we know from here and other sources that Lin Wood has been bombarded with some GA attorneys board investigation seeking to strip his license or ability to practice law. not sure how quickly that will move
and pretty sure Roberts will need to sit this one out and shut up as he cant be allowed to rule that he's not a traitor!
Ahem they go by lawfags
In the SCOTUS case, Lin Wood is the petitioner, not the attorney
If I recall correctly Lin is not representing himself in the case that made it to the SCOTUS, he is the Plaintiff and has an attorney representing him. I’m guessing the attorney is versed in constitutional law.
thanks, that actually makes me feel more confident about this case moving forward without procedural hiccups
p.s. in case unclear i should have included that im referring to the supreme court case/s to begin hearings this Friday
Zero chance they are able to strip his license. All Lies will be revealed
Attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct. Making a false accusation would be a violation. It’s actually hard to get disbarred unless you steal a client’s money. Then you get disbarred automatically. You will get reprimanded and possibly disbarred for not handling your clients’ cases or calling them back.
I have never seen a fiasco like what the GA bar is doing. However, it must be taken seriously as they do have the power to disbar him. I hope he survives.
You can’t force a judge to recuse themselves by attacking them. Otherwise any litigant (or defendant) could effectively pick their own judge: Just call every judge assigned to your case a pedophile until you get the one you want. Multiple appellate courts have established clear precedent against recusal in such cases.
From a First Circuit ruling: “A party cannot force disqualification by attacking the judge and then claiming that these attacks must have caused the judge to be biased...’”
From the Seventh Circuit: “It is improper for a lawyer or litigant . . . to create the ground on which he seeks the recusal of the judge assigned to his case. That is arrant judge-shopping.”
So, no, there’s virtually no chance Roberts will recuse.
interesting. it's surprising that if one's claim, especially of this nature (pedo/traitor), is deemed meritorious by the other jurists that it wouldn't require recusal but you sound well versed so I'll put my odds with you.
I’ll just add: This would be particularly pernicious as applied to the Supreme Court. Suppose a litigant can tell from previous opinions and dissents that only one of the nine justices agrees with the legal argument they intend to rely on, while the other eight reject it. You could just publicly attack the other eight, and voila, you’ve made Supreme Court precedent with a 1-0 ruling. Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t work like that.