This message was self-deleted by its author

[anobserver2]

This message was self-deleted by its author (anobserver2) on Thu Aug 23, 2018, 08:19 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[delrem]

1. de jure, no; de facto, yes. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. First answer is the correct answer. nt means no text, there's nothing in the body of the reply. n/t

[delrem]

20. nt or n/t = "no text". nt heh

[HardTimes99]

73. What does 'nt heh' mean? :) - nt (heh :)

[former9thward]

19. No, he not going to be arrested.

And you heard it first on DU. I know, I know, you have "sources". The internet is good for those.

[tularetom]

3. I don't think so, I think so, and there's no fucking way

[tularetom]

12. I mean no matter WTF he's guilty of, THIS administration won't do squat about it

And to make matters worse, if Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016, nothing will change.

And the old bastard will take a dirt nap without ever paying the price for all the evil shit he's done.

Hell, I'd favor digging him up just to put him on trial, but I just don't see it happening.

[elehhhhna]

48. perhaps he'll partake in some med maryjane

total gamechanger for Holder then

[tularetom]

15. I guess that's what I mean

Although if the shoe was on the other foot and a Democrat was suspected of some godawful crimes, a republican administration would jump backwards through their own asshole to prosecute him.

So I suppose what it is is a one way gentleman's agreement.

[Recursion]

4. POTUS like any other LEO had limited personal immunity

The Constitution specifically says he can be criminally tried for an act he was impeached and removed for. But in general a law enforcement officer has limited but broad immunity for official conduct.

[Recursion]

8. I was taking about what he did while President

Once he's out of office he's just a normal guy with a great pension, legally.

[Recursion]

11. Well, he's rich and famous

And experience seems to show rich and famous people can get away with quite a lot.

[iemitsu]

51. G H W Bush is the only ex-President, who reads the daily briefings

created for the sitting President. All ex-Presidents have this right but he is the only one who religiously pays attention.
He is still the guiding force behind the CIA and I wouldn't be surprised if he was provided with "intelligence" before seated Presidents.
The CIA and other spy agencies don't work for us (the citizens of the United States) they work for the uber-class.
We may pay the bills but we are considered the enemy.
G H W Bush will not be prosecuted for past or present crimes. But any accusers he might have will be utterly destroyed for making the accusation.

[iemitsu]

53. You have my compassion and goodwill in your fight against the powerful Bush Crime Family.

Clearly, GHW Bush is not acting in the best interests of the country, he is acting in the best interests of the Bush Family.
They are a family of social climbers, who have acted as procurement officers for America's most wealthy families.
America would do well to purge themselves of this vile family, and others like them, but I fear that is not likely to happen.
I too think the un-pretty truth about the Bush Klan will someday be exposed, but it will only happen when they are no longer in power.
Why was one of the first acts, GW Bush did as President, to extend the time before the Kennedy assassination evidence is released?
We should be getting that information this year. 50 years after the event and we should be given access to the information the investigation revealed. Now that time has been extended indefinitely.
Why? Who is indicted by that evidence that our government wants to protect?

ps: I hope that the information related to the Florida Bar does result in the Bush Family being investigated and disgraced (even imprisoned). I'm not holding my breath but I can still hope.
By the way, you need to protect yourself and your family from these people. They are not going to be taken down easily.

[iemitsu]

60. Yep, I am for the "equal justice for all" policy that we so often

hear parroted in our culture but almost never see played out in the real world.
28 years ago I did know that the Bush family was evil. I knew that Reagan was a front man for policies that he did not understand.
I knew 27 years ago that Bush/Reagan had traded with the enemy to influence an American election. I knew that Reagan's, "voodoo economics" would destroy the lives of the middle-class. I have been skeptical of everything a republican proposed since Nixon was in office, yet, none of that prepared me for just how corrupt our government has gotten. Our government and our culture.
I knew that many were fooled by the pipe-dream, that was Reaganomics. But I was unprepared for a whole generation of Americans, who accept laissez-faire capitalism on faith, without question.
You are right about sunshine. We need lots of it.
Americans are under-educated and ill-informed, and proud of it.

