Posted on 12/23/2020 10:26:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Because that is the ethical thing to do.
An ethical lawyer, when asked to comment on an active case, must always respond “I have no comments on an active case, but I direct you to read the court pleadings which are publicly available.”
And he advises his client to do the same.
You litigate your case in a court of law, where rules of discovery and evidence are enforced. You do not put on a show for the media.
Ran out of clients?
The Shrine of Lourdes in France has a very, very long reputation of miracles reportedly occurring to people who visit there.
Someone please let me know when ONE miracle occurs at this piece of16th Street in DC.
You’re being specious with regard to press reports only being about active cases and not broadsides meant to impugn.
“gag order” not bizarre?
nubie. well that’s an opinion really, so i’ll give my two cents: at a minimum any “gag order” in our nation is bizarre. you sound like a lawyer, maybe you should just re-read the 1st Amendment.
just coming here and citing yet another corrupt group of “consensus” based, failed professional experts, you got a long way to go in order to understand why our nation is in the fix is in and why the fix is going in from our ruling elites, like the ones you cite.
anonymously attacking a regular patriot like Lin Wood ad hominem, who walks his talk fearlessly, will get nothing but suspicion about your true motives from me.
Who is the old crone in pink behind Pelosi? I looked quick and thought it was a mirror image of her or that they cloned Pelosi. Looks the same with the same hairdo.
Complacency, bread and circuses, for most, is my theory.
When Lin Wood said Georgians shouldn’t vote in the Senate runoffs, I knew he was F’ing NUTS.
I think part of the "derision" is that some who are suffering from mental illness of certain types become cantankerous, hostile and irrational - even threatening or dangerous. They can be very disruptive, and take up 125% of our attention and emotional energy.
It's not something any of us enjoys dealing with. We discount them and give them a clear berth, when we can.
When they are in our lives and faces, though, "contempt" is inevitable.
I am a lawyer, and the First Amendment is not absolute. Speech that is defamatory, or solicits a crime is not protected. Similarly, leaking trade secrets or state secrets is not protected. Speech that incites violence is not protected. Speech that prejudices active judicial proceedings is not protected. And there are lots of other exceptions.
Most people think legal ethics rules are too lax. I guess you feel they are not lax enough, and lawyers should be given unfettered discretion to do and say whatever they want.
Thank you for your opinion. Neither the American Bar Association, nor any of the State Bar Associations or this particular court agree with you.
thanks for your comment. it tracks with what i was thinking about you.
nothing’s absolute. that’s a vacuous statement on its face.
“legal ethics” or morality? all true morality and law derives directly from the Bible, including ours.
i don’t see God muzzling the truth anywhere in the Bible. but maybe you can cite the Scripture that supports your view. the only one who knows the Truth is God and the parties themselves, not a group of consensus so called experts or a third party judge.
and yeah. i’m not a fan of of consensus expert groups. their track record speaks for itself: we now have a justice system where justice and truth are almost impossible to come by for everyday Americans. i’ll take the word of Lin Wood over the current American justice system and any advocate for it, in a heartbeat.
and with that. peace to you friend. have the last word if you want. i’ve said mine.
I think, dadfly, gid and country is being a gadfly.
It is unbelievable. Of course, any conclusions drawn from a deliberate telling by one side can be proved foolish when all the facts come to light.
Contrary to !awyers harrumping about trying cases only in court as a basis for gag orders, we do not have a system of secret courts and secret trials. There is a First Amendment public right of access to courts, and parties and their lawyers have First Amendment rights to discuss their cases publicly. In this instance, protection of the commercial reputations of Dominion and Smartmatic are not a valid basis for a gag order.
Next time I’m in court, I will tell the judge that a “Mr. dadfly” from FR told me the moral thing to do is to disregard the rules of ethics, rules of civil procedure, rules of evidence, even the First Amendment to the Constitution, as unambiguously interpreted by SCOTUS, and substitute all of them with standards of morality derived from dadfly’s application of scripture to his limited knowledge of facts.
I will also let the judge know that dadfly is sulking in FR because his feelings have been hurt by the American judicial system.
I will let you know how it turns out.
On a serious note, Wood is an incompetent attorney whose error-prone pleadings resulted in humiliating and repeated defeats that make the Egyptian Air Force of 1967 seem like triumphant warriors. He accomplished exactly ZERO for PDJT. He is a conman who stole money from his own partners. And he will be disbarred. Watch and wait.
A very, very Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
First, you are wrong regarding a lawyer’s ability to discuss active litigation cases, and I cited the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct. Courts issue gag orders and protective orders all the time.
Second, you are wrong about the facts of the lawsuit. The lawsuit where a gag order was imposed has nothing to do with Dominion. It is Wood’s former partners suing him for stealing law firm money.
“He accomplished exactly ZERO for PDJT.”
Wood’s “don’t vote in the Georgia runoff” advice directly contradicts Donald Trump’s political ads telling/asking Georgia Republicans to get out and vote. Voter fraud in Georgia should be investigated, but in the meantime giving control of the U.S. Senate to the Dems also accomplishes exactly zero for Trump or Republicans.
These days, most gag orders are agreed by the parties based on wanting to avoid public airing of mutually damaging claims, such as in cases of salacious marital misconduct by both parties. Here the gag order is hurting Lin Wood by denying him the opportunity to respond to public allegations by former law partners. To me, that is dirty pool abetted by a bad judge.
Allegedly.
Of course. The country judge call the prosecution, and asks him to present the case. As soon as he hears it, he stamps the gavel down. "Guilty!"
"Wait a minute," says the defendant. You haven't heard my side."
"OK, go ahead," says the judge.
After the defendent finishes, the judge shakes his head.
"I'll be darned," the judge says, "A minute ago he was guilty. Now he's not guilty."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.