Bar Complaint Filed Against Counsel For Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

Judicial Watch has filed a bar complaint against counsel for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The complaint follows the issue raised earlier on this blog on the statement made by Ford that she was never told that the Committee had offered to fly to California. Attorneys Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich deny the allegation and say that Ford was fully informed.  These are very accomplished lawyers and I am inclined to believe them. That however raises serious questions about Ford’s sworn testimony and the attorneys offer a rather tortured explanation of the conflict.

The letter to the Board’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel details Ford’s testimony, particularly “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”  She also stated “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you – had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”

As we previously discussed, bar rules like Rule 1.4(a) state:

A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”

In addition, Rule 1.4(b) states that “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”

In response, Katz, Banks, and Bromwich stated:

We have reviewed the disciplinary complaint filed by Judicial Watch with the DC Court of Appeals. It is a shameful effort to politicize the bar disciplinary process. The claim that we failed to advise Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of the various options available to her in connection with her allegations that Judge — now Justice — Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s is completely false and without merit. Dr. Ford was advised of all of her options and made her decisions based on the information we provided her. We were never told that Senator Grassley was willing personally to fly to California to meet with Dr. Ford, and that is how she understood his ambiguous question at the hearing. The suggestion that we concealed relevant information from her, or manipulated her into doing something that was contrary to her wishes, is utterly false. We will be seeking the equivalent of Rule 11 disciplinary sanctions against Judicial Watch.

The problem is that the question was not about Chairman Grassley flying out. The question concerned “the committee” flying out to California.Here is the exchange:

“MITCHELL: OK.

Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?

[12:25:00]

BROMWICH: We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford. It’s a privileged conversation…

(CROSSTALK)

GRASSLEY: Would — could — could we — could you validate the fact that the offer was made without her saying a word?

BROMWICH: (OFF-MIKE)

GRASSLEY: Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?

FORD: Can I say something to you — do you mind if I say something to you directly?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

FORD: I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.

GRASSLEY: OK. Does that take care of your question?

MITCHELL: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Ford’s counsel have said that they fully informed her of the offer to be interviewed in California by the Committee.  If that is true, the answer by Ford is difficult to square. The suggestion that she understood the question to be about Chairman Grassley is pretty forced.

That is still unlikely to amount to a perjury case or a successful bar complaint since it turns on Ford’s understanding of the question.  However, it is now confirmed by counsel that Ford was told of the offer.

228 thoughts on “Bar Complaint Filed Against Counsel For Dr. Christine Blasey Ford”

  1. Here I sit, a Canadian who follows the news, and I clearly understood the offer to Professor Ford. And I got it thirdhand from the media. Perhaps ford should have read a newspaper rather than depend on her lawyers. Something is funny here, and I suspect the lawyers are less than honest, or perhaps Ford is being less than honest. Or perhaps all of them have been lying to us along. Take your pick.

  2. I have read all the material at all the links. I don’t see anywhere except in the questions from Grassley at the hearing anything about sending staff members to California. Dr. Ford probably heard about the offer for either public or private interview, but thought the idea of them going to California was a bit much. There is no reason in the documentation provided to think otherwise. Grassley may have meant that staff could fly to CA but I don’t see where it was stated anywhere that Dr. Ford could have known of it in advance.

    1. It was well publicized prior to the hearing that the committee had sent a letter to her attorneys offering to interview her in California. The whole country knew about the offer, except -it would seem- Ms Ford.

      1. …and the NPC AKA “bettykath” above.

        Notice that every single justification for the obvious perjury by Ford and/or her attorneys by NPCs here (Progressives) ignores the lies. Why? Because the perjury is as obvious as the day is long. And no, of course NPC’s forbid the government to hold those accountable who committed the felony crime(s). Why? Because……….”ORANGE MAN BAD!!!,” repeat all NPCs in unison.

          1. An NPC is a “non playing character” in computer games that is programmed to act a certain way. Thus calling someone an NPC is saying that he/she is not thinking, but instead is just acting in accordance with his programming. But the irony is that those calling others NPCs are often mimicking the same behavior. Simply dismissing someone you disagree with as an NPC, rather than thoughtfully disputing his argument, is the essence of NPC programming. In any case, the meme was original at one point, but is getting somewhat boring.

