Law & Law Enforcement

Ethics Foul Call: The Jeffrey Epstein Obsession Is a Pure Trump Derangement Symptom and Another “Get Trump!” Hoax, Nothing Else

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

At this point, the statement above must be ruled not an opinion, but a fact. As a fact, it is another indictment against the political forces—“the resistance,” Democrats, the Left’s captive media, its politicized and corrupted justice system, and furious Republicans who resent the overthrow of their weak Bushy establishment—-that have plotted to destroy Donald Trump from the moment he upset Hillary Clinton’s dream of being the first female President.

The New York Times, hardly a neutral bystander in the Left’s unyielding effort to destroy an elected President by any means necessary, recently published a compendium of what their crack reporters have learned about Epstein, who has been dead for seven years. Sixteen years ago, in 2008, he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution, and thanks to a “Dream Team” of high-priced defense lawyers and incompetent prosecutors, was allowed to accept a sweetheart plea deal. Epstein got himself indicted again in 2019 for sex trafficking minors but died in custody awaiting his trial, almost certainly by suicide. It is inconceivable that this single rich sociopath would still be in the news today or even remembered by most Americans if there was not an ongoing effort to use him to take down the President of the United States.

“More than 60 Times journalists have delved into the life of the sexual predator whose secrets spurred an international reckoning over money, power and complicity,” the Times announced in “The Big Questions About Jeffrey Epstein: What The Times Has Learned.” [Gift Link] “Oh!” I thought. “At least I know the Times will move heaven and earth to represent the matter in the most damning way possible regarding Donald Trump. Okay, let’s see it. Give us all the innuendo, the presumed Bad Orange Man criminal perversion sand guilt by association. What have you got, Times Trump Hit Squad? Lay it on me.”

Here is what they have under the “big question” “What were his relationships with Trump and Clinton?” First I should note that combining Trump with Clinton is a cheat and a guilt by association tactic all by itself. They are not equivalent cases. Clinton was involved with Epstein while Bubba was living in the White House and fooling around with a young female intern there. There is substantial circumstantial evidence raising legitimate questions about Clinton’s possible involvement in Epstein’s criminal sex procurement activities. The answer to that “big question” regarding Donald Trump however is, I conclude, zzzzzzzzzzzip.

The Times writes,

“Mr. Epstein was friends with Mr. Trump long before he became president, and he developed a relationship with Mr. Clinton during his time in the White House. Those relationships involved bonding with Trump over their pursuit of young women. The two men became good friends in the late 1980s, hanging out together at casinos, Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and other venues. A note and sexually suggestive drawing containing what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s signature was included in a 2003 book for Mr. Epstein’s birthday. Mr. Trump has denied writing the note. Some of Mr. Epstein’s victims, including [Epstein accuser] Giuffre, were recruited by Ms. Maxwell from Mr. Trump’s Florida club and residence, where Ms. Giuffre worked as a spa attendant. Mr. Trump said last year that he cut ties with Mr. Epstein in the early 2000s because he “stole” his female employees, although the relationship also deteriorated when the men fought over a piece of Florida real estate.”

Wait…that’s it? Based on that, Democrats, Graham Platner, Marjorie Taylor Greene and my Trump Deranged Facebook friends call the President of the United States a pedophile, allege a cover-up, and claim that everything Trump does, eventhe war on Iran, is an effort to “distract from the Epstein scandal”? What scandal? Two billionaires knowing each other isn’t a scandal because one of them breaks the law. Hanging out in casinos isn’t illegal or unethical. Rich guys pursuing young women isn’t a crime; heck, it is inevitable. I don’t know why Trump bothers to deny a doodle included in a birthday book: it proves nothing. And that’s all! That’s all the New York Times has after it has sent 60 reporters to get dirt on the President and seven years of searching.

Pages: 1 2

Combine The Societal Corruption Of Legal Sports Betting With The Ethics Void In Collegiate Sports With The Woke Delusion That Every Wrongdoer Is A Victim And You Get…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

…the head-exploding court decision that Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby is eligible to Big 12 football this season.