[iemitsu]

66. Sounds like they have really given you the run-a-round.

I'm sorry to hear that.
Government offices used to be well-staffed by professional civil-servants, who would treat you respectfully, while conducting the public's business. But they have been starved for funding (like all public institutions), under-staffed and over-worked (often with supervisors hired to dismantle the organization) until they come up with any strategy to avoid the work, they are charged to do, but can't accomplish because of cutbacks.
Its like that everywhere. But Florida's politics are corruption on steroids.
Florida must have assigned oversight of their Bar Association to the lawyers themselves.
I am sure your complaint against the Florida Bar is legitimate and that you have suffered some damage as a result of an incident or policy, and you have my sympathy, but whatever happened, it is nothing to Bush.
He has been a party to many unnecessary and illegal war, where hundreds of thousands of innocents suffered or died. He is on the boards of numerous corporations, that poison the environment, disrupt economies, and destroy lives. He is guilty of introducing the regular use of Psychological Warfare on the American public. He and his lovely, wife Barbara, spawned vile children that have been far to influential in our modern times.
I suspect that in Bush's life, you are a gnat. He can get one of the 30 Secret Service men, we provide him, to squash gnats.
Write a short story, or a novel (if you're wordy) about the experience. With the same theme as "Gatsby", the rich aren't like the rest of us (GHW Bush is supposedly already featured in "Catcher in the Rye&quot . Everyone loves reading about the rich and famous so your story will get more traction.
Good luck to you. I hope you take the whole Bush Crime Family down.

[iemitsu]

77. Thanks for the link to the evidence.

I certainly hope that you can pull this off, for the sake of all humanity.
Good luck. I look forward to the story in Mother Jones.

[spanone]

68. when the director of the cia becomes president, it can't be good

no how, no way

[iemitsu]

70. You got that one right,

Especially when the director of the CIA was fired for rigging foreign elections.

[branford]

21. It is very unlikely that a former president of the USA would ever face criminal prosecution.

Although I am an attorney, I cannot definitively state whether former presidents could be protected from criminal prosecution in the USA under theories of general or limited immunity for acts during their presidency. It legally would likely depend on the type, nature and extent of the specific alleged acts and the degree of proof available. Statute of limitations problems could also arise and "continuing crimes" have their own unique legal hurdles. Nevertheless, as a purely practical matter, unless the crimes are undeniably personal in nature (e.g., the president raped or physically assaulted an underling), no later administration would even consider a prosecution. It's simple politics and self-interest. Politics is a shady and compromising profession. If you prosecuted a predecessor in office, you would virtually guarantee your own later prosecution. Similarly, no current administration would seriously and in good faith endeavor to investigate criminal wrongdoing of a predecessor. You cannot prosecute what you cannot discover or completely prove.

I am, however, confident that a former president would not enjoy immunity for a hypothetical present crime (not a crime continuing from his time in office). Nevertheless, the same political consideration would prevail.

Additionally, as a related matter, no president would ever turn-over a former president to a foreign authority for either past or current crimes. Americans are fiercely independent and distrust foreign courts and powers. The United Nations is probably less popular than Congress and herpes. The optics of allowing a former president to be tried by a foreign court for almost anything would be political and historical suicide for the president and anyone who supported such a decision. I can even imagine that certain military, security and law enforcement officers and officials would resign rather than comply with such an order, or even outright mutiny.

[branford]

31. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to state.

First, we obviously agree that a former president would not have immunity for a current crime.

I assume from the substance of your comments that you believe that GWB should and will be prosecuted for the Bush v. Gore election issues in Florida in 2000, and that such prosecution will occur due to recent changes to the leadership of the Florida Bar Association. Whether or not morally justified, I cannot fathom such an outcome, both legally and politically. First, the election matters have been extensively litigated in both the Supreme Court of the United States and Florida's own Supreme Court. I do not recall any substantive, no less proven, allegations of criminal wrongdoing in either set of proceedings. Such allegations would have necessarily been raised due to their impact on the outcome of the litigation. Moreover, I similarly do not recall any allegations that GWB either personally ordered or directly conspired to breach any election law. Statute of limitation problems would also almost certainly prohibit any prosecution even with an admission of wrongdoing.