            1. TIN – for some people it is right on target. And you know exactly who we are pointing at on this site. 🙂

            2. But the irony is that those calling others NPCs are often mimicking the same behavior. Simply dismissing someone you disagree with as an NPC, rather than thoughtfully disputing his argument, i

              No they’re not. I spend too much time tangling with people on the internet. One thing that gets you about contemporary gliberals and leftoids is that it’s scams and status games and motivated reasoning all the way down. There is no argument to ‘thoughtfully dispute’ anymore. Perhaps there is when you’re dealing with some wonk like Harold Pollack, but Pollack is a most unrepresentative figure.

              Look at the gliberal and leftoid people posting here. When you deduct the snide adolescents, deduct the scammers and liars, deduct the head cases, deduct the brazen idiots, you have two people left. And neither of these characters will ever make an admission against interest.

              1. One more time, with the original quote:

                Tabby wrote: “Look at the gliberal and leftoid people posting here. When you deduct the snide adolescents, deduct the scammers and liars, deduct the head cases, deduct the brazen idiots, you have two people left. And neither of these characters will ever make an admission against interest.”

                Again:

                “…you have two people left.” So said Tabby.

                Yep, Tabby. “Two people left.”

                Diane…and…

                Yep — you guessed it: Diane!

                We’re all Diane.

      2. It was well publicized that Grassley would send a letter making that offer but I have been unable to find that letter or even a report that the such a letter, one offering to send staffers to CA, had actually been sent. Telling CNN or some other reporter about intentions doesn’t mean that the action was taken.

        1. bettykath – are you actually making the claim that Grassley made up the letter? They also sent emails and Tweets

      1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – the committee did everything except offer an escort service to get her to testify. Did you even read what you posted?

        1. As I’m sure you know, L4D possesses an uncanny ability to type whole sentences without reading a single squiggly line that pops out of the screen. Blinking photons, one and all, they are. Fie on them. The Fig O’ Spain on the them, too.

    2. I have read all the material at all the links.

      Really? All the material at all the links? You might need to get a new search engine. That also might explain why you’re so misinformed about many things.

      The Senate Judiciary Committee has reportedly offered to interview Christine Blasey Ford in California, her home state, about her accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/09/19/judiciary-committee-makes-concession-for-blasey-ford-n2520537

      Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is willing to send staff to speak with the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault to hear her story, an aide said Wednesday.
      https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407422-grassley-willing-to-send-staff-to-california-to-speak-with-kavanaugh-accuser

    3. Right, and you probably believe Jamal Khashoggi was killed in a fistfight he started against 19 Saudi security forces who happened to have a bone saw on hand.

      1. “Anonymous” = NPC = “Orange man bad!!!”

        Way to obfuscate, NPC! Is that the best you got on this subject? Connect progressive felony perjury to the Al Saud Crime Syndikate’s assassination of a reporter?

        OK, I’ll play: who was POTUS (selling USA made weapons to the Al Saud Krime Syndikate) when SA started its civilian genocide campaign against Yemen on behalf of SA and US “ally” Izrahell? Who was POTUS while the USA bribed and threatened members of the UN Security Counsel to prevent the SC from charging SA with international war crimes in Yemen?

        Hint: the first quasi-black US POTUS, Jesus Obama. .

    4. Betty….Actually, Grassley announced publicly to the media on at least three occasions that members of committee would be happy to fly to meet with her. It was replayed several times. And that was right after Chrissy had been discovered.which was at least a week before her hearing. In short, it was all over the media/tv seven days before her testimony.

  3. Randy Newman wrote a song called Back On My Feet Again. It was about a mental patient asking his shrink to let him out of the nuthouse. The lyrics would be appropriate if directed toward this so called “Doctor”. A PhD does not come equivalent to an M.D. doctor. This itchBay was a whiner on the stage. Kavanaugh should have sung:
    “Doctor, doctor, …what you say? How bout lettin me out today? Ain’t no reason for me to stay… cause everybodys far away. …
    Get me back on my feet again!
    Back on my feet again!
    Open the door.
    Set me free.
    Get me back on my feet again!

  4. Given the amount of money she ended up owing them she could hardly say otherwise. I do wonder, after taxes, how much of her go pay me racket they got her into she kept and they kept.