Sorsby had admitted placing at least 40 bets on Indiana football while he was playing for the Hoosiers, and approximately $90,000 in sports wagers using other people’s sportsbook accounts. He spent four years concealing his gambling from three different schools and only came clean once law enforcement swooped down on him. Now he says he is a gambling addict, and it would be hard to dispute that. The NCAA was alerted to Sorsby’s gambling in March. The organization notified Texas Tech of its investigation in April, and Texas Tech made Sorsby ineligible while it fought to have the star reinstated. Then Sorsby’s lawyers sued NCAA on May 18, seeking an injunction that would prevent the NCAA from banning him. And they were successful.

You won’t believe why, or maybe you will if you have followed the slippery slope of progressive enabling of wrongdoing. The judge’s logic: The NCAA would be harming a recovering gambling addict—poor lamb— by enforcing a rule that every pro sports league in this country enforces. Sorsby’s gambling history is a mental health and addiction issue, so the NCAA must consider his well-being and support him rather than punish him. Judge Ken Curry ruled that the quarterback would suffer “irreparable injury” if he isn’t granted a temporary injunction allowing him to play for the Texas Tech Red Raiders this season. To deprive him of the ability to “benefit from the elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide”would be unconscionable.

The fact that there is no way to be sure the gambling addict calling the plays hasn’t placed bets on his team’s point spread or isn’t under the metaphorical thumbs of organized crime or angry bookies, and been told that if his team doesn’t lose, his mother will be fish food? Never mind.

Pages: 1 2

Update on the Update: “Trump Derangement Update: A Conversation With a Sufferer”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

This post, which attracted a surprising amount of traffic for a sleepy Sunday, was also the target of cherry-picking criticism from some quarter, because that’s what progressives, Democrats and the Trump Deranged do when they can’t debate fairly on the substance.

“Your friend never ends up on substantive outrages? Not one? Ever?” “Does that mean the discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages and never substantive outrages?” The theme of the post was clear to anyone willing to consider it. A numbered point in the post also immediately became a current news flashpoint: I wrote,

4. The discussion keeps coming back to the Capitol riot and the fact that Trump keeps claiming that he “won” the 2020 election. My response is that it’s quite possible that he did win in 2020, though unlikely, and that nobody should care what he says he believes. (I suspect that Trump keeps saying this to drive people like my friend to the edge of madness.)

Now, see, let me be clear because there are readers out there incapable of fairly absorbing the issue. I regard the fact that Trump keeps saying that he won the election as non-substantive. It’s trolling. I regard his motivation for saying this very substantive. The Trump Deranged’s fury over his style and trolling technique is emblematic of how they (and the Axis that has indoctrinated them) are unwilling to focus on the serious, indeed dangerous, destruction of public trust that the Left’s assault on election integrity has inflicted on the nation. Here is a perfect example of where the reflex news media deflection to “Republicans pounce!” in order to distract the public from the unethical Democrat conduct that caused them to “pounce” is blazingly obvious.

When Trump walked out of the “Meet the Press” interview yesterday, the catalyst was his accusation that the primaries in California for Mayor of Los Angeles and Governor were rigged, just as the 2020 Presidential election was rigged. “Meet the Press” hostess Kristen Welker immediately, her face contorted with anger…

…took the Axis position: “You have no evidence!” But there is evidence. It is mostly circumstantial, but it is still evidence:

Pages: 1 2

I Played My Lawyer Card Today, and I Shouldn’t Have To

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

My father once told me that everyone should have a law degree to protect them from being cheated or scammed by other lawyers. He also said law school was the best way to be trained in rhetoric and logic as well as societal ethics, since the schools had abdicated those fields. As someone who seldom practiced law, Dad proved his claim that a law degree qualifies someone for lost of non legal jobs; for better or worse, people assume that lawyers are competent at management, negotiation, governing, and problem-solving. My experience has been the same as my father’s: I’ve been hired for lots of jobs requiring non-legal skills because I’m a lawyer.

This depressing episode, however, validated my father’s original endorsement of a law degree.

A couple of weeks ago, the News Mix channel on Direct TV suddenly disappeared. It was weird: first the message said I wasn’t subscribed, then it flipped to the message I get from the MLB channel when a Red Sox-Orioles game is blacked out, except instead of mentioning a baseball game, it said “News Mix” couldn’t be found, then said it was searching for another channel that had that “game.”

