CLINTON’S LAWYER JUST GOT SOME REALLY BAD NEWS
Post# of 65629
(Total Views: 449)
Posted On: 03/04/2019 11:14:36 PM
CLINTON’S LAWYER JUST GOT SOME REALLY BAD NEWS
THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS HAS NOW HEARD ARGUMENTS FOR THE DISBARMENT OF HILLARY’S LAWYERS WHO DELETED WORK-RELATED EMAILS WHILE THEY WERE UNDER SEVERAL SUBPOENAS.
The court gave no indication of how they would rule but they did deny a defense motion to remove the cameras from the proceeding, indicating that they want full transparency on the charges.
The question before the court is whether or not the lawyers broke the law by destroying evidence against Hillary. That seems obvious.
The fly in the ointment is that under the rules at the time that lawyer Ty Clevenger filed the complaint, he had no standing.
But at the time, Hillary and her lawyers insisted that the emails were personal and not work-related.
However, the FBI found thousands of the emails and they were definitely work-related. Comey said so himself on national TV.
At this point, Ms. McDonald said, any request would also have to happen under the new rules that took effect last summer — after Mr. Clevenger’s complaint, but before the lower court’s hearing — that allows complaints to be tossed because the complainer doesn’t have knowledge.
“That rule became effective August 1, 2017 and applies to all pending litigation as well as future complaints,” Ms. McDonald told The Washington Times in an email Friday after the hearing. “Under that rule, it is clear that Bar Counsel has discretion to decline a complaint that is not based on personal knowledge but instead is derived from published news reports of third-party sources.”
She also dismissed Mr. Clevenger’s complaint that Mr. Kendall and the other lawyers are being treated better than a non-politically connected lawyer would have been. She said a complaint about another lawyer that wasn’t based on personal knowledge “could likewise be declined under this rule.”
Clevenger is now appealing to members of Congress with personal knowledge of the destruction of the protected emails to file a complaint in case the Appeals Court rules against him.
http://threepercenternation.com/2019/02/haha-...te%20%233)
Court tosses attempt to punish Clinton lawyers over email scandal
Maryland’s top court this week rejected an attempt to punish Hillary Clinton’s lawyers for their role in deleting her emails, overturning a lower court that had approved a misconduct investigation.
Activist lawyer Ty Clevenger, who had demanded the investigation, said the state Court of Appeals “whitewashed” the case, protecting David Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson from facing penalties for their activity.
The court ruled that Mr. Clevenger had gone to the wrong court in seeking to force the state bar counsel to investigate. Instead of going to a circuit court, he should have gone straight to the Court of Appeals, they ruled.
“This court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters,” the judges said in their Thursday ruling, overturning the lower court’s order to investigate.
The judges also said they have rejected Mr. Clevenger’s cross-petition request to order the investigation.
Mr. Clevenger said on his blog, lawflog.com, that amounted to a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation.
“It’s hard to win an argument when the court refuses to hear it,” he said.
He also said the court made things even tougher when it changed the rules midway through the process and after he’d already brought the complaint.
Under the old rules the bar counsel was required to open an investigation into an allegation of lawyer misconduct. Under the new rules the bar counsel retains much more discretion to refuse to conduct an investigation.
Mr. Clevenger said that allows politics to come into play — and in deep-blue Maryland, that means Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers are not likely to face a probe.
“Of course, if a peon lawyer like me had intentionally destroyed evidence that was covered by congressional and court subpoenas, he or she would have been disbarred and sent to prison (although not necessarily in that order). But Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills, and Ms. Samuelson are covered by the Clinton protection racket, ergo they need not worry about the rules and laws that apply to mere mortals,” Mr. Clevenger wrote.
He has raised bar complaints in a number of jurisdictions against Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun...on-lawyer/
THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS HAS NOW HEARD ARGUMENTS FOR THE DISBARMENT OF HILLARY’S LAWYERS WHO DELETED WORK-RELATED EMAILS WHILE THEY WERE UNDER SEVERAL SUBPOENAS.
The court gave no indication of how they would rule but they did deny a defense motion to remove the cameras from the proceeding, indicating that they want full transparency on the charges.
The question before the court is whether or not the lawyers broke the law by destroying evidence against Hillary. That seems obvious.
The fly in the ointment is that under the rules at the time that lawyer Ty Clevenger filed the complaint, he had no standing.
But at the time, Hillary and her lawyers insisted that the emails were personal and not work-related.
However, the FBI found thousands of the emails and they were definitely work-related. Comey said so himself on national TV.
At this point, Ms. McDonald said, any request would also have to happen under the new rules that took effect last summer — after Mr. Clevenger’s complaint, but before the lower court’s hearing — that allows complaints to be tossed because the complainer doesn’t have knowledge.
“That rule became effective August 1, 2017 and applies to all pending litigation as well as future complaints,” Ms. McDonald told The Washington Times in an email Friday after the hearing. “Under that rule, it is clear that Bar Counsel has discretion to decline a complaint that is not based on personal knowledge but instead is derived from published news reports of third-party sources.”
She also dismissed Mr. Clevenger’s complaint that Mr. Kendall and the other lawyers are being treated better than a non-politically connected lawyer would have been. She said a complaint about another lawyer that wasn’t based on personal knowledge “could likewise be declined under this rule.”
Clevenger is now appealing to members of Congress with personal knowledge of the destruction of the protected emails to file a complaint in case the Appeals Court rules against him.
http://threepercenternation.com/2019/02/haha-...te%20%233)
Court tosses attempt to punish Clinton lawyers over email scandal
Maryland’s top court this week rejected an attempt to punish Hillary Clinton’s lawyers for their role in deleting her emails, overturning a lower court that had approved a misconduct investigation.
Activist lawyer Ty Clevenger, who had demanded the investigation, said the state Court of Appeals “whitewashed” the case, protecting David Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson from facing penalties for their activity.
The court ruled that Mr. Clevenger had gone to the wrong court in seeking to force the state bar counsel to investigate. Instead of going to a circuit court, he should have gone straight to the Court of Appeals, they ruled.
“This court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters,” the judges said in their Thursday ruling, overturning the lower court’s order to investigate.
The judges also said they have rejected Mr. Clevenger’s cross-petition request to order the investigation.
Mr. Clevenger said on his blog, lawflog.com, that amounted to a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation.
“It’s hard to win an argument when the court refuses to hear it,” he said.
He also said the court made things even tougher when it changed the rules midway through the process and after he’d already brought the complaint.
Under the old rules the bar counsel was required to open an investigation into an allegation of lawyer misconduct. Under the new rules the bar counsel retains much more discretion to refuse to conduct an investigation.
Mr. Clevenger said that allows politics to come into play — and in deep-blue Maryland, that means Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers are not likely to face a probe.
“Of course, if a peon lawyer like me had intentionally destroyed evidence that was covered by congressional and court subpoenas, he or she would have been disbarred and sent to prison (although not necessarily in that order). But Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills, and Ms. Samuelson are covered by the Clinton protection racket, ergo they need not worry about the rules and laws that apply to mere mortals,” Mr. Clevenger wrote.
He has raised bar complaints in a number of jurisdictions against Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun...on-lawyer/
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