    1. They said during the hearing that they were working for free. That should preclude any obligation she has to pay them anything. Having said that, the whole idea of a Go Fund Me in this, and many other such cases, is simply a money laundering scheme for pay off the money. It has the additional benefit to the Democrats that it they were able to convince a lot of useful idiots to pony up and make most of the pay off for them.

  5. Turley wrote, “The problem is that the question was not about Chairman Grassley flying out. The question concerned “the committee” flying out to California.”

    Is the Chairman of the committee a member of the committee? If the committee offered to fly out to California, then did the Chairman of the committee offer to fly out to California?

    Turley also wrote, “That is still unlikely to amount to a perjury case or a successful bar complaint since it turns on Ford’s understanding of the question. However, it is now confirmed by counsel that Ford was told of the offer.”

    Does Ford’s counsel’s confirmation that Ford was told of the committee’s offer to fly out to California determine Ford’s understanding of Mitchell’s question about whether Ford’s counsel or someone else had communicated to Ford the committee’s offer to fly out to California?

    1. Excerpted from the Judicial Watch letter to which Turley linked in his original post for this thread:

      On September 21, 2018, Chairman Grassley wrote another letter to Ms. Katz, where he
      stated that “[t]he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a
      closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. Press Release, Senate
      Judiciary Committee, Ford ‘Wasn’t Clear’ Committee Offered California Interview in lieu of
      Public Washington Hearing (Oct. 2, 2018) (available at https://goo.gl/6dmNJd). The Chairman
      is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or
      anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.” Id. (emphasis added).

      1. Repeated for emphasis from the Judicial Watch letter cited above:

        “The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”

        Are female staff investigators the same thing as The Senate Judiciary Committee? Is Chairman Grassley a female staff investigator? Well, no, obviously. What, pray tell, is the exact nature of the complaint that Judicial Watch has filed?

        1. L4D:
          “Are female staff investigators the same thing as The Senate Judiciary Committee? Is Chairman Grassley a female staff investigator? Well, no, obviously. What, pray tell, is the exact nature of the complaint that Judicial Watch has filed?”
          ****************
          Yes. No. You misread the offer. Grassley never promised to go, It’s strange a person demanding anonimity wants a public hearing in lieu of a private interview. How’s it that Dr. Ford gets a “female” staffer instead of a qualified staffer irrespective of gender, anyhow? Whatever happened to the Helen Reddy babes we used to admire. Just all helpless little girls now?
          https://youtu.be/V6fHTyVmYp4

          1. Whatever happened to the Helen Reddy babes we used to admire. Just all helpless little girls now? Whatever happened to the Helen Reddy babes we used to admire. Just all helpless little girls now?

            They didn’t exist. Capable women in business and the professions are like Clare Boothe Luce and Carly Fiorina. They don’t blather about how strong and independent they are; they just get stuff done. Liberal feminism is for word merchants like Shana Alexander and Ellen Goodman, who didn’t have anyone working under them but a research assistant. Radical feminism is for head cases employable only in higher education.

          2. Grassley’s offer to Ford was a veritable smorgasbord of options: public testimony, private testimony, open session, closed session, female staff investigators in California, female staff investigators in Washington DC, or female staff investigators anywhere in between California and Washington DC. The insinuation in both Grassley’s press release and the complaint from Judicial Watch is that Ford’s lawyers somehow finagled Ford into public testimony during open session before The Senate Judiciary Committee when Dr. Ford had originally sought to avoid public testimony in an open session of SJC.

            Gee Willikers, Mespo. Which item on the menu do you suppose Grassley secretly wanted Dr. Ford to choose? Evidently somebody has to be punished for choosing contrary to Grassley’s secret wishes to have female staff investigators interview Dr. Ford in California. If not Dr. Ford’s lawyers, then Dr. Ford herself. But if nobody’s punished for choosing public testimony in open session before The SJC, then there’s nothing to prevent anyone else from choosing public testimony in open session before The SJC all over again the next time around. It’ll be nothing but the old fickle-finger-of-fate routine from here on out. Cazart!

        2. Is one communication the same as all communications ?

          If Ford did not understand the Committees offer – isn’t the obligation of her and her attorney’s to request clarification ?