So I took a deep breath, knowing the horrors I would soon face, and called customer service. First the woman I finally reached after fighting with an AI bot gaslighted me and pretended that I was doing something wrong, because, she said, the channel was really there. Then she “checked” and said I wasn’t subscribed to the channel, which I knew was untrue: I have regularly checked it every morning to see how Fox News, CNN, MSNOW and BBC America were spinning the same stories, and what news each is deliberately ignoring or lying about. Channel 71 or 200 gave me access to those four stations and two weather channels. It’s part of my package. And it was gone. “Poof!”

After arguing with the agent, who had an indecipherable accent, she transferred me to a supervisor, who suspiciously sounded like the same person—could she have been pretending to be her own supervisor? But her clone was clearly smarter and spoke a bit clearer and slower. But this supervisor also tried to deny anything was wrong. After I argued with her for a while, she said, and I’m not kidding, “OK, I’m going to be honest with you: I received a complaint about NewsMix right before this call.”

OH! NOW you’re going to be honest and not pretend I’m making this up? Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you!

Asshole.

Pages: 1 2

Oh Great: Another Car Has Been Added To The Karmelo Anthony Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Ethics Alarms first mentioned the Karmelo Anthony case a year ago in the context of how completely screwed up woke Minnesota has become. Anthony, a teen who allegedly stabbed an unarmed white student to death at a school track meet, is the beneficiary of a GoFundMe effort that raised a large sum of money. Many conservative pundits wrote that this was a black backlash against a racist white woman who had attracted large donations to support her when a black man posted a video on social media that caught her in the act of calling him a “nigger.” I wrote in part,

“Anthony, who is black, is accused of stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, who was white, to death during a rain delay at their high school track meet. Anthony has not faced trial yet and claims that he in innocent by reason of self-defense. The online fundraising campaign on his behalf has raised over a half-million dollars. The clear difference between that and [the racist white woman’s] ill-gotten booty: Anthony hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet, and raising money for his defense is not, as some are claiming, the same as rewarding him for murdering a white kid. The accused teen’s family is the object of this fundraising campaign, and it is not inherently endorsing a black kid murdering a white kid to show sympathy for his family with a contribution.”

This ethics train wreck is still running. Anthony’s trial is finally getting started, and, naturally, the usual race-hustlers and victim-mongers are already claiming that the young man is another victim of racism by evil whites. Protesters were out in front of the courthouse chanting “Self-defense is not a crime!” They have no idea whether Karmelo has a legitimate self-defense case, but he’s black, so that’s all they need to know that he’s being framed by the racist justice system.

Pages: 1 2

On Capital Punishment Porn From The New York Times

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

“For 90 Minutes, I Watched an Execution Go Horribly Awry” [Gift link!]is an unethical opinion piece. It is manipulative and an appeal to emotion, while pretending to make a persuasive argument against capital punishment using deflection and misdirection, tying three separate ethics issues together as one. The author’s methodology is to argue that killing someone can be icky. So?

The author is a criminal defense lawyer, so you might think I should cut her some slack. I won’t. It is acceptable for a lawyer to use trickery, logical fallacies and rhetorical cheats to convince a jury, because that is what defense lawyers have to do to zealously represent their clients. A newspaper’s readers, however, are not jurors. A publisher and paper’s editors should maintain journalistic standards, which demand truthful communication that is not calculated to deceive or confuse. The New York Times, however, is not an ethical newspaper, and is interested in advancing agendas, not fair and responsible punditry. Even the headline is deceitful. Her client’s execution by lethal injection was botched, but he survived. His execution was delayed for a year by the governor. She doesn’t reveal that little detail until the next to last paragraph. Surprise! The execution attempt went ‘horrible awry,” but there was no execution.

