It appears that the adoring attorneys with their arms around Donald Trump are likely to have their licenses pulled. An attorney from Washington, D.C. Patrick Malone picked up the lead and went after three of them. Finally, some punishment for ill deeds. So what does that mean?
Malone filed two separate complaints against Julia Z. Haller, Lawrence Joseph, and Brandon Johnson. He filed the complaints with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Office of Disciplinary counsel, according to Law & Crime.
The complaint was regarding Gohmert v. Pence. Gohmert (R-TX) filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to “reconfigure a post-Reconstruction law.” The purpose of the lawsuit basically boiled down to changing the law in order to give former Vice-President Mike Pence the legal right to decide the 2020 presidential election winner.
When the suit was thrown out, Gohmert took it to a federal appellate court with the same results. He even took his suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to consider it with a one-line sentence. The suit claimed:
‘[Each of the three attorneys] seriously violated the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct [with] unethical.’
Malone’s complaint said these Texas Republicans’ lawsuit was frivolous:
‘[The improper conduct] seriously interferes with the administration of justice. It was based on facts that had no evidentiary support, and its core legal argument [and] could not pass any test of good faith.’
So what exactly is a frivolous lawsuit. Enjurist wrote:
‘A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit that has no legal merit. To put it simply, a frivolous lawsuit has no basis in law or fact. A frivolous lawsuit has no legitimate legal or factual support. Ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous, and nonsensical—these are all words that can be used to describe a frivolous lawsuit. ‘
In addition, Malone claimed the attorneys submitted “a fake document” to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The purpose of doing so was to falsely insinuate the Arizona State Legislature agreed to the challenges to the accuracy of the state’s November election results:
‘Close study of the [lawsuit] and its Exhibit A shows that the lawyers who presented the [lawsuit] knew they were trying to pull a fast one on the federal court in Texas where they brought this case,. They inserted weasel words in their various references to the Arizona Legislature in an apparent effort to give them a fig leaf if caught.’
The second complaint named just Haller and Johson. It linked the “failed-and-ridiculed legal crusade” by conspiracy theorist attorney Sidney Powell for Donald Trump. She filed four lawsuits trying to justify those conspiracies. The so-called Kraken lawsuits provided a direct link to Gohmert:
‘The presenting attorneys used the Courts to amplify frivolous and dangerous allegations that they understood or should have understood would do harm to the public view of the judicial process itself. [These] frivolous lawsuit[s] w[ere] nothing less than an effort to use the courts of this country to attack and cannibalize the institutions that make this country a democracy and not an autocracy.’
These complaints also claimed a “direct line” from the attorney to the “mob attacks” on January 6:
‘I respectfully request that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigate this matter, that the Board of Professional Responsibility hold one or more hearings as appropriate, and that these lawyers be sanctioned for these serious violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.’
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.