It seems that every day now, there is a new story, modern horror stories, about the utter corruption of the rule of law. Now, one fundamental thing to the justice systems across the West, and certainly in Anglo-American law, is that one may have legal representation, and that the lawyer merely by representing the client should not be punished. But in California, a judge has ruled that attorney John Eastman should be disbarred from legal practice merely for representing President Trump! The idea here is to scare lawyers off from representing conservative clients. This has already been done with racialist clients, and now the elites work their way down the list.
Along the same tyrannical lines, New York's Abena Darkeh, a Black female judge, said that the Second Amendment of the constitution did not exist in her courtroom. These judges should be disbarred, for life.
"I imagine most observers across the political spectrum would agree (on the Left, perhaps discreetly) that another four years with the White House controlled by the Biden puppet masters will cement the Great Replacement. The objective of the Democrats' (actually quite long-established) No Borders policy will be achieved.
America will be ruled by a small ideologically unified elite, most of whose ancestors were thousands of miles distant when America was formed and established. They will utilize the resentments of a mass of variously colored peoples to oppress the Historic American Nation and complete the destruction of its institutions. At VDARE.com's recent conference, Scott Greer gave a fine exposition on this matter. But the Anti-Americans are already hard at work abolishing an ancient Anglo-American right: that to have legal representation when tried. This is the real significance of John Eastman's judicial lynching in California. There, a remarkably injudicious judge, Yvette D Roland, has ruled he should be disbarred because he represented President Trump [Judge recommends ex-Trump election lawyer John Eastman be disbarred, CNN, March 27, 2024].
The concept that a lawyer is at risk because of the character of his client has long been rubbished in Anglo-American jurisprudence. If accepted, it would make many defendants too risky to represent.
Until recently, discussion of this potentially momentous case by non-Left publications has been shamefully scarce. But last week there appeared The Unpersoning of John Eastman [by TJ Harker, The American Mind, May 2, 2024].
This is a thorough account of Judge Roland's wildly biased behavior and succinctly raises what I see as the key issue. Harker comments: More than 200 years ago, John Adams defended the legal rights of unpopular British sailors [sic, actually soldiers] wrongfully accused of murder. At the time, he was criticized by his fellow countrymen. But history weighed in, and for the ensuing two centuries, Americans in general and lawyers in particular celebrated Adams for his courageous defense of politically unpopular defendants. We held Adams up as an exemplar of legal courage. The link here is to The Rule of Law Depends on John Eastman [by Mark Pulliam, tomklingenstein.com, April 23, 2024. This gives a much more extensive account of the brave action of John Adams (who was after all a major Patriot leader). Of the Eastman case, Pulliam says: Eastman is not the only victim of lawfare, but his case is the most compelling. The left is making an example of him, warning center-right lawyers not to represent Republican candidates in future election disputes—or else … it is impossible to fairly conclude that Eastman's advice went beyond good faith, zealous advocacy…
But the motives of Eastman's critics are not driven by the merits. His only "crime" was representing a client the left despises.
[Link in original] Last month, The Gatestone Institute extensively interviewed John Eastman. On April 21, they posted 'The Most Secure Election in American History.' ZeroHedge reproduced it the next day with some of their useful characteristic bolding.
This sprawling (11,800 word) interview is a treasure trove for those interested in an insight into the 2020 election fraud coverup. Also for examples of judicial misbehavior in the Stalinesque Show Trails of the Biden era.
Judge Roland has apparently never heard of the principle of the Right to Representation. Otherwise she would have stopped the trial at the opening.
This of course conforms to the pattern set by the recent declaration by New York's Abena Darkeh, another black female judge, that the Second Amendment did not exist in her courtroom.
(Appearances somewhat to the contrary, Judge Roland does indeed identify as black. In 2008-9 she was the 34th president of the Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles).
So the trial devolved into a row about whether Eastman was justified in associating himself with his client's contention that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Here Roland adopted a technique seen in other of the Trump Show Trials: blocking the defendant from bringing in favorable evidence and testimony.
There were several examples, but this is the prize: Eastman says
She has already blocked about a dozen of my witnesses, but… We have a guy named Joseph Fried, retired CPA, professional auditor…
He said something doesn't smell right here, and so he applied his tools of the trade to look at the elections and wrote a book called Debunked. It's a brilliant book. I told my wife, "This is the book I would have written if I hadn't been on my heels playing defense the last year."
The book was written and published in January of 2023, so the judge ruled it was not relevant because, even though it discusses all the evidence I had before me, the analysis he did was after the fact and I could not have relied on it, therefore it was not relevant.
Two days later, the government offers a witness to introduce into evidence government reports that were done in September 2022. My lawyer objected, "It's not relevant on your prior ruling." The lawyer for the bar actually said, "Well, these are government reports. They are different." So the judge let them in. This of course refers to Debunked?: An auditor reviews the 2020 election—and the lessons learned, by Joseph Fried. This book is imperative (if daunting) reading for anyone who wants to know what happened in 2020. I synopsized Debunked in Yes, Virginia (Dare): The 2020 Election WAS Fraudulent—And GA GOP Leadership (Among Others) Are Complicit.
(Eastman is scathing about the behavior of the Georgia Republicans in the election. To me, they appear to be old line partisan Democrats, driven out of their party by Atlanta's Black/Loonie Left alliance.)
Another legal principle Judge Roland felt able to disregard: recusal. In Joseph Fried, Author Of Definitive Election Fraud Book DEBUNKED, Audits Trump Case Judges. They Fail, I quoted Joe Fried citing the Cornell Law School: According to the Cornell Law School,
Recusal is not just a matter of ethics: It is a constitutional requirement.
"The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:
1. Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome.
2. Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.
…What matters is that even if the judge is not biased, the high probability of bias still damages the integrity of the judicial system. In addition to being a Democratic contributor both before and after becoming a Judge, Roland, according to her law firm bio
…served as an Immigration Law Counselor at the UCLA Office of InternationalImmigration Law Counselor at the UCLA Office of International Students &
but for Eastman, who after all was defending Donald Trump, described by Scott Greer at the VDARE.com conference as the best President on immigration since Eisenhower. Particularly, as Eastman told Gatestone:
When President Trump…walked down that famous escalator at Trump Tower, one of the planks in his campaign platform was that we need to fix this problem of birthright citizenship…
In his next press conference, he waved a law review article, and said there is a very serious argument that our Constitution does not mandate birthright citizenship. That happened to be my law review article on birthright citizenship. Even closer to the purported subject matter of the trial: California Judge Who Disbarred Trump's Former Attorney John Eastman Funneled Money to Super PAC Fighting Election Integrity [by Rachel Alexander, Arizona Sun Times, April 22, 2024]:
California disciplinary court Judge Yvette Roland… contributed to a Democratic PAC last year which funneled all of the contributions to a Super PAC that seeks to stop "undermining the most basic tenet of our democracy, the right to vote." Despite the fact that the charges against Eastman were all related to his efforts investigating and stopping election corruption in the 2020 election, Roland did not recuse herself.