InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 42
Posts 7114
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/18/2020

Re: None

Wednesday, 08/25/2021 4:02:23 PM

Wednesday, August 25, 2021 4:02:23 PM

Post# of 804166
That the US Attorneys and hired legal counsel would argue that the reason for the nws was to prevent a death spiral IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE EVIDENCE RELEASED MADE PUBLIC YEARS AGO could be a discipline problem for these licensed attorneys.

This is from todays WSJ:

"I was struck by the blatant noncompliance by government lawyers with the strict ethical rules that bind members of our profession. This includes Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing or submitting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to "cause unnecessary delay." Rule 11 also provides a process for sanctioning violators.

President Biden (Mr. Garland's client) publicly stated he and his staff were "unable to find the legal authority" for the executive order despite checking multiple times. He also admitted he couldn't in good faith defend the order. But, the president said, "by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give additional time" for him to enforce his illegal order.

Ordinary practicing attorneys would be in grave danger of sanctions for filing a pleading knowingly unsupported by law or fact, and by admittedly filing the pleading for the purpose of delay. The U.S. attorney general should be no exception. In fact, those in power should be held to a stricter standard.

Wayne Detring

Franklin, Tenn."