          Are you suggesting that it was reasonable for Ford to decline an interview by female SJC staffer’s in California at the place and time of her convenience ?

          Are you saying that accusers get to lob anonymous allegations, expect to be taken credibly by Senate Committees, and get to sit back and wait for the SJC to make the offer that the accuser deems satisfactory ?

          The SJC bent over backwards to meet demand’s from Ford that increasingly look like deliberate stalling.
          IT was also pretty evident while all of this was occurring that either Ford and her attorney’s were not communicating, or both were engaged in deliberate efforts to confuse and delay as many of Ford’s public remarks were not consistent with those of her attorney’s.

          If you wish your accusations to be taken credibly you must act in good faith in your dealings with those evaluating your credibility.

        3. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Judicial Watch is VERY open. Go to their site and you can see the exact letter they sent.

          1. Read the thread. L4D just posted an excerpt from the Judicial Watch letter to which Turley linked in his original post for this thread. Stop being so preposterous.

    2. Turley is correct that this is unlikely to lead to a successfully perjury charge or a successful disciplinary complaint.

      It is however clear that either Ford’s attorney’s failed to communicate the committee’s off to Ford or Ford offered misrepresentative testimony.

      No matter what the credibility of Ford or her attorney’s or both is severely undermined.

      No matter what it is self-evident that the SJC’s offer was disregarded, that either Ford or her attorney’s we seeking to delay rather than advance her testimony.

      Nor is this the only instance of that.

      Absent something more substantial than this neither Ford nor her attornies should fact sanctions.

      However it does call Ford’s credibility into question.

      As Sen,. Blumenthal hypoctrically noted “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”

      Ford’s credibility with respect to her testimony about the alleged attempted sexual assault 36 years ago is inseparable from her credibility on everything else.

      As Kavanaugh noted with respect to his diary – it is not dispositive – it does not provide irrefutable evidence, but it as well as many other facts undermine Ford’s credibility.
      And it is always the credibility of the accuser that is most critical.

  6. “Attorneys Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich deny the allegation and say that Ford was fully informed. These are very accomplished lawyers and I am inclined to believe them. That however raises serious questions about Ford’s sworn testimony and the attorneys offer a rather tortured explanation of the conflict.”
    *******************
    That’s funny. Based on Ford’s testimony and their lawyers disingenuous explanation of it, I don’t see it as a binary question. I think they are all liars.

  7. Dr. Ford is no dummy

    Dr. Ford is analytical, pragmatic, calculating, manipulative & crafty

    The legal model to compare, is the Tawana Brawley “rape hoax” of 1987. Brawley’s legal team, Alton Maddox & C. Vernon Mason were disbarred & sued.

    Tawana Brawley’s parents rules & staying out late at the age of 16:

    Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley’s falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and her stepfather, Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, later shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualizing manner. On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit her boyfriend, Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton’s mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, “I’m already in trouble.” She described how angry King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.

  8. I eventually watched almost all of the Senate hearing with Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh…probably about 95% of it.
    That exchange, involving the claim of “privileged conversation” by the lawyer Bromwich, stood out as an odd comment, a ploy to avoid giving a straight answer to Sen. Grassley’s question.
    I don’t know if any ethical standards were violated, but the “privileged conversation” claim to avoid answering a simple, direct question seemed strange.
    I think that claim came up in another exchange.
    It looked somewhat similar to “taking the 5th” to selectively avoid answering the question(s).
    It looked like either Ford or Bromwich was lying, and “privileged conversation” stunt was used to blunt any exchange that might determine who the liar was.

  9. Weren’t there credible allegations Prof Ford lied in her testimony about prior polygraph exams, preparing for such exams, etc.? Either Ford’s former beau lied in the info he submitted to Congress or Prof Ford engaged in offering perjurios testimony. This needs to be investigated, clarified and then addressed w/regard to the offending party.

    1. The standard for perjury is extremely high.

      We already have more than enough information to question Ford’s credibility.

      Ford’s testimony on numerous things both past and present is contradicted by sworn statements by many others.

      For Ford’s testimony to be completely true many other people’s sworn statements would have to be false or misremembered.
      That is possible. It is not likely.