I also do not know how the new change in leadership of the Florida Bar Association would have any impact on whether to charge the former president with a crime. Charging decisions are solely in the discretion of the local and state prosecutors for state crimes, and the Attorney General or local United States Attorneys in Florida in connection with any federal crime. The Florida Bar Association only has jurisdiction concerning attorney discipline in Florida and other unrelated ancillary matters. To the extent that a criminal matter could legally proceed, no appointed or elected official with charging authority in either Florida or the federal government has even hinted at the suggestion that they would investigate the former president concerning any criminal matter, no less actually bring charges. I don't even think that they would be able to legally or politically extradite the president from Texas(!!!) to Florida. As the former president is not a member of the Florida bar, he is also not in any jeopardy of discipline.

If I misinterpreted any of your points, kindly clarify and I will gladly address them to the best of my non-election, non-criminal lawyer ability.

[Agnosticsherbet]

23. As long as he was not given a blanket pardon for acts in office, yes to both.

But former Presidents are not going to get charged for anything in this country.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. After Democrats took control of the House in 2006, talk about impeachment and investigations shrunk

to a size small enough that Democrats could drown them in a bathtub. Neither Bush nor anyone in his administration are going to be held accountable. When you finish your book, let me know, I'll buy a copy.

Many of the policies we opposed have been carried on and intensified under President Obama. Where he did try correcting measures, such as abolishing Gitmo, Democrats and Republicans stopped him.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. I think the "anyone" is an enormous overreach.

Enron and Bernie Madoff show that it can and does happen, occassionally. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, former Congressman who took blatant bribes was sent to prison. But Presiendents and their administrations are a different form of animal. I remember Bush's "935 lies." But many of those lies have been carried on into the Obama administration with the polices, and going after Bush would require going after Obama.

[elehhhhna]

50. Probably got a secret pardon already

if not by his dumbson, then by his bff Bill Clinton, or from Obama b/c he's busy "looking forward".

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. Bill Clinton could not give Bush a pardon because he was not in office

after Bush.

The point I am trying to make is that pardons don't matter when no sitting President will take a former sitting President to the Woodshed for anything. They all use power and will not imperil their own use of that power. Congress doesn't seem to be much better, at lest Democrats, not since Nixon.

Republians impeached Clinton as a political attack. They are trying to iimpeach Obama, all for political reasons to gain power.

Justice has nothing to do with.

[pnwmom]

28. I think there is a reluctance to do this for fear we'll end up being a country

like Russia, where prosecutions of political opponents are commonplace. It's happening there right now, in fact.

[pnwmom]

37. You don't think we'd have bogus prosecutions?

You don't think those who tried to impeach Clinton while in office wouldn't have loved it if they could have continued to hound him by charging him with criminal offenses after he left office?

[branford]

32. I very much agree.

The criminal justice system should never be a political tool. Although no system is perfect, and it certainly has been used in U.S. politics by both parties, despite all the hyperbole, it's nevertheless very rare. That and the disgust most reasonable people have at the the prospect of criminally endangering or punishing one's political opponents is a testament to our democracy.

[pnwmom]

35. Welcome to DU, branford! n/t

[branford]

40. Thank you.

[branford]

39. I am in no way stating that politicians are immune to criminal prosecution.

However, the power and resources of the State is an ominous and often malevolent force that must only be deployed in clear, definitive and limited circumstances. That is a classically liberal viewpoint, the underpinning of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and an ideology shared by both democrats and republicans, progressives and conservatives. If there is clear proof that a crime has been committed, and there are no other legal impediments to trial such a the expiration of the statute of limitations, I would fully support the prosecution of a president or other elected or appointed official, regardless of their politically party.

Unfortunately, both criminal investigation and charge are too often used for political advantage or to punish those with whom you disagree. Its ease of use and the psychological impact on one's opponents is alluring, regardless of the merits of any allegations. That is the reason that abuse of these levers of power by elected officials is itself criminal. It is precisely why the current scandal with the IRS is potentially so damaging. Even if Obama and the White House were not involved, the damage to the public's perception of and trust in the government is incalculable.

We might have every reason to hate GWB (or Obama, Clinton, GHWB, etc.), but I will never support the use of the criminal justice system as a means of simple revenge or political advantage.

The reference to Richard Nixon is also not really on point. There was in fact evidence that Richard Nixon engaged in a number of crimes and prosecution was a reasonable possibility (and I would have supported). However, Ford exercised his legal and constitutional prerogative and pardoned Nixon, ostensibly to help heal the country. Regardless of our opinions concerning Ford's pardon, it was unquestionably legal and prosecution of Nixon was therefore forever prohibited.

