James O’Keefe Files Bar Complaints Against DOJ Lawyers

James O’Keefe has filed an ethics complaint with various bar associations against Department of Justice Civil Rights Attorney Karla Dobinski and three others arising out of a prosecution of police officers in New Orleans. PJ Media has covered Karla Dobinski’s ethical misconducthere and here.

Dobinski was in charge of the taint team in the prosecution of New Orleans polices officers on civil rights charges in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The taint team was responsible for protecting the Constitutional rights of the accused police officers. It is responsible for ensuring that evidence obtained in the local internal affairs investigation did not make it’s way into the criminal prosecution.

Judge Kurt Englehardt called the DOJ attorney misconduct “grotesque.” Despite that, Dobinski is still employed by the Criminal Section in the Civil Rights Division, the same component which is investigating the police in Ferguson, Missouri. Dobinski is also at the very top of the federal payscale, making in excess of $155,000 despite having engaged in grotesque misconduct.

Dobinski is a member of both the Wisconsin and District of Columbia bars. If either bar takes action against her, it is likely the other bar will follow. For example, if Dobinski were disbarred in Wisconsin for her behavior in the New Orleans police prosecution, should would likely be disbarred by the D.C. Bar.

Attorney General nominee will soon have to answer questions in confirmation hearings. One question that must be asked is whether it is wise to keep lawyers employed at the Justice Department who engaged in “grotesque” unethical conduct in the prosecution of police officers – especially when the nation is now alerted to pending matters in Ferguson and Staten Island.

Here is the new O’Keefe video describing the bar complaints against the DOJ lawyers:

Actually hitting someone on purpose with a thrown projectile is assault and battery. Not sure why he is not pursuing that. It is on the video.

I will tell you, this guy has b*lls of steel.

I just hope they don’t put a hit out on him.

Lt. Quarles Harris was not so lucky when they put a bullet in his head at point blank for accessing the half breed’s passport records.

there is no more precedence.

it is like the dog and pony show senate confirmations of USSC judges.

When a senator asks “will you respect stare decisis?” it is a red herring. That question is for the rubes in the audience. The USSC has the FULL authority to change ANY precident for ANY body of precedence.

there is no more precedence.
it is like the dog and pony show senate confirmations of USSC judges.

There's actually far, far more precedence than you might realize — just read the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States:

We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. […] When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

IOW, (1) they admit the speech was within Constitutional rights, but (2) they can be restricted when there is a war and[/or] they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent, even though (3) the first amendment says Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;.

So they blatantly ignored the universal, unqualified prohibition of the first amendment for expedience's sake. (This is especially common with 4th Amendment cases, like the justification of warrantless search).

When a senator asks “will you respect stare decisis?” it is a red herring. That question is for the rubes in the audience.

Stare decisis ought not be respected (at least for its own sake); it is the Constitution that ought to be respected.

The USSC has the FULL authority to change ANY precedent for ANY body of precedence.

Which is how it should be.
We should not be bound to keep bad, destructive decisions as binding.

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.