"The Peeler" wrote in message news:brbgE.154752$Xct1....@usenetxs.com...
>On Thu, 07 Mar 2019 05:46:17 -0800, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
>psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
>of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'
>Shein's jew aliash)", farted again:
>>> Nithing, slant eyes are a superficial characteristic!
>>
>> Needledick, slant eyes are a determining characteristic. Mexes don't
>> got them.
>They determine superiority over you, inferior dreckserb!
Pretty much anything is superior to him.
>> Slant eyes determine that you got, subhuman gook DNA.
>If anything, they are indicative of superiority over you, inferior
>dreckserb.
So many people with slant eyes are in loving relationships.
Now here is Jack Marshall writing about Harvard Law School.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/03/07/i-expect-non-lawyers-and-journalists-to-misunderstand-this-basic-legal-ethics-principle-but-harvard-law-school/
I Expect Non-Lawyers And Journalists To Misunderstand This Basic Legal
Ethics Principle….But HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?
Kaboom.post, when liberal icon and former Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe
was representing a coal company. I have vowed, however, that if I accomplish
nothing else with this blog, I will
This is a repeat issue, so I could make this short and link to the previous
Ethics Alarms post on this annoying subject, or here, when I defended
Hillary Clinton when she was being called a hypocrite for once defending a
child rapist, or maybe the post titled, No, There Is Nothing Unethical Or
Hypocritical About A Feminist Lawyer Defending Roger Ailes.or this
do my best to put a stake through the ignorant and destructive idea that
lawyers only represent clients they agree with, admire, or personally
support. Here its is again, the ABA rule that is quoted somewhere in every
jurisdiction’s attorney conduct regulations. Let’s do it really big this
time:
ABA Model Rule 1.2(b): “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including
representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the
client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.”
Got that? Memorize it Print it out and carry it in your wallet, and hand it
to your ignorant loud-mouth family member who complains about those scum-bag
lawyers who represent bad people. Post it on social media and in online
comment sections where people are bloviating about the same. idiotic
misconception.
What we can do about Harvard, however, I just don’t know. You know what they
say, “Get woke, lose all respect and credibility as a trustworthy advocate
for civil rights and the Rule of Law.” Okay, I’m going to have to work on
that…
Harvard undergrad and law students are attacking law school Dean Ronald S.
Sullivan and demanding that he resign because he joined the team of lawyers
defending Harvey Weinstein, the Godfather of #MeToo, who is facing multiple
charges of sexual harassment, rape, and sexual assault. Because the Dean is
black, the Association of Black Harvard Women wrote in a public letter, “You
have failed us.” Law student Danu Mudannayake wrote in a petition, “Do you
really want to one day accept your diploma from someone who … believes it is
OK to defend such a prominent figure at the center of the #MeToo movement?”
You mean from someone who understands what it means to be a lawyer? You
shouldn’t get a degree, Danu, until you complete a 500 word essay explaining
why what you just wrote should disqualify anyone from admittance to the bar.
Dean Sullivan tried to stem this embarrassing display by saying, “Lawyers
are not an extension of their clients.” Representing a client. he pointed
out, “doesn’t mean I’m supporting anything the client may have done.” Sounds
familiar, no?
Not surprisingly, given that this is academia and today’s professors and
administrators place politics over integrity and education when push comes
to show, the show of support for Sullivan has been less than ringing.
Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana called for a study of how students at
the College’s Winthrop House, where Sullivan is housemaster, regard the law
professor’s role in the Weinstein case. He called it a “climate review,”
review, whatever that means. How about simply telling the students that they
don’t know what they are blathering about, and explaining how the legal
system works? Another dean, Diana L. Eck, concedes that everyone has the
right to a strenuous defense but, on the other hand, Sullivan’s work is
“fracturing that sense of community.” Ah. So lawyers really shouldn’t
defend unpopular clients. Would someone please dig up Harvard icon John
Adams and explain why his defense of the British soldiers in the Boston
Massacre trial was insensitive? I guess lawyer Frederick Aiken, the lawyer
hero of Robert Redford’s historical film, “The Conspirator,” really was a
fool to try to stop his client, Lincoln assassination conspirator Mary
Surratt, from being convicted and condemned by a rigged kangaroo court. She
was guilty after all, and “everybody” knew it. Why have a trial at all?
I’m not being hyperbolic, unfortunately. As we saw in the Kavanagh hearings,
the political left is increasingly hostile to the concept of due process and
equal protection of the law, as well as the principle that mere accusations
should be sufficient to presume guilt. This pollution of democracy has been
bubbling up through the muck for a long time: In a disturbing New York Times
op-ed, law professor Deborah L. Rhode argued that lawyers had a “moral”
obligation not to represent “bad” clients in civil cases, writing,
“In civil cases, the moral calculus is different. Except in rare
circumstances, civil claimants have no right to counsel. The notion that
lawyers should check their conscience at the door in these cases has
implicated the profession in some of the worst public health and financial
crises in the nation’s history. We do not, and should not, applaud the
lawyers who enabled clients’ resistance to enforcement of civil rights
guarantees or to health warnings about cigarettes. Lawyers, no less than
other individuals, have a moral responsibility to consider the consequences
of their professional actions.”
Yes, and the consequences of adopting Rhode’s view and the views of the
protesting Harvard students would be an end to equal access to a vigorous
legal representation and access to the laws of the land. Progressives will
just decide whether you deserve your rights or not, and that will be that.
It is a mark of how far this ethics rot has seeped into the culture that
Harvard University no longer can muster a full-throated defense of lawyers’
professional imperative.