more interesting tweets about the lawsuit

torchbearer said:
I'm not really sure what patriotone is trying to get at..
are you saying these people are using a federal trial to get our delegate info?
do you realize has much trouble an officer of the court would get in using the courts in such a manner?
Click to expand...

Yeah, except we would have to prove that was the purpose of the lawsuit to begin with as opposed to it's purported purpose. Easier said than proven for sure. Besides, I imagine the court is either going to throw this case out, or worse, end up ruling that our delegates are bound to the state rules, i.e. bound to Romney.
 
PatriotOne said:
Yeah, except we would have to prove that was the purpose of the lawsuit to begin with as opposed to it's purported purpose. Easier said than proven for sure. Besides, I imagine the court is either going to throw this case out, or worse, end up ruling that our delegates are bound to the state rules, i.e. bound to Romney.
Click to expand...

i don't see the conspiracy. just a mention of this to the judge could have the attorney's barred from his court.
 
sailingaway said:
Yeah, that is why I checked bar ethics violations on the attorney of record and got some comfort out of his having none.
Click to expand...

Seeing his last correspondance and his twitter feed on the "lawsuit", I'm wondering if he has ever even had a case to be complained about :p.
 
PatriotOne said:
Yeah, except we would have to prove that was the purpose of the lawsuit to begin with as opposed to it's purported purpose. Easier said than proven for sure. Besides, I imagine the court is either going to throw this case out, or worse, end up ruling that our delegates are bound to the state rules, i.e. bound to Romney.
Click to expand...

I think we don't know what the court will do. At least, I sure don't.
 
PatriotOne said:
Seeing his last correspondance and his twitter feed on the "lawsuit", I'm wondering if he has ever even had a case to be complained about :p.
Click to expand...

Name: Richard C. Gilbert
Documents
Job Title: Member
Organization: Gilbert & Marlowe
Practice Areas: Criminal Law; Constitutional Law; Family Law; Personal Injury; Criminal Defense; Divorce; Child Custody; Child Support; Drug Crimes; Homicide; Domestic Violence; Visitation Rights; Traffic Violations; Juvenile Criminal Law; DUI; Driving...
Office: Santa Ana, California (Orange Co.)
Click to expand...

http://www.martindale.com/Results.aspx

Admission Details 1979, California
Education Adelphi University, B.A.; Western State University, J.D.
Click to expand...

http://www.martindale.com/Richard-C-Gilbert/257440-lawyer.htm

I don't think most attorneys take ethical violations so lightly, and I'm not going to assume without evidence that this guy, who clearly was on Romney's case PRIOR to the lawsuit being filed and his being named atty of record, is a bad guy.

I would still use due caution, were I a delegate, however.
 
Last edited:
sailingaway said:
http://www.martindale.com/Results.aspx



http://www.martindale.com/Richard-C-Gilbert/257440-lawyer.htm

I don't think most attorneys take ethical violations so lightly, and I'm not going to assume without evidence that this guy, who clearly was on Romney's case PRIOR to the lawsuit being filed and his being named atty of record, is a bad guy.
Click to expand...

I knew he was licensed...j/k about him never having a case before. However, they don't make jokes about attorney's for nothing. Dirty lawyers care nothing about ethic violations as long as they can't be proven and there are plenty of scum lawyers willing to work for scumbags. Name me one rich scumbag who doesn't have a bunch of lawyers defending them at $1000 per hour?
 
RDM said:
OK, Now for a word of caution. It appears as if we may have a so called "hothead" lawyer behind this case. Now I'm starting to get a little concerned about him presenting the case. You can read about it here: http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/richard-c-gilbert
Click to expand...


Might as well post it:


'Surrogate' Lawyer an Embarrassment

November 04, 1990

Richard C. Gilbert lost the "surrogate mother" case. Then he castigated the respected trial judge, Richard N. Parslow Jr., in a mean and personal attack. The judge, Mr. Gilbert said, wasn't bonded to his brain.