[HardTimes99]

75. GWB and Cheney should be investigated, indicted and tried for war crimes and

crimes against humanity related to (but not limited to) the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, torture and homicide arising from the afore-mentioned and fraud committed upon the people of the U.S.

That's not using the criminal justice system as a means of simple revenge or political advantage. That's using the criminal justice system to make sure the laws are faithfully executed.

[branford]

78. You may be right.

However, my comments specifically refer to the OP's political and legal inquiry into whether a former president is immune to criminal prosecution, and if not, whether such prosecution would ever likely occur. I was responding only to another member's observation that the use of criminal prosecutions are the hallmark of oppressive regimes, not advanced democracies.

Despite what many conclusorily assert, war crimes charges are very difficult to charge and prove. For instance, if GWB reasonably relied on incorrect intelligence, that alone might absolve him from any criminal liability. The approval of Congress and the legal authorization of the use of force might also be a dispositive mitigating factor.

Please note, however, I have no desire nor inclination to act as de facto legal counsel to GWB. I simply stating my understanding of the law, not undertaking to defend Bush.

Apart from the purely legal aspect of charging GWB, as stated in my prior forum post, I do not believe that this or any subsequent administration will ever seriously investigate GWB, no less actually charge him with any crimes. To do otherwise would subject the investigating president to similar criminal scrutiny. In light of the comprises and hard decisions of any president, democrat or republican, particularly in connection with the use of force, the political and historical risks would be untenable. Many office holders, I believe including Obama, also seek to protect the Office of the Presidency and the power therein. No president, regardless of party, ever sought to diminish or degrade their own authority. Using this same reasoning, and the fact that Americans by nature are distrustful of foreign powers, no president will likely ever turn over a high ranking U.S. official, particularly a former president, to a foreign tribunal.

I imagine that history will be the only judge of GWB.

[HardTimes99]

79. Thank you for your balanced and civil tone. With reference to your second paragraph, the

U.N. Charter provides that member nations may use military force to protect themselves against the threat of 'imminent attack'. In international law, this is called a 'preemptive war' (to head off an imminent attack). Member nations, however, may not engage in 'preventative war' (heading off a future attack), unless specifically authorized by the U.N. Security Council. This U.N. Security Council resolution is precisely what Bush failed to obtain, making his subsequent invasion and occupation illegal under international law. The Congress' actions in authorizing miltiary force have no bearing, as international laws were violated in the invasion. Likewise, Bush's possible reliance on faulty intel has no bearing for the same reasons. Long story short: if you want to commit preventative war (as opposed to pre-emptive war), you have to secure the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Otherwise, you are a rogue nation, subject to all available international legal sanctions.

Likewise international law (specifically the Geneva Conventions) cover the treatment of captured combatant and non-combatant forces. There were massive violations of Geneva committed with Bush administration assertions that Geneva no longer applied, although we did not withdraw from the Convention.) Again, Congress' acts authorizing military force have no bearing on violations of Geneva.

As for fraud committed against the peoples of the U.S., there's much evidence to show that Bush lied and knew he was lying when he lied. Bush should of course be allowed to present evidence that he was relying upon faulty intelligence. But a jury should make the final determination as to whether that faulty evidence (if it indeed exists) creates reasonable doubt on the fraud count.

I hate to think that history will be the only judge of GWB even as I fear you may be correct in your prediction.

[branford]

80. You raise many substantive and relevant points.

I agree with many of your arguments, and certainly believe that issues of both fact and law exist if GWB were charged with any number of crimes. Nevertheless, my prediction (not agreement) that GWB will never be charged still stands.

With respect to a domestic prosecution, there really is no crime of "fraud against the people of the U.S.A." I certainly understand your thinking, but to fit GWB's actions into cognizable and actual crimes in an American court would be to also expose innumerable past presidents, government officials and military officers, as well as Obama himself, to criminal sanction. The loathing for GWB and his actions in Iraq may be justified, but we should not easily forget Clinton's actions in the Balkans, Carter's military support of the Afghan rebels during the Cold War, Obama's actions in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan, and the list goes on and on. Heck, it was even Johnston who ramped-up our calamitous involvement in Vietnam, not Nixon. Ultimately, decisions of war and peace in the United States, generally no matter how tragic, are considered political decisions that affect the ballot box, not the courtroom. GWB will never be prosecuted in the U.S., nor should Obama ever realistically fear prosecution for his own military and extra-judicial adventures.

