they remained silent while our constitution was trashed. And for three year the lawyers continue to get a green light and give a green light to their client to engage in unlawful financial transactions and day, "We do not expect" any consequences.

    State-level regulation does not work. These lawyers are giving green lights to unlawful conduct. And now a 32 count indictment is merely the first step.

    Look around the globe. Where Texas lawyers play there stupid game, what do we have: We have people dying in Baghdad in the name of the "right" of Texans to engage in "free speech" ... and their death can only be vindicated through a 32 count indictment.

    We need not stop there. For the troops know that their cause is unjust; they detest the man who prances before them; they are outraged at what is going on in this country. That there are loyalty oaths being used; that they are doing on the streets of Iraq so that their fellow citizens might be rounded up and detained in the streets of NYC.

    A grand glorious crusade to diver attention, to seek new methods to avoid accountability, and to take every bolder action in the name of principles we do not practice.

    Is that the kind of country you want: To send more green lights to abuse and rename it "lawful"...such arrogance!

    and we sit her * here surprised, confused, befuddled, and amazed that anyone dare question this? That "their question" becomes the basis to indict, harass, unleash the dogs of DoJ and the Secret Service.

    How many more indictments must be delivered to wake this country up: We have 32 indictments on hone hand, and 10,000 needless injuries related to a fight for principles we do not practice.

    The right of the client over the constitution!

    The right of the man to engage in "free speech" so that * hat the world might be terrorized and isolated if it dare speak out against this "free speech."

    ABA-certified lawyers daring to threaten eachother for challenging themselves to meet the standards that they are willing to ignore and abuse.

    A vile stench has simply risen a little higher. A vile corruptible nation has done little to deserve respect or support. To this end, was the purpose of the Patriots when the signed the declaration of independence, and to which they put up their arm and swore an oath to the Constitution.

    Yet, it is the primary duty an attorney has, not to the law, not to the Constitution, and not to the principles to which we fight; But it is to ensure that all misconduct is characterized as a "private right" and that all those who challenges this lawlessness are dibarred and denied those rights.

    We fight in Iraq for double standards, and the right of state-level attorneys in Texas to protect their client from the consequences of the legal system, a system to which we fail to advance in Iraq, simply expose for reasonable world contempt and outrage.

    Republicans in Texas! Look at the scorn you have unleashed. With a 32 count indictment, you show that your words mean nothing, that you will go to any end, and this nation you command go with you into the firey battle field of Iraq.

    Is this the sound of justice, of liberty, of freedom. It is the sound of more arrogance; to which there is no end, but for an indictment.

    When will the same force and energy brought against these fools in Texas be brought against the real criminals who have also violated the laws of war; played stupid about their responsibility, and continue to retain private counsel to defend them from impeachment?

    This election in November is not a mandate; it is a call for all voters to arise out of their chair, and case a vote of rebuke against a lawless system, that knows no limit that will destroy the document from which it derives its power, and is intent on hiding behind the very document's priviledges that it then denies to others.

    if the constitution is to be denied to anyone, let it first be denied to the leadership that has failed in preserving it.