Citizens should view Mr. Gilbert with contempt, irrespective of their views on surrogate mothering. Mr. Gilbert is an embarrassment to the 8,000 lawyers in Orange County who have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the profession--and the public's respect for it
First, the comment was a cheap shot. Judges aren't allowed to defend themselves. Mr. Gilbert was not brave and zealous in criticizing a system run amok; he was cowardly in attacking an individual judge whose hands are tied by the canons of ethics.

Second, the comment abused the broad latitude of citizens to criticize the government. As the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in the McCarthy era: "Citizens have a right under our constitutional system to criticize government officials and agencies. Courts are not, and should not, be immune to such criticism." Konigsberg versus State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252, 269 (1957).

As the American Bar Assn. states in its Model Code of Professional Responsibility: "While a lawyer as a citizen has a right to criticize such officials publicly, he should be certain of the merit of his complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms motivated by reasons other than a desire to improve the legal system."

If Richard Gilbert thought that saying Judge Parslow is not bonded to his brain is a fair and judicious application of these rules, then one should not be surprised at the result Mr. Gilbert achieved for his client.

STUART P. JASPER, Newport Beach
 
PatriotOne said:
Might as well post it:


'Surrogate' Lawyer an Embarrassment

November 04, 1990

Richard C. Gilbert lost the "surrogate mother" case. Then he castigated the respected trial judge, Richard N. Parslow Jr., in a mean and personal attack. The judge, Mr. Gilbert said, wasn't bonded to his brain.

Citizens should view Mr. Gilbert with contempt, irrespective of their views on surrogate mothering. Mr. Gilbert is an embarrassment to the 8,000 lawyers in Orange County who have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the profession--and the public's respect for it
First, the comment was a cheap shot. Judges aren't allowed to defend themselves. Mr. Gilbert was not brave and zealous in criticizing a system run amok; he was cowardly in attacking an individual judge whose hands are tied by the canons of ethics.

Second, the comment abused the broad latitude of citizens to criticize the government. As the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in the McCarthy era: "Citizens have a right under our constitutional system to criticize government officials and agencies. Courts are not, and should not, be immune to such criticism." Konigsberg versus State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252, 269 (1957).

As the American Bar Assn. states in its Model Code of Professional Responsibility: "While a lawyer as a citizen has a right to criticize such officials publicly, he should be certain of the merit of his complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms motivated by reasons other than a desire to improve the legal system."

If Richard Gilbert thought that saying Judge Parslow is not bonded to his brain is a fair and judicious application of these rules, then one should not be surprised at the result Mr. Gilbert achieved for his client.

STUART P. JASPER, Newport Beach
Click to expand...

that is hilariously petty of the writer.

Why did your case lose?

"The judge isn't bonded to his brain."

is worth all that?
 
Note that was in 1990, and it looks like a letter to the editor. Not sure about that.

Sorry, but that's a quibble, imho. Clearly he had peed in someone's wheaties during the case.

He may be a bad attorney, or not, but tossing off one line of snark about a judge in 1990 isn't really here or there to me in giving me more or less confidence.

It doesn't say the context of the statement or why the writer thought it was newsworthy.
 
RDM said:
Have you read the other article? It appears he may like the "buds".
Click to expand...

actually, that gives me motive for one reason he's a Ron Paul supporter....

For those who haven't read it the story is from 1993 and says police responded to a silent alarm at his house, arrested a burgler but also found something they thought was marijuana in the bedroom when they were there, so when Gilbert met the police at his house they arrested him too.

Since it didn't show up in the bar record, I'm personally not going to worry about it. Your mileage may vary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The End Fruit of the Israeli Attack on America on 9/11 is Here, Gen. Wes Clark, "...And Finishing off, Iran." Well Played, Khazars
Replies
4
Views
154
James_Madison_Lives
J
Occam's Banana
It’s Time We Get Answers About the FBI’s Involvement In the OKC Bombing
Replies
15
Views
4K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
ammodotcom
Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail
Replies
1
Views
858
unknown
unknown
timosman
Spies Are the New Journalists
Replies
1
Views
195
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Anti Federalist
Justice and Safety for All - The Bernie Sanders Plan
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pauls' Revere
Pauls' Revere
Back
Top