The above reasons and more will also assuredly prevent a foreign court from ever prosecuting a highly ranked American official, no less a former president. You make a good case in the abstract to try GWB in an international tribunal for breaches of international law. However, what the American people do not expect, and will not often tolerate at home, will certainly not result in proceedings on foreign soil. (See my expanded explanations of American distrust of foreign institutions in Replies #21 and #78). Let's not forget both that the U.S. has not even accepted the International Criminal Court and no country will risk a devastating military confrontation with us to force the turnover or capture of GWB to stand trial. Also, as a practical matter, all international accords and enforcement of international law are truly determined in the political sphere. No large country with significant military or economic influence, no less a permanent member of the security council, will ever see their current or former leaders subject to foreign or international justice. GWB will not be sitting in the Hague any time soon, nor will Tony Blair, Vladamir Putin, Barack Obama or any other Chinese, Russian, French, British or American official.

I should also note that your reference to a jury in connection with international justice is misplaced. Few countries, even established democracies, are as reliant on the jury system as the U.S. I do not believe that any major international civil or criminal court employs a jury. I cannot imagine the American electorate tolerating a group of unknown foreign jurists, speaking a foreign language, passing judgment on a U.S. official in a location few could find on a map without an jury to be seen, whether the defendant is GWB or any other American. The political fallout to any administration, and their political party and supporters that allowed such a spectacle, would be both epic and potentially violent.

In my opinion, only history and God will judge GWB.

[HardTimes99]

81. A magisterial response to my late-night fantasy. As perhaps a historical

curiosity, I thought you might be interested in the only war crimes tribunal thus far to reach a verdict on Bush and Blair:

In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.[7][8][9]

In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counselors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture.[10] The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission

Not sure whether this is an outlying relic or a harbinger. I prefer the latter, even if acknowledging the probable truth of your final sentence.

[branford]

82. Interesting.

I apologize if my responses seemed authoritarian or dismissive. I think it is just the trial lawyer in me that likes to deal with orderly, established frameworks and more immediate, easily implemented resolutions. Theoretical discussion of impractical "blue sky" solutions are often an expensive and time-consuming disservice to my clients which unreasonably raises their expectations and ultimately diminishes their faith in me and the judicial system.

I had not previously heard about the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. It is not unlike other "people's tribunals" employed by groups worldwide for a variety of purposes. I've read about a number of other groups who use similar mechanisms to protest ecological and environmental crimes.

Although a private enterprise, with no direct, formal governmental or international authority or jurisdiction, the KLWCC and similar organizations are certainly not without merit. As with any form of activism or political protest, it draws the public's attention to abuse, corruption and illegality, and pressures real authorities to act. I cannot say whether these unrecognized tribunals are a fringe curiosity or herald a new dynamic, but over time they may in fact change our political and legal culture.

[branford]

41. You Nixon reference fails to address the OP or our discussion.

First, I'll politely choose to ignore the surprising, unwarranted and unsubstantiated insult to my legal knowledge or capabilities.

Your OP concerned whether a former president could or would face a criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or presently, not if they were immune to prosecution during their tenure in the presidency. Although you correctly reference the murky legal issue of whether a president is immune to criminal prosecution during their service, it bears little relevance to the immunity issue after their service is complete. Also, you should note that the Nixon issue you cite was more recently relevant in connection with Bill Clinton. In Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court unanimously held that a sitting president cannot delay or avoid a civil suit until after the end of his term in office. Nevertheless, I do not see how either the Nixon or Clinton cases address your fundamental questions of whether former presidents are immune to criminal prosecution, of if criminal prosecution is permissible, whether it is politically viable.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. 1) There is a 5-year statute of limitations. 2) He has and has had de facto immunity from Obama.

[brooklynite]

34. I've asked this before and I'll ask again...

...what is the SPECIFIC crime for which Bush could be charged.

"Lying us into a war" is a nice line but it's not criminal if he wasn't under oath.

