Skip to main content

More Facts; Fewer F#(K Y@Us.

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 found my speech, that was less a criticism than it was a demand for justice, an intolerable breach of ethics and an affront to the "sacred profession" of law.  States' rights aside, apparently Knoll and the rest of the Court (except for Justice Hughes, who took no part in the decision) are kind of selective in which rights are sacrosanct and which - for instance free speech a la the 1st Amendment -aren't. 
I can't help but wonder - are they really that out of touch with their own hubris that they don't recognize the utter hypocrisy they're spewing?  Did they collectively claw their way to the pinnacle of the justice system in Louisiana because their understanding of "justice" is too threatening and arbitrary to risk standing on the other side of the bench?  Are they a pack of sociopaths who actually think that depriving me of a law license teaches me some kind of lesson: Don't fuck with us or we'll ... kick you out of our club? Or are they just stupid?

Given those choices, I'm going to give them all the benefit of the doubt and conclude, just stupid. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roadmap to Disbarment

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 (...
8 comments
Read more

Dear Mr. President,

  Dear Mr. President, I understand that you have some questions about why people serve and what's in it for them. Well, I can't speak for anybody but me, but perhaps my first-hand experience can offer you some insight, if not true understanding. I served 4.5 years on active duty in the US Coast Guard and when I left active duty to go to college, I remained in the active reserves. In November 1990, to my utter surprise, I was involuntarily activated for Desert Storm in the midst of my Fall Semester of my senior year in college. My initial orders were for 90 days, which I served in Galveston as a Small Boat coxswain. Our boat crews provided security to cargo vessels traversing the Houston Ship Channel loaded with military equipment and supplies headed for the Persian Gulf. It was the very antithesis of exciting or dangerous. As my involuntary orders were winding down, I was asked to volunteer for a brand new Port Security Directorate that the Coast Guard had formed in response...
Post a Comment
Read more

Home of the brave?

The author People - mostly people who call themselves republicans - keep asking, "what's wrong with a 'temporary' ban to make sure people coming here aren't terrorists?" Here's my two biggest complaints: 1) There is no evidence that this "temporary" ban (indefinite for Syrian refugees) is based on any imminent threat from those people who have already been subjected to extensive vetting (over two years) and are now cleared to come here but for Trump's ban; and 2) even if the current vet ting process could be better, and keep people here in the US "safer" (from foreign-born terrorists), we are already infinitely safer than so many of the people coming here, and certainly all of the refugees who are fleeing, literally, unimaginable horror, at least if you've lived here you entire life. Is there a risk that a "bad" person will slip past all of the extensive screening we already have in place? Sure - there is abs...
4 comments
Read more