      It is therefore more likely that Ford’s recollections are in error, than that they are true. Whether that error is deliberate or not is a different question.

  10. I think it is a legitimate complaint. The Bar can decide how they want to handle it. I was the subject of a Bar complaint which was eventually dismissed. It was a silly complaint filed out of spite but I had to deal with it.

    1. Disciplinary committees – like all professional ethics boards are notoriously bad at policing their own.

      Absent meaningful oversite there is no reason to beleive that the law or rules of ethics will be taken seriously.

      1. I could be wrong, but I think Pablo’s “bar complaint” may have involved patronizing a “tavern” or “pub”.

          1. You said you were “the subject of a Bar complaint”–not the “target” of a Bar complaint. I figured you were practicing “lawyer talk”. Pardon my sarong, you Barrister, you.

                1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – Rumpole was happiest when She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed was gone.

                  1. You waited till 10:00 AM deliberately, intentionally, on purpose to tell me to go away. Now I must not obey. But the shows are starting. So, you’re pardoned till tomorrow.

        1. No, but he didn’t think that anyone would call him on it. Paul — in his own mind — is so many things. He’s a loon.

          1. Anonymous – in my mind I am just me. And the attorney who investigated the claim got a big laugh out of it. He thought is was silly.

  11. Someone needs to file a complaint against Judicial watch for its’ partisan approach in repeatedly violating its’ 501c3 Status in being an enabler as they have been–Will they (and you for that matter Professor Turley) see what, for instance, the President has done with the FBI Building.

    1. What are you waiting for, if you have the evidence then be that someone. Carpe Diem. Otherwise you’re just blowing more snot-bubbles whining that Judicial Watch keeps winning.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        WASHINGTON — Nearly two years before he would begin his presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump arrived in Washington to show off his plans for a luxury hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue under a deal he had reached to lease the site from the General Services Administration.

        But on that day in September 2013, he also had another property on his mind, only a block away in a prime location midway between the White House and the Capitol.

        “What he wanted to talk to me about was the F.B.I. project,” Dorothy Robyn, who at the time was the commissioner of the General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service, said in an interview. “He was very interested in the F.B.I. project. He was intrigued by it. He was excited by it.”

    2. Bizzarre claim.

      First JW has taken on government misconduct in both republican and democratic administrations.

      JW was created to perform private oversight of government. There is no requirement for political affirmative action in their serving that purpose.

      They have had an excellent record prying from Government information that it does not want to be made public.
      Though their dogged reputation was established much early it is JW that uncovered through FOIA requests that HRC was keeping her Official State Department communications on a private email server in violation of numerous laws.

      JW does not “enable” anything. If our government was working properly – they should not be necescary. Oversite would be performed properly and internally.
      Whenever JW successfully exposes misconduct that demonstrates a failure on the part of government.

  12. Like many who comment here, I was either laughing or cringing at her “testimony” and her answers.
    The only thing she didn’t lie about was her name.
    Can’t wait to see where this goes…..so, more tangled web, please!

  13. Hmmm, who’s lying? I think it is a relevant question. Some will politicize it, and yet it is important to know what happened. Either her counsel withheld the committee’s repeated and public offers to her, and she lived under a rock for a while, or she lied under oath. However, for a question like that, I think she could get out of a perjury charge by claiming, in a baby voice, she misunderstood the question.

    In fact, Professor Turley himself was troubled by the exchange. Does the Left suddenly have a problem with investigating? They wanted to investigate, so let’s look into it. I would also like to get a copy of her grades from 11th and 12th grade, as well as each year in college to see if there was a sudden dip in her academic trajectory. In addition, I would like to interview her therapist to see what methods she used to recover “repressed memories.”

  14. She lied about her home renovations, she lied about her ‘fear of flying’, she sat for a rigged polygraph, and we have some reason to believe she lied about her knowledge of that technology and about her supposed claustrophobia (apart from her lying about the home renovation project). It’s not a stretch to conclude she lied about what her attorneys told her and did not tell her, especially since the offer to interview her in California was plastered all over the internet. Chrissy just ain’t trustworthy.

          1. No, that’s not right at all.

            Annie/Inga begot Diane, who after the first age of titans begot the mere mortals commenting today — anon, L4D, R. Lien, etc.

