To Earnest, with Love

It should be obvious by now that if someone is determined NOT to know the truth, then it doesn’t matter how much truth is put in front of her or him, the truth will be ignored.  But for anyone interested in facts underlying my journey to disbarment, here they are. The underlying events dealt with allegations of abuse of two small children which gave rise to a custody case in Mississippi, an intra-family adoption case in Louisiana, and a petition seeking emergency relief, also filed in Louisiana. On July 20, 2011, Chancellor Deborah Gambrell, the Mississippi judge presiding over the custody case in Mississippi, issued  an illegal order  affecting custody and visitation of the children. The order was issued without prior notice to mom, and it was done in the judge's chambers so there was no record of what was said. Those two factors alone make is absolutely null, according to the U.S. Constitution and Mississippi law. The order allowed dad to have supervised (by his mother w

That was the advice my friend and attorney, Richard Ducote, gave me when I sat down to write this application for rehearing to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  That proved even more challenging than I imagined, so it's not my best legal work, but the ultimate product, I think, gets my point across with only a couple of "kiss my @ss"es.    Not that I think it's going to make an iota of difference.  If the Court was ever interested in the facts, or the law, it could not have published that tortured, contrived, largely fictional analysis underlying their opinion that I should be disbarred. ( In Re McCool, 2015-DB-0284 (La 06/30/2015 )).  And not that I care what the individual - ahem - justices think.  Knoll called the U.S. Supreme Court justices "attorneys in black robes" a half dozen times or so in her outraged concurrence in Costanza v. Caldwell , 14-2090 (La. 7/7/15) and pretty much accused them of wiping their collective asses with our Constitution, but fo

I've come to the not-so-un-obvious conclusion that we, as a nation, are all concerned with the wrong terrorists. It's not ISIS, or ISIL or radical Islam in general that is the preeminent threat to our freedom and security - it's judges, and attorneys who aspire to be liked by judges. How many people really understand that you can't do anything to a judge (legally) no matter what they do to you or your family?  Until you've seen it, lived it, fought it and lost your kids in it, most Americans cannot wrap their heads around the very simple fact that any judge anywhere can take everything from you - your job, your home, your life - even your kids, and do it maliciously and without any regard for the law, and you have absolutely no recourse.  It's called judicial immunity.  Look it up.  Stump v. Sparkman,  435 U.S. 349 (1978).   It's our fault, you know.  Well, not mine really. I've seen the little beasties behind the curtain; the sociopaths wearing

"And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican Government, with limited and defined powers, we have a Government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court."  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857) Justice Curtis, dissenting at p. 621. I am finally getting around to reading the US Supreme Court's decision finding that states cannot bar same sex marriages.  Although I pe