Boy, the Florida Bar sure does fight dirty. While everyone was hoping for an intelligent debate on First Amendment, media, and political/lawyer speech issues, that doesn't seem to be the way Bar v. Blog is headed.
Call us stupid. Call us naïve. But please don't call us dishonest, which seems to be the Bar's upcoming pitch at the Grievance Committee (GC) meeting on September 11th. They finally wrote back yesterday, citing a slew of rules that "may have been violated", which make your humble author out to be Jack The Ripper, Son of Sam, and Gardiner all rolled into one.
Of course, the Bar still refuses to cite a single word, phrase, or photograph they find offensive or inaccurate. They refuse to make a single specific accusation of misconduct. They won't disclose the contents of any complaints that were made, or say who made them, or draw lines from the cited rules to the blog posts in question. Instead, they simply print the rules, attach twenty-two articles concerning Bobby Diaz and one about Marni Bryson, and say the opportunity exists "to make a written statement, sworn or unsworn, explaining, refuting or admitting the alleged misconduct". Got that?
Additionally, the Bar states they will be presenting our prior written responses, also composed without knowledge of the complaints or accusations. Topping it off, the Bar says unequivocally "you and your client may not attend".
As previously stated, we sure have been naïve. And the incredulous stares from experienced politicos we spoke to around the courthouse today added insult to injury. "What did you expect?", ran the theme, "that's how the game is played". Apparently, since the First Amendment and media laws can't be evaded to shut down the truth, the vagaries of the Bar rules can be utilized, even if it means an unfounded assassination attempt on a person's character and reputation.
Pushing as hard as we do, we know people are going to push back. Whistleblowing ain't beanbag, as the saying goes. It's just we always expected more from an organization like the Bar. However, it's now apparent they'll sacrifice all vestiges of fair play and due process to do what they want (or what they're told). And it's an abomination to the entire legal profession.
But don't start feeling sorry for us. We have faith in the GC members, and in Bar higher-ups in Tallahassee. Despite being frustrated by local nemesis Adria Quintela, there's time to approach Ken Marvin, and members of the Board of Governors before the September 11th deadline. Hopefully, they'll see to it that the spirit of Rule 3-7.4(h) is honored, and ensure proper notice of the accusations is given so a sufficient reply can be made before the GC meets. And if not, there's always a Writ of Mandamus to the Supremes, lest anyone forget this is The United States of America.
As we've said before, if we've blundered, or made an honest mistake, we'll take full responsibility and do the time. We're only human. Like any media outlet, we blow it sometimes, even if corrections or retractions concerning the articles in question have never been requested to this day. That being said, we stand by every word we've ever written, and feel that if the Bar has information concerning inaccuracies or otherwise, they ought to come to the table with clean hands to clear the air. They might not like the blog, they may not like having had to absolve all bloggers of liability concerning unmoderated Comment Sections in a prior ruling, and they may hate living in a world where new technologies allow lowly individual lawyers to have a say in how judges and lawyers are held accountable. But to allow them to ignore or change their own rules midstream, and to adopt Rollerball style tactics in prosecutions, is anathema to everything the Bar, the judiciary, and the Rule of Law is supposed to stand for ...
Coming Soon: Links to the 23 Bar v. Blog Articles; Two Weeks Worth of Wednesday Reversals; Dan Lewis says: "Florida BAR disciplinary grievance processes have just two gears; Railroad and Whitewash."
Carmel Cafiero - Miami Courthouse/Corrections Parking Scam (w/ Herb Cohen)
BBeat: Judge Richards: I’ll Fight Hard For Re-Election
SS: Public defender's chief sleuth wins prestigious state award for work
Rumpole's commentators on Hugo Black and criticism of judiciary
From Glik v. Cunniffe:
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’ ” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n. 11, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)) ... The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. Houchins, 438 U.S. at 16, 98 S.Ct. 2588 (Stewart, J., concurring) (noting that the Constitution “assure[s] the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors”) ... (Emphasis Added)
(Thanks to Lloyd Golburgh)
Call us stupid. Call us naïve. But please don't call us dishonest, which seems to be the Bar's upcoming pitch at the Grievance Committee (GC) meeting on September 11th. They finally wrote back yesterday, citing a slew of rules that "may have been violated", which make your humble author out to be Jack The Ripper, Son of Sam, and Gardiner all rolled into one.