            All are the same by myth now, how else to explain the claims of the of the assured?

            Fools abound everywhere, but the concentration is egregious here.

            1. I forgot that only mere mortals can ever be crucified.

              OMG. So that’s what boundless fools are up to.

              Come and get me you Coppers. I’m not going out alone.

    1. We should not make the same mistakes the left makes.

      Ford MAY have lied in these instances. She also may merely have misremembered.

      There are discrepancies between Kavanaugh’s testimony and the statements of others too.

      But the credibility of Ford’s allegation does not rest on Kavanaugh’s precise recollection of his drinking 36 years ago.

      Ford’s credibility and the strength of her accusation DOES.

      1. dhlii…….you’re playing games. If she had a minimum wage part-time job somewhere it would be one thing. She is an accomplished academic and has been for YEARS. yet she feigns memory loss, timidness, lack of confidence, ignorance……does not know how to contact Senators? Really? That info is on her school’s website, for starters.
        She’s a liar…..and a manipulative one.

  15. I am surprised that Judicial Watch has standing to make such a complaint. They were not a client of the accused attorneys.

    1. Darren: Anyone can file a Bar complaint against an attorney. Most complaints come from clients, of course, but judges also refer attorneys whom they find to be of questionable competence. And attorneys file complaints against other attorneys, sometimes out of sour grapes, and other times out of a legitimate concern that an attorney who is mentally impaired due to drug, alcohol or senility is harming his clients. I’m surprised that nobody has filed a complaint against Avenatti over his representation of Swetnick. Her claim was so facially ludicrous that no reasonable attorney would have taken the case. The Bar investigative staff and prosecutors are more concerned with direct damage to a client in legal proceedings, but there is a provision in the code of professional conduct about actions which bring discredit to the profession.

      1. Are members of Congress that are licensed attorneys immune from complaints before the bar? For instance, when Harry Reid lied on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney did not file tax returns for 10 years; would that be something for which a complaint could be made?

        1. I suspect if you unpacked it you’d discover that most of the lawyers in Congress had a career like Joseph Biden (4 years as a suburban associate) or Marco Rubio (intermitted storefront solo practice) or Charles Schumer (never practiced). The odd exception would be Joseph Lieberman, who was a partner in a mid-Law firm (and whose 1st f/t political office was Attorney-General of Connecticut). Look, for example, at our notable presidential candidates over the last 50 years. The only ones who had more than about four years of law practice under their belt before cadging a f/t political office were Edmund Muskie, Gerald Ford, Jerry Brown, John Anderson, Gary Hart, Richard Gephardt, Michael Dukakis, John Edwards, Hellary, and Ted Cruz. You might add Robert Dole to the list, as he was an elected corporation counsel, and George Wallace, who worked in the state attorney-general’s office before being elected a judge. Most of them were solo practitioners or in small partnerships. Hellary’s career in law it’s a reasonable wager was derived from the offices her husband filled and there’s evidence that her partners considered her to be deficient in recruiting clients and producing billable hours. Edwards made a bundle; the rap on him, however, is that he did so though Erin Brockovich-style junk science. Jerry Brown was the governor’s son who had the embarrassment of failing the bar exam on his first attempt. (As Democratic pols go, Brown’s top of the heather; there’s no indication he’d have had a stellar career as a lawyer). Among all of these people, perhaps Anderson, Hart, and Cruz were making a notable personal sacrifice in giving up law for full time political office.

          1. I found this little ditty from the NY Times (1964). It would seem the problems that exist today have the same root…lawyers.

            Most members of the House Committee on Un‐American Activities, for example, have been lawyers, yet they have been almost uniformly insensi­tive to suggestions that wit­nesses be permitted to cross­examine their accusers, or that innocence should be presumed until guilt is proven. On the contrary, hearings have been televised, and committee mem­bers have felt free to combine the roles of judge, prosecutor and jury.
            https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/05/are-there-too-many-lawyers-in-congress.html

        2. Check this, but IIRC all words spoken by the Senate and Congress on the floor are totally protected from legal action.

  16. Of course they’ve filed complaints against her attorney but never mind Kavanaugh’s perjury. Never mind that!

      1. “Karen S says: October 21, 2018 at 12:57 AM

        Outline your proof of his perjury.”

