Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   Lawyer in Oath Keepers Case keeps filing motions, even after withdrawing from case and being disbarred   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Lawyer, Jonathon Moseley, United States district court, Kelly Meggs, government's filing, Mr. Moseley, attorney Julia Haller, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta  
•       •       •

3175 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2022 at 4:46 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-07-01 2:52:02 PM  
He's a Constitutional lawyer, so it's totes OK...
 
2022-07-01 4:47:32 PM  
Are they wanking motions?
 
2022-07-01 4:51:57 PM  
What are they going to do? Disbar him?
(Yeah, they can get creative with contempt...)
 
2022-07-01 4:54:48 PM  
Time to send him to a looney bin.
 
2022-07-01 5:03:53 PM  
The courthouse is actually a few soggy refrigerator boxes in an alley behind a closed down Blockbuster Video.
 
2022-07-01 5:08:02 PM  

hubiestubert: He's a Constitutional lawyer, so it's totes OK...


I once had a self-professed "Constitutional advocate" try to tell me that Supreme Court rulings were not legally binding!
 
2022-07-01 5:18:55 PM  
Isn't practicing law without a license a crime in his state?

Of course, he'd have a right to represent himself if charged with it. So chessmate
 
2022-07-01 5:22:57 PM  
It's really simple: everything every GOP-arsehole has ever accused the Democrats and others of doing is exactly what they're guilty of, and should be tried and jailed for.
 
2022-07-01 5:33:18 PM  
So law-talking people, do you have to be a licensed lawyer to file an Amicus brief?

/not to imply the motion filed was essentially an Amicus brief
// ' friend of the court my ass, not this court '
 
2022-07-01 5:35:47 PM  
Oath Keepers may have accepted funds from Defending the Republic, a so-called "dark money group" linked to ex-Donald Trump
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-01 5:52:27 PM  
It strikes me as an act of desperation in a situation that is beyond his control, but trying to grasp at some anyway.

/and beyond that, desperately trying to control the narrative too
 
2022-07-01 6:28:27 PM  
But he's white. His opinion matters.
 
2022-07-01 7:38:49 PM  
I wouldn't put up with such shenanigans. One warning and the next he's in contempt of court. He can keep filling them from jail.
 
2022-07-01 8:57:32 PM  
This guy sounds like Supreme Court material!
 
2022-07-01 9:03:07 PM  
isn't this an appropriate time to hold them in contempt?
 
2022-07-01 10:26:27 PM  

Diabolic: Oath Keepers may have accepted funds from Defending the Republic, a so-called "dark money group" linked to ex-Donald Trump
[Fark user image image 302x167]


ex-Donald Trump?  Did the Temporal Police try to correct the timeline and miss?
 
2022-07-02 6:53:02 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: So law-talking people, do you have to be a licensed lawyer to file an Amicus brief?

/not to imply the motion filed was essentially an Amicus brief
// ' friend of the court my ass, not this court '


You don't, but you do need permission of the court or consent of all parties. Not that it applies here since he filed on behalf of Defendants without their consent... and the article implies it was really just self serving hogwash. He just wanted "his word" on the record, and hilariously the judge struck the filing and said if