Author Maria DeLiberato is a mission lawyer, meaning that she takes cases to accomplish a personal objective, in her case, opposing the death penalty. She begins by telling us that she believes Tony Carruthers, her condemned client, was wrongly convicted. That issue is 100% irrelevant to the focus of her article, which is that executions in Tennessee (and presumably elsewhere) are often botched and excruciatingly painful as a result, making them “cruel and unusual punishment,” an 8th Amendment violation. She argues that Carruthers was innocent, which is a different ethical issue entirely. A botched execution is exactly as painful and torturous whether the condemned is guilty or not. Like a good lawyer (but an unethical writer) DeLiberato pre-sets the dial to sympathy and indignation by framing Carruthers’ ordeal as an unjust one. But even a perfect, quick and painless execution of an innocent individual is wrong beyond redemption: it doesn’t become more wrong because the killing takes longer.

Pages: 1 2

“Swinging Dick” Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

In a case involving a spa for women that refused ​service to a transgender woman, Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissented from ‌the full court’s decision not to review the spa’s claims that a Washington state anti-discrimination law violated its constitutional rights. (You know, Washington state. It was discrimination not to allow a biological male who had decided he was now female to join and all-female spa and undress in a women’s locker room.) VanDyke’s dissent begins, “This is a case about swinging dicks.”

“You may think that swinging dicks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion,” the judge continued. “I hope we all can agree that it is far more ​jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa — some as young as 13 — to be visually assaulted by the real thing.”

Twenty-seven judges denounced VanDyke’s comments as “vulgar barroom talk” that could undermine public trust in the ⁠courts, including my old Georgetown Law Center classmate, Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who wrote separately that VanDyke’s “crass” language served only to distract from what she said was a routine case involving discrimination in public accommodations.

“It is certainly not a case involving ‘woke regulators’ and ‘complicit judges’ out ​to harm ‘women and young girls,'” she wrote.”Those assertions describe a case entirely different from the one presented to the panel.”

I hate to disagree with my distinguished classmate, especially since she’s judge and I’m just a…hell, I don’t know what I am. But the case was indeed about “swinging dicks.” Here’s the first paragraph of the decision:

Pages: 1 2

The ABA Issues An Ethics Opinion To Help Lawyers, Not Clients

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 523 titled “Engagement Agreements Allowing a Lawyer to Withdraw When the Client Fails Substantially to Fulfill an Obligation Regarding the Lawyer’s Services.” 

The opinion’s summary:

“Rule 1.16(b)(5) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits a lawyer to withdraw from a representation, or to seek the tribunal’s permission to do so, when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” This provision is ordinarily invoked when a client fails to fulfill an obligation regarding payment of legal fees and expenses. The engagement agreement may memorialize additional obligations of the client, both obligations that are otherwise implicit such as the client’s truthful cooperation with the representation, and further obligations insofar as they are not forbidden by the Rules, other law (including court rules), or public policy. A client’s persistent failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services, including obligations unrelated to payment of fees and expenses, may constitute a basis for withdrawal if the procedural requirements of Rule 1.16(b)(5) are met. Further, the lawyer’s engagement agreement may put the client on notice of permissible grounds for withdrawal under Rule 1.16(a) and (b), including the client’s failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services. However, the engagement agreement may not expand on the grounds for withdrawal set forth in Rule 1.16 or purport to alter or amend the grounds for withdrawal or the process for withdrawal required by the Rule.”

The ABA is being coy. Traditionally, because, you know, we lawyers are professionals and are not in it for the money but rather for the good of society, lawyers aren’t automatically allowed to drop deadbeat clients because they have stopped paying. It is not unusual for a judge to refuse to allow an attorney to withdraw for that reason, and there is another Catch 22: the confidentiality rules in most states forbid a lawyer from telling a judge that a client isn’t paying his or her legal bills, or can’t.

One coded message that some jurisdictions wink at is “Your honor, I request to withdraw because Mr. Green is unavailable at this time.” Of course, coded violations of confidentiality are still violations. Now the American Bar Association is saying that “the client’s failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services” makes dropping that client reasonable and ethical. This is supposed to be a profession. But for most lawyers out there, it’s all about the money.

The ABA’s pronouncements aren’t binding on anyone, remember.

The full opinion here. 

