The docket No. is 16-664.
Filings in the case may be accessed here.
The text of the petition can be read here.
Coincidentally, at about the same time as my petition was docketed, the ABA has become interested in the issue of lawyers disciplined for criticizing judges - see an article about Louisiana attorney Christine Mire disciplined for making a motion to recuse based on painstaking diligent research that showed that the judge may have been involved in changing the audio file of a court proceeding in order to show that she did disclose her irreconcilable conflict of interest to the parties and attorneys - when, according to attorney Mire, who was present at the proceeding, the judge did not disclose the conflict of interest.
The article was written by David L. Hudson Jr., a First Amendment expert and a Vanderbuilt Law School professor who, reportedly, serves as a First Amendment Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center.
Professor Hudson's article shows that the American Bar Associations cannot any longer ignore the issue of attorneys disciplined for criticizing judges.
In view of the interest of the American Bar Association to the issue of attorney discipline for criticism of judges - which is what my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is about - I am wondering whether the U.S. Supreme Court may now actually take my case and review it.
If that happens, it may make a huge and long-awaited difference for the country, for both the party litigants and the bar, on the issue of independent and competent representation in court.
If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes discipline of attorneys for criticism of judges as unconstitutional, and especially when such discipline is imposed without an evidentiary hearing, and based on sanctions imposed by the judge who was the subject of the motion to recuse, the legal profession in the U.S. may be then relieved of the fear it is seized with now, and will no longer be considering an untenable dilemma - whether to fight for their client's constitutional right to impartial judicial review, or whether to intentionally not fight for their clients on that issue, in order to preserve their own license and livelihood.
I will continue to cover the issue of attorney discipline for criticism of the judiciary.
Stay tuned.
Coincidentally, at about the same time as my petition was docketed, the ABA has become interested in the issue of lawyers disciplined for criticizing judges - see an article about Louisiana attorney Christine Mire disciplined for making a motion to recuse based on painstaking diligent research that showed that the judge may have been involved in changing the audio file of a court proceeding in order to show that she did disclose her irreconcilable conflict of interest to the parties and attorneys - when, according to attorney Mire, who was present at the proceeding, the judge did not disclose the conflict of interest.
The article was written by David L. Hudson Jr., a First Amendment expert and a Vanderbuilt Law School professor who, reportedly, serves as a First Amendment Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center.
Professor Hudson's article shows that the American Bar Associations cannot any longer ignore the issue of attorneys disciplined for criticizing judges.
In view of the interest of the American Bar Association to the issue of attorney discipline for criticism of judges - which is what my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is about - I am wondering whether the U.S. Supreme Court may now actually take my case and review it.
If that happens, it may make a huge and long-awaited difference for the country, for both the party litigants and the bar, on the issue of independent and competent representation in court.
If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes discipline of attorneys for criticism of judges as unconstitutional, and especially when such discipline is imposed without an evidentiary hearing, and based on sanctions imposed by the judge who was the subject of the motion to recuse, the legal profession in the U.S. may be then relieved of the fear it is seized with now, and will no longer be considering an untenable dilemma - whether to fight for their client's constitutional right to impartial judicial review, or whether to intentionally not fight for their clients on that issue, in order to preserve their own license and livelihood.
I will continue to cover the issue of attorney discipline for criticism of the judiciary.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment