Legalectric

A deeply disturbing thread from Holly Brewer this morning. When attorneys submit pleadings, signing them means they’re truthful. Above is an example of tRump’s attorneys turning history in a dizzying 180, purposely claiming that “being formally brought to public Justice” was unconstitutional. The framers specifically did not want former office holders, specifically a Magistrate, to be “formally brought to public Justice.” Public justice then was to be hung, drawn, and quartered, and in the situation that’s “unconstitutional,” a verdict of not guilty was improperly reversed , and that Magistrate was “formally brought to public Justice.” Instead, the framers though the best form of public justice was that a person be publicly tried. Not immune from prosecution, but publicly tried.

tRump’s attorneys argue that “public Justice” of a trial is unconstitutional and rely on that false 180 claim in their “Historical Sources Support Immunity” section of their Supreme Court brief.

It seems to me that that gross and deliberate false claim, TO THE SUPREME COURT, their statement, theory is not just sanctionable, not just something someone should lose their law license over, but that they should be “formally brought to public Justice.” As far as lawyering goes, this is as bad as it gets, other than doing the hanging, drawing and quartering personally.

To be admitted to the Supreme Court Bar, the oath is pretty straightforward:

The attorneys licensed by the Supreme Court bar better be filing those ethics complaints to the Bar.