"Torturing prisoners" might be a better shot, except that the counter argument will be that he had legal advice that "enhanced interrogation" was legally justified.

Consider the fact that no elected official (liberal or moderate) called for his impeachment when he was in office, and no elected official has called for his subsequent indictment.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. You say that "no elected official" called for Bush's impeachment? Do you remember this guy?

The one who offered 35 Articles of Impeachment of Bush?

Here's where you can find the 35 Articles.
http://www.democrats.com/files/amomentoftruth.pdf

Nancy Impeachement-is-off-Table Pelosi and other corporate Democrats stopped it.

Kucinich was not the only one to call for Bush's impeachment.

[branford]

45. Huh????

I know that I'm really going to regret asking, but . . .

What exactly are the purported crimes of Bush '41?

What exactly are the purported crimes of Jeb Bush?

How, legally, did Bush '41, use his son, an elected president, "as an obstruction of justice?"

What other "facts" are hidden and what is the "much much larger picture?"

How was Dennis Kucinich a tool for either Bush '41 or '43?

Are you really alleging that Bush '43 did not pardon (but nevertheless commuted the prison sentence of) Scooter Libby to punish his father?

How is President Obama, or anyone else, covering up the "crimes" of Bush '41 and/or Jeb Bush?

As it relates to your OP, what are the alleged "current" crimes of Bush '41, Jeb Bush and Bush '43?

[brooklynite]

47. I stand corrected --- and you've made my point

The only voice in favor of impeachment was the most fringe liberal in the House? Who were the co-sponsors. Anyone?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) was one. It would be necessary to use Google to find others.

[LWolf]

57. Thank you for remembering this. nt

[branford]

43. Amen. Thank you.

Bush may be a rightfully convicted war criminal in the court of public opinion, but any chance of conviction of crimes in a U.S. court is, at best, legally dubious and politically untenable.

[rusty fender]

55. I checked out your blog

I doubt that your personal dispute with the FL Bar will result in the indictment of anyone, let alone a former U.S. POTUS and former FL Gov.

I realize that when a person has been wronged, he/she may believe it to be a most grievous wrong in such a dispute as yours, but it rarely rises to a criminal indictment. And "connecting the dots" in your own head is not the proof a grand jury looks for when considering a case.

I would love to see the Bushes indicted for their various crimes, but...it ain't never gonna happen

[rusty fender]

62. I hear you

As much as I would like your complaint to the FL Bar to result in the action of which you speak, I have my doubts that anything will come of it. The lawyers involved will protect their friends.

I think that you will find that the FL Bar is as corrupt as the lawyers you refer to.

I hope you lay out this situation for the world to see, because everyone seeing it is the only way that "justice" will be served.

[branford]

67. The Florida Bar Associate Cannot Indict Anyone

The Florida Bar Association only has jurisdiction over the professional conduct of lawyers in Florida. As with any professional disciplinary body, they will investigate complaints, and if substantial evidence is found that an attorney has breached the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, they will conduct a disciplinary hearing. If the complaint is sustained, the most severe sanction that they may impose is the disbarment of the attorney, subject to appeal. The entire process is considered a civil action, not criminal. While disbarment is usually the result of a criminal conviction, disbarment itself is neither a criminal conviction nor conclusive evidence of criminal conduct.

If the Florida Bar Association discovers what they believe to be criminal conduct by a Florida attorney, they will turn over the evidence to the local district or state attorney for state crimes, or the local United States Attorney for federal crimes. The decision to seek a criminal indictment is solely within the discretion of the district, state or US attorney. Again, the Florida Bar Association has no criminal charging authority or jurisdiction.

The RICO complaint you reference is not a criminal matter. The RICO statute provides for both civil and criminal remedies. For your reference, in Florida, unless you see the People of the State of Florida or the United States as a party, the matter is only civil in nature. The docket number also indicates whether a matter is civil or criminal.

Also note that a complaint, regardless of whether it is civil or criminal, does NOT constitute evidence in any federal, state or local jurisdiction in the United States. It is simply a series of allegations that a civil plaintiff or the State, if criminal, seeks to prove through admissible evidence at trial. Filing a complaint is a very long way, legally, from the imposition of civil or criminal liability or penalties. Similarly, newspaper editorials and other opinions, no matter how prominent the author, are not considered evidence.