Of course, the Bar still refuses to cite a single word, phrase, or photograph they find offensive or inaccurate. They refuse to make a single specific accusation of misconduct. They won't disclose the contents of any complaints that were made, or say who made them, or draw lines from the cited rules to the blog posts in question. Instead, they simply print the rules, attach twenty-two articles concerning Bobby Diaz and one about Marni Bryson, and say the opportunity exists "to make a written statement, sworn or unsworn, explaining, refuting or admitting the alleged misconduct". Got that?
Additionally, the Bar states they will be presenting our prior written responses, also composed without knowledge of the complaints or accusations. Topping it off, the Bar says unequivocally "you and your client may not attend".
As previously stated, we sure have been naïve. And the incredulous stares from experienced politicos we spoke to around the courthouse today added insult to injury. "What did you expect?", ran the theme, "that's how the game is played". Apparently, since the First Amendment and media laws can't be evaded to shut down the truth, the vagaries of the Bar rules can be utilized, even if it means an unfounded assassination attempt on a person's character and reputation.
Pushing as hard as we do, we know people are going to push back. Whistleblowing ain't beanbag, as the saying goes. It's just we always expected more from an organization like the Bar. However, it's now apparent they'll sacrifice all vestiges of fair play and due process to do what they want (or what they're told). And it's an abomination to the entire legal profession.
But don't start feeling sorry for us. We have faith in the GC members, and in Bar higher-ups in Tallahassee. Despite being frustrated by local nemesis Adria Quintela, there's time to approach Ken Marvin, and members of the Board of Governors before the September 11th deadline. Hopefully, they'll see to it that the spirit of Rule 3-7.4(h) is honored, and ensure proper notice of the accusations is given so a sufficient reply can be made before the GC meets. And if not, there's always a Writ of Mandamus to the Supremes, lest anyone forget this is The United States of America.
As we've said before, if we've blundered, or made an honest mistake, we'll take full responsibility and do the time. We're only human. Like any media outlet, we blow it sometimes, even if corrections or retractions concerning the articles in question have never been requested to this day. That being said, we stand by every word we've ever written, and feel that if the Bar has information concerning inaccuracies or otherwise, they ought to come to the table with clean hands to clear the air. They might not like the blog, they may not like having had to absolve all bloggers of liability concerning unmoderated Comment Sections in a prior ruling, and they may hate living in a world where new technologies allow lowly individual lawyers to have a say in how judges and lawyers are held accountable. But to allow them to ignore or change their own rules midstream, and to adopt Rollerball style tactics in prosecutions, is anathema to everything the Bar, the judiciary, and the Rule of Law is supposed to stand for ...
Coming Soon: Links to the 23 Bar v. Blog Articles; Two Weeks Worth of Wednesday Reversals; Dan Lewis says: "Florida BAR disciplinary grievance processes have just two gears; Railroad and Whitewash."
Carmel Cafiero - Miami Courthouse/Corrections Parking Scam (w/ Herb Cohen)
BBeat: Judge Richards: I’ll Fight Hard For Re-Election
SS: Public defender's chief sleuth wins prestigious state award for work
Rumpole's commentators on Hugo Black and criticism of judiciary
From Glik v. Cunniffe:
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’ ” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n. 11, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)) ... The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. Houchins, 438 U.S. at 16, 98 S.Ct. 2588 (Stewart, J., concurring) (noting that the Constitution “assure[s] the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors”) ... (Emphasis Added)
(Thanks to Lloyd Golburgh)