More fighting over public lawyer language…..

This time from Brodsky, see the article


Public statements made by Brodsky need to go to the ARDC?

The reality is, once the ARDC gets in the business of regulating lawyer language, believe me, there will be no end.  And as we can see from my case, they would rather regulate the language of lawyers than go after miscreants that steal, don’t inventory, represent clients that don’t inventory, don’t bring remodeling, loss of $1 million in a safe depot box–to the court’s attention.  They don’t seem to care if the court is acting without jurisdiction and they only want to silence honest lawyers that report corruption.

Perhaps Brodsky will get a slice of what I’m going through only because the GAL’s and the courts and the ARDC isn’t doing their jobs.  Ken and I are calling for an honest, complete and thorough investigation of the probate cases:  Tyler, Gore, Sykes, Bedin, Wyman by the authorities.

Let’s face it, Brodsky is commenting on Peterson and fighting with a state’s atty–which I believe he has every right to without the ARDC stifffling his speach.  Under SCOTUS and other case law, a lawyer has the right to make whatever public statements he needs to to protect himself and his client from the news.

The judge calling for this disciplinary action should know that.  Jerman case:  Lawyers are presumed to know the law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s