No, John Brown Is NOT a Role Model For “Social Justice Reformers,” and Anyone Who Says So —Like Hakeem Jeffries’s Brother—Is Both Unethical and Dangerous

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I co-wrote a book about Clarence Darrow (you can buy it here: it’s cheap), and one of the points I made in the Introduction was that the U.S.’s most famous trial lawyer also believed in terrorism. Well, Darrow had his quirks, and he frequently argued that one of his murderer clients should be acquitted because the murder was justified (it worked, too!). He was ethically and morally wrong about Brown, as I asserted here in a post that republished a shortened version of Darrow’s famous eulogy for the anti-slavery vigilante. It was written long after Brown’s death, of course; Darrow used to deliver the speech on anniversaries of Brown’s birthday on May 8. The most famous section of Darrow’s passionate speech:

“The radical of today is the conservative of tomorrow, and other martyrs take up the work through other nights, and the dumb and stupid world plants its weary feet upon the slippery sand, soaked by their blood, and the world moves on.”

Darrow was an early progressive when the movement began, on the extreme end. In his “ends justifies the means” glorification of violence as a means of social change, we can see the seeds of where modern progressives have gone off the metaphorical rails and become a genuine threat to the rule of law and democracy. In Darrow’s time (he was active from 1890 to 1932) there were few progressives who would go as far as Darrow, though the anarchists did. They were the terrorists of the day, but Darrow defended labor leaders who also believed that murdering the exploitive capitalist here and there as well as their political enablers was the right thing to do.

Thus Darrow defended “Big Bill” Haywood (February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928), an American labor organizer, a founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party of America. “Big Bill” was indicted for engineering the booby-trap murder of Frank Steunenberg, a former governor of Idaho. Darrow got “Big Bill” off (Just look at this guy! You just know he did it.)…

….but by arguing that even if he was guilty, its shouldn’t matter because he was on the right side. Fortunately, Darrow’s arguments in favor of just murder were confined to the courtroom and his John Brown eulogy once a year.

This week, Hasan Kwame Jeffries , an Ohio State University history professor and the brother of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, declared in a social media post that “John Brown understood that the only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary. He was right then. He is right now.” Gee, do you think Prof. Jeffries is at odds with his brother in this appeal to violence? I doubt it.

Prof. Turley has called out the Democratic House minority leader for encouraging violence on the Left, and lionizing John Brown is literally a justification of violence. If Republicans and the news media don’t confront Democrats and the party’s leaders with Prof. Jeffries’s words, they are being negligent and irresponsible.

Pages: 1 2

On Trying To See Both Sides Of The Illegal Immigration Issue…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments
A Guest Post by Ryan Harkins

[This guest post’s origin was the most recent Open Forum. Personally, I don’t believe there is a rational, ethical, realistic “other side” to the issue. As I wrote in a longer response to Ryan that you can read here, “the issue of illegal immigration is quite simple. It’s against the law. It’s against the law because open borders to a country like the US is literally national suicide…The immigration laws we have, flawed or not, have to be enforced uniformly and strictly.”—JM]

My wife and I have been debating the illegal immigration issue on and off for a while now, and part of the reason we keep returning to ethics of the illegal immigration issue is the fact that so many in leadership in the Catholic Church have been very critical of Trump’s deportation efforts.  As faithful Catholics, we believe we need to listen when our bishops speak.  It doesn’t mean we mindlessly agree, but in cases where the bishops take a position we initially oppose, it is incumbent upon us to study and ponder the issue as thoroughly as we can before making any objections.  

To that end, my wife and I are trying to be as open as we possibly can regarding the issue of how to manage people who are in our country and in our local communities illegally.  I have told her that I think the best way to understand a viewpoint with which we disagree is to argue from that viewpoint and to steelman its arguments as best we can.  Interestingly enough, my wife and I do highlight differing aspects of why we have problems with illegal immigration.  I focus very heavily on the human trafficking issue.  She focuses very heavily on the financial injustices the illegal immigration causes. 

From the trafficking standpoint, I think that is it clear that a lot of illegal immigrants end up practically as slave labor, which has largely been overlooked because it seems like it keeps prices down in the supermarket.  But far more devastating is the sex trafficking which never seems to get the attention it deserves, especially when so many of these “lost and displaced children” end up serving the debauched desires of affluent Americans who believe they can continue their predations because “Who would dare contact the authorities?”. 

Pages: 1 2