LEGAL ETHICS: Now That’s An Oxymoron!!

Duke Rape case prosecutor Mike Nifong’s disbarment is the exception rather than the rule and demonstrates the necessity of media and public involvement.    It is only the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to unethical behavior in the modern Bar.  ABA legal ethics are uniformly established in each state’s Supreme Court Rules, yet are most often ignored with a presumption that prosecuting them is detrimental to the public image of the Bar. 

Imagine the ramifications of a judge or prosecutor being found guilty of unethical behavior.  If they are found guilty of unethical behavior, it brings into question all previous cases they have handled.   

Each state creates its own bar sponsored disciplinary counsel answerable only to the Supreme Court to investigate and prosecute unethical attorneys.   Should the disciplinary counsel recommend prosecution for attorneys, such trials are quietly held before the Supreme Court in banc, not before public juries.  Talk about a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop, this is a classic.  

In a world where words mean only what judges say they mean, and skillful misrepresentation of facts is a time honored professional tradition, the public might confuse morality and ethics and the Bar will not hear of that.

As an example, consider the complaint I filed regarding a thirty-something married mini-skirted bimbo, licensed as an attorney, receiving more than one hundred guardian ad litem appointments from two forty-something male judges with awarded fees averaging $3,000 per case.   Apparently these judges don’t have a problem with having a prostitute effectively determining custody of children.  They didn’t care that she had lied under oath in open court.   

Ethics case law establishes that extramarital sex is not in and of it self grounds for disbarment.  Producing an eye witness to this bimbo’s extramarital office sex would not have disqualified her appointment in spite a female witness ready willing and desirous to testify.   

In most cases, it takes a lower court’s judicial determination of attorney misconduct to initiate an investigation and prosecution of an unethical attorney.    

While the office of disciplinary counsel freely accepts public complaints of unethical behavior, it equally freely tosses them in the trash refusing investigate or claims being too busy to investigate.   Common practice is to hold complaints for thirty to sixty days and claim to make an investigation but no investigator ever contacts the victim.   

I’ve had considerable experience filing numerous ethics complains on behalf of myself and others and never had any investigator contact me for additional information or evidence.   Even if one claims to hold forensic evidence of corruption, falsified court records admitted as evidence, no one investigates the evidence.  

Denial of a pro se litigant’s motions for evidentiary hearings to establish unethical behavior is common.  It simply is a way to insure the judge doesn’t have to report what he doesn’t know.   Judges regularly don’t go after Bar members for ethical violation in spite of clear and convincing knowledge of wrongdoing.   No attorney seeking to practice in a jurisdiction will file an ethics complaint against a judge knowing it will influence that judges actions in all cases tried before him. 

Other judges though aware of what is going on will also ignore the problem in spite of the fact that judicial ethics require that a judge report such unethical behavior. 

I was personally evolved in such a situation a decade ago and learned the extent to which even the good and honest members of the Bar look the other way.  I filed the original complaint against Judge Jerold Hougland, senior criminal judge (more than two decades on the bench at the time)  in the Kansas Tenth District that led to his forced retirement.   According to his court reporter, his court house nickname was Bozo. 

Everyone in the Kansas Tenth District and in Topeka knew of his reputation as a prosecutor judge, but no one did anything and the many resulting injustices remain today. 

Consider the legal consequences of Judge Hougland’s quiet, unpublicized removal.  His court reporter was still doing transcripts for appeal of his cases two years after he was removed.   It’s just more money for attorneys writing appeals and ancillary members of the legal profession.   When is the last time you heard of a wrongly prosecuted man recovering appropriate compensation for his incarceration or legal expense?    

The only one motivated to remove a bad judge, was the Clerk of the Kansas Appellant Courts and fortunately in Kansas, the position includes appointment as Secretary to Commission on Judicial Qualifications.   Removing one bad judge had a significant effect on the appellant Clerk’s work load. 

The most notable use of this corruption was by Congressmen Dennis Moore who made his reputation and began his political career as a Kansas Tenth District prosecutor.   

Unlike Mike Nifong, Dennis Moore has been rewarded for his unethical behavior.

At last election, Representative Moore repeated his claim of having never lost a jury trial while prosecutor of the most populace and wealthiest district in Kansas.  No one seems to realize that a fantastic prosecutor will have a conviction rate of 75 percent and a 100 percent conviction rate is all but impossible without the help of a corrupt judge.  Obviously all people charged with crimes are not guilty or we could simply save the state the expense of a trial.  

Representative Moore spends his days in the US Congress sponsoring bills to prohibit passport issuance to dead beat dads.  He knows this is a politically beneficial expenditure of his time.  As the readers of MND well know, deadbeat dads are leaving the country at rate equal to illegal immigrants entering and congressional action is necessary.  Misandry is a necessary element of political success in today’s feminist world. 

HAPPY FATHER’S DAY TO ALL.