        With this crew? A waste of time and breath.

    1. Minor Discrepancies in the recollection of events in the distant past where the facts can not be established and where often the discrepancy is an oppinion rather than a fact do not constitute perjury.

      It would be difficult to impossible to make a case for perjury concerning Ford’s testimony.
      But it is not hard to question her credibilty.

      The accuracy of Kavanaugh’s recollection and characterization of his drinking 36 years ago is NOT important.
      His credibility is NOT really in question

      The accusation is Ford’s, it is Ford’s credibility not Kavanaugh’s that matters.

      Put simply we can beleive that both Ford and Kavanaugh can not accurately remember events 36 years ago – and that would result in Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

      The precision of Kavanaugh’s recollection of what you claim are perjury related to events 36 years ago is not critical to his confirmation.

  17. I am reminded of Clinton’s comment. “At this date does it really matter?” The only thing of importance at this very moment is who turns out the most voters and the next composition of Congress.

    That will determine in the Senate side who replace the rapidly failing Bader Ginzberg.

    That will determine is we keep it at a fight between the Constitutionaists and Socialists with the edge now for the Constitutionalists OR go back in the other direction.

    I am thinking of all the Marxist Leninism ideology that could be removed and talking again to the coalition of the Constitutional Republicans and the Constitutional Centrist Independents who together held a majority in 2016.

    A return revisit to the thumbs down on Term Limits comes to mind rather rapidly. a

    I am thinking of the exclusion of single judge rulings affecting an entire nation but their ‘opinion’ being sent to the next higher level for examination.

    I am thinking of a requirement on every bill before Congress to require cite as to which part of the Constitution authorized the suggested law or procedure.

    I am thinking of the ravages of progressive socalism since 1909. not just interms of the Constitution but in terms of war dead and numbers of wars and conflicts under what only be called the War Monger Party and their almost complete failure to uphold their Oath of Office.

  18. Unfortunately, Christine Ford’s statement

    “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”

    probably can’t be used to draw binding conclusions about her comprehension of her own memories of teenage Brett Kavanaugh’s conduct toward her.

    This case is destined to be another case like those of Patricia Hearst, Terri Schiavo or those in which “recovered memories” of Satanic ritual abuse led to criminal convictions which is less about the acts at the center of the controversy, more about political side issues.

    Which is what the Democratic National Committee intended from the beginning, if Nancy Pelosi’s statement to the New York Times‘s Paul Krugman:““If there’s some collateral damage, for some others that don’t share our view, well so be it.”means anything. The worst kind of politics of personal destruction surface again if that’s what Pelosi and her party need to get what they want.

    1. How was Dr Ford ever the director of biostatistics at Corcept, dealt with FDA statisticians, and specialize in designing statistical models. That’s not only numbers, but patterns of numbers and predictions of data. Logic. Juggling disparate data sets and seeing patterns. She’s fuzzy on what was discussed with her a couple of weeks ago, couldn’t seem to comprehend an offer for the committee to fly to her, and how in the world could a biostatistician confidently estimate her age based on her inability to recall transportation to a party 36 years ago without breaking into a cold sweat. I’ve known biostatisticians.

      She designs studies, and yet she confidently laid out this farce with the expectation that it would be believed contrary to the evidence she presented. Why would a biostatistician appear not to understand the conclusions of her own evidence? Some of her jobs have required her to come to conclusions based on data.

      What is also unusual is that most of her education is in psychology, including educational psychology, and then suddenly getting a masters in epidemiology with a minor in biostatistics. Biostatisticians are usually math geeks. She’s written articles on designing research studies, as well as the soft science of gender identity. She kind of oscillates between mathematical science and the more, artistic, application of scientific theory. From an outsider’s perspective, it seems off.

    2. Your statement about Hearst is offensive in the extreme. Hearst was personally present with a loaded fully automatic rifle when her SLA gang murdered in cold blood an elderly woman I’ll call X (sorry forgot her name). X was depositing funds from her small church that fateful Monday. X and her husband spent their entire lives performing minor miracles in 3rd world countries, providing medical help, as life time missionaries. Hearst personally taught members of the SLA exactly how to build, install and blow up bombs to assassinate police officers. Patty Hearst richly deserved the death chamber but instead, because she was the pretty white heiress of a wealthy family, which family was friends with Ronald Reagan (Hearst’s mother was Head of the UC Berkeley Regents and I believe her statue is still there), she spent only a few years in prison and was later pardoned. Disgusting and putrid beyond belief. If you ever see this wretched, pathetic, horrible person Hearst please spit in her face for me.

