The time that both Ken and I have had on the wrongfully “Disciplined Lawyer” series was simply too short to answer all the questions the viewers had, so below answers more of the questions received.
MY ANSWERS ARE IN RED
The most important point is true for not only me, but you too is that the charges made by the lawyer disciplinary commission are beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. In particular all statements made by any citizen that relate to political or content related speech is protected by the First Amendment. I cite Rosemond vs. Markham , and Alvarez as authority.
Rosemond is directly on point, and Alvarez pointed out that the statements made are protected even if untrue. My statements are backed up by affidavits and the Court files. As I never was of record in any of the elder cleansing cases under discussion I enjoy all the rights of citizenship. However even lawyers of record cannot be censored under both the Illinois and the Federal Constitution.
The foregoing not withstanding, assume that I was upset and called the Judge a ******. He could hold me in contempt. The statement might be considered an act and therefore would be an exception to the First Amendment protection for the purpose of contempt. The truth of my charge that the judge might be a defense, but, depending on my demeanor it might Similarly if I overtly lied to the judge I might be held in contempt. However,the Lawyer Disciplinary Board has no jurisdiction to act as a disciplinarian or censor of my speech. They regulate conduct – not speech and their regulation is narrow or there would be a deprivation of citizen rights of not only me but my client.
A Florida lawyer had a judge get all bent out of shape when the judge reduced a jury verdict. He did not hold the lawyer in contempt and therefore admitted that the lawyer’s behavior was acceptable. The Florida Bar in an ultra vires action punished the lawyer and therefore violated the rights of not only the lawyer but his client. The action of the Florida Bar was not only wrongful, but if a crime had been committed by the other side subjected itself to 18 USCA 371 liability.
In light of the Sykes case file in my case and in Joanne’s case our collective action was mandated by Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4.
NB – Alvarez extends the Right of Free Speech to even untrue statements. lawyer disciplinary proceedings require the commission to prove the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Writing e-mails and letters requesting an HONEST INVESTIGATION is not misconduct – it certainly is not akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.*
*That is, unless, as Ken pointed out, the theater is filled with crooked politicians, lawyers and judges, only then is this blog akin to crying out “fire” in that theater.