Better Off Without a Lawyer


Bill Scmalfeldt’s new attorney, Michael J. Sorich is a member of the The Illinois State Bar Association, which has a code of conduct for lawyers. Rule 3.3 is a doozy.  

You can skip everything in dark green if you just remember this:   Michael J. Sorich cannot tell a lie of fact in court documents.  If he finds out there’s a lie being presented, he has to disclose the lie.  

RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

      (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

      (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

I’m not a lawyer, since the LSAT was really tough that year, but this seems to mean that anything in the Schmalfeldt lawsuit must be truthful.  John Hoge has already found a whopper, but I’m pretty sure there are more:

From Hogewash!

The words quoted in the complaint are preceded by these—

Oh, and just an aside…by the above I do not mean to suggest in any way that

which means that the words TDFS claims are defamatory are not words that Krendler offers as being true.

I think it would be highly unlikely that any lawyer would be willing to risk Rule 11 sanctions by allowing a client to make such a false allegation.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says in part…

By the way, you can skip the green letters below if you just remember:  Michael J. Sorich cannot tell a lie of fact in court documents.  If he finds out there’s a lie being presented, he has to disclose the lie.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; 

Source

One more thing: (They punish the law firm! You can skip this now.)

1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

Guess what?  All that was too long.  Most of you didn’t read it.  Bottom line:  Bill Schmalfeldt was better off without an attorney.  

For all those years we told lying lawyer jokes it turns out that lawyers need to be more honest than pro se characters typing away trying to sue the world. 

Better off without a lawyer.

Hold The Presses! College is for “freedom of inquiry…”


UPDATE: Northwestern State in Louisiana lets students have free speech two hours a week!Image result for schedule of free speech

A public university in Louisiana has a speech code that permits students to express their beliefs freely for two hours per week at three predetermined locations.

The Northwestern State University policy requires students to apply 24-48 hours in advance before holding a public demonstration or assembly, and limits such activities to “one, 2-hour time period every 7 days, commencing on Monday.”

Public demonstrations are limited to three locations on campus: the Student Union Plaza, Prather Coliseum East Parking Lot and a so-called “Green Space between CAPA and Varnado Hall.”

 



The Dean of Students at the University of Chicago says no safe places, trigger warnings and if we invite a controversial speaker, we will let them come and speak.

Well done.  Now, make it stick.

 

Source.

Why I Hate the Internet Now, #2,345 in a Series


Stuff like this under posts on reputable sights:

Melissa Gilbert

On the left, obviously Melissa Gilbert, of Little House on the Prairie.  On the right?  No idea.  But Melissa Gilbert looks like this these days:

 

She recently dropped out of a congressional race over health reasons, but it’s a bad back, not crack addiction.

Between these ads, and the slideshows which are linked, some web sites have just looked terrible lately.

I actually also object to the soft-core porn on the edges of websites, too.  “And the cameraman kept shooting…” Isn’t that the cameraman’s job?

And can we please stop Breitbart from sliding over to make room for an ad.  Really?

On Advice of Council


 

Billy Sez And I will do whatever I can 614x900

Previous plans to make all of you as miserable as possible have been put on hold.  Actually he said “On advice of counsel, there will be no further discussion of the lawsuit.”

By you, maybe.  I can’t trust Krendler, Sarah, Hoge or even myself. Oh, and BPO.  Probably Cousin Roy will comment as well.  

French Ban Burkini


“Must show cleavage or at least side-boob,” says French prosecutor.

Okay, I made up that quote.  The French are taking direct action against Muslim behavior, such as wearing a hijab, or even the swim suit apparently worn by women: the burkini.

Oddly enough, the same vocabulary of civil rights and freedom which Americans would use to defend the right of a woman to wear whatever she chooses is also being used by the French to demand more skin:

The New York Times:

 

According to France’s prime minister, Manuel Valls, the suit is part of “the enslavement of women.” In a newspaper interview, the mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, said: “The burkini is the uniform of extremist Islamism, not of the Muslim religion.”

These explanations may seem ludicrous, but Mr. Valls and Mr. Lisnard perfectly summed up the two contradictory public order rationales that European courts all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights use when dealing with Muslim women in religious garb. According to Europe’s highest court of human rights, Muslim women in head scarves and burqas are simultaneously victims, in need of a government savior, and aggressors, spreading extremism merely by appearing Muslim in public.



From The Guardian:

 

Photographs have emerged of armed French police confronting a woman on a beach and making her remove some of her clothing as part of a controversial ban on the burkini.

Strange days, indeed.

The Coming Free Speech Apocalypse


The Coming Free Speech Apocalypse

There is a good chance American enemies of American free speech will shortly mount a sustained and successful effort to drastically reduce American speech freedoms.

 

Daniel Payne of The Federalist:

America is not like that: in the United States, you can incite hatred against a gay gypsy Muslim bureaucrat, even specifically because he is a gay gypsy Muslim bureaucrat, and you will not be thrown in jail. In America you can say just about any offensive thing imaginable, directed at just about any group or person imaginable, and you’ll be okay. Add to that the strong protections for political speech that statute and Supreme Court precedent have established, and America is almost unique among the nations of the world in terms of freedom of expression. We have it good.



And why do you need to incite hatred against a gay gypsy Muslim bureaucrat?

You don’t of course, anymore than you need a gun, or the right not to quarter troops in your home (except in case of war) or you need so many other things that are actually rights.  That lady did not need to sit in the front of the bus.

Oh, yes I went there.  I sure did.

You might never need to argue for your right of free speech, unless you care about your community and nation.  If you’re meek and quiet, or you fear offending someone, free speech isn’t much of an issue.

Americans don’t understand the free expression rights included in the First amendment:

Some poll numbers suggest as much: two-thirds of Americans, for instance, think people who engage in “hate speech” are “more dangerous” than the people who would censor it. Among younger Americans—millennials—the polls indicate a staggering opposition to freedom of speech: out of 800 students polled at colleges across the country, more than a third believed the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” with a third also claiming the First Amendment is “outdated;” more than half believe colleges should have speech codes to police the speech of students and professors.



Paine mentions anti-free speech positions of both Trump and Hillary.  Actually, I don’t care about the presidential candidates in this.  I worry more when young people gleefully cut off the rights of others in order to create a more perfect world.

The lawfare being pursued by characters like Brett Kimberlin, the Twitter bannings, and Twitter lynch mobs…these are symptoms of a society which has forgotten that even hateful, hurtful speech needs to be tolerated.