Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story [View all]Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)17. Funny that the judge ruled that his actions were not unethical but you claim that he was...
Oh, who to believe...
The only specific example I've ever seen raised in support of this innuendo was a 2001 ruling on the propriety of my tape recording of a witness which arose in a First Amendment free speech case I litigated in defense of a white supremacist church. When I was in my office in New York (where tape recording witnesses was permitted), I interviewed a witness by telephone who was in Illinois (where tape recording witnesses was not permitted). There was a split in legal authority on which rule applied: the rule of the jurisdiction where the recorder was physically located, or where the witness was physically located. The American Bar Association had expressly ruled that surreptitious tape recordings of witnesses by lawyers was permitted.
I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done:
There was zero sanction, penalty, or any other form of disciplinary action proposed or taken as the result of that. As the district court judge said, it was a "difficult" question on which there was conflicting precedent and the arguments for the legality of the tape recording were "reasonable". Anyone claiming that this was a finding of unethical behavior or that I was sanctioned in any way is either lying or ignorant. I continued to practice law for six years after that.
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html
I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done:
Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.
There was zero sanction, penalty, or any other form of disciplinary action proposed or taken as the result of that. As the district court judge said, it was a "difficult" question on which there was conflicting precedent and the arguments for the legality of the tape recording were "reasonable". Anyone claiming that this was a finding of unethical behavior or that I was sanctioned in any way is either lying or ignorant. I continued to practice law for six years after that.
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
55 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You have provided a perfect example of what the article is saying. Both Clemons and Greenwald
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#7
I don't have anyone on ignore, I love debate, even more with those who 'can't get anything left'.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#14
Not to mention Greenwald character assassinates anyone who disagrees with him.
JaneyVee
Jun 2013
#31
Most of those you mentioned are either dead or they are not who the general public get their
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#39
Dragging up an old legal case again? I haven't clicked, but is that the one where the judge
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#12
"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#32
Funny that the judge ruled that his actions were not unethical but you claim that he was...
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#17
Thank you again. Disgusting attempt to smear a man because of a political disagreement.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#23
"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two"
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#33
You can weasel your way all around it but the judge's words are clear. As for your "A 52-page
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#34
Mr. Greenwald and I are also quoting the ruling. And I asked for a link to the originial case the
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#42
I gave you the cite. Kindly read what you are opining on. Heck...I even gave you an online
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#45
I've given you the citation. I also gave you an online resource. Why haven't you read the case
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#46
I have read the contents of your link. It has nothing about a 52-page transcript...
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#47
You provide a cititation but can provide no link to assess the veracity. Nice racket
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#49
Let me see if I have this correctly...you are unable to access the cases you opine on?
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#50
You gave me the link to the appeal. Can you or can you not give me a link to the original case.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#51
If you have the cite, look it up! Don't know how to do that? Then perhaps you
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#52
Congratulations on parroting a Little Green Footballs comment TO THE LETTER.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#53
Look at the dates--LGF and Crooks and Liars copied me. LGF links to my OP on DU.
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#54
News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. Lord Northcliffe
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#41