      Again, your post Re. Hearst is ignorant and/or repulsive in the extreme. Read the Hearst story published a few years ago by Jeffrey Toobin.

      On a separate matter, the black leader of the SLA promoted himself as a liberator of blacks, when in reality almost every single SLA member was not black except himself. His followers were much like Hearst: smart, privileged, self-destructive and felonious scum of the earth. The SLA waited in the dark and assassinated, shot in the back, the black Chief of Oakland Schools, for his “felony crime against blacks” of collaborating with whites in government.

      The recent biography also includes the interesting angle that Jim Jones played in the Hearst drama. I rate the biography 5 stars. “American Heiress” by Jeffrey Toobin. If you grew up the SF Bay Area in that period, you have to read this book.

      1. Joseph Jones – anyone who will allow themselves to be murdered in the John Waters film is all right by me. 😉 Personally, I think Patty Heart had Stockholm Syndrome. I actually saw it occur on a tv channel here when a the station was taken over by a gun man on air and we watched it play out it real time.

        1. She was a fugitive for about 19 months and participated in 3 armed robberies. It’s a matter of no interest that she enjoyed screwing Willie Wolfe. She was guilty guilty guilty. Her father should have hired real lawyers to negotiate a plea bargain. Instead he hires publicity hounds who want to take the cases to trial – first the Hallinans, then (when they’d done some bizarre things), Lee Bailey and Albert Johnson (who buffaloed the Hallinans into withdrawing from the case). Meanwhile, back at the ranch, one of the three psychiatrists commissioned to evaluate PCH for fitness to stand trial produced (with the assistance of a clinical psychologist) a comprehensive mental health history. (The other two psychiatrists produced a one page report on her fitness to stand trial). That particular shrink testified at her trial. One thing that sank Patty Hearst at trial was when the jury collated the statements of the defense’s expert witnesses (LJ West, Robert Jay Lifton, and Martin Orne) and realized that these three shrinks had given Patty Hearst a blank cheque for a period of about 19 months, contending her mental state was such she couldn’t be held responsible for anything.

    3. Sorry to pile on Re. your statement above Re. Patty Hearst, but you could not possibly be more wrong to claim Hearst’s sins were political rather than felonious: she was arrested on the street with another female SLA member, about a block from their apartment, where the two women had amassed enough weapons and ammo to start a small war. These two women, if they could have, would have killed any and every LEO officer possible, and if they killed a 100 innocents in the process that would have been only “collateral damage.”

      The SLA leader died in a horrific shootout with the police. That half of the SLA gang took over by deception the residence of an otherwise innocent black family. The black family had children in the house during the shootout wherein the SLA discharged, IIRC, over 6000 rounds, and the police about 10k rounds. It’s a miracle the children did not die.

    4. Um, no. Patricia Hearst, Wendy Yoshimura, William Harris, Emily Harris, Steven Soliah, Kathleen Soliah were all guilty of felonies. Several others were at least accessories to felonies. The authorities in California were inept and lax in seeing to it that they were meted with condign punishment. Emily Harris in particular should still be in prison; she actually served 12 years.

    1. Judicial – There definitely are consequences to filing false disciplinary complaints if you’re an attorney or a judge (someone the Bar has jurisdiction over). A malicious complaint based on spite or to gain a competitive advantage would result in discipline against the attorney who filed it. But if an unfounded complaint is filed by a member of the public – someone the Bar has no jurisdiction over, there’s not much the Bar can do except dismiss it.

      1. In the real world the more serious problem is that the bar like all professional ethics organizations does a shitty job of policing itself.

    2. If the JW charge is “frivolous” how do you explain JT pointing out the obvious problem during the testimony? Did “Orange Man” pay off JT? Is JT stupid? Please explain?

      Or are you just another of several “NPC’s” here? > “Orange Man BAD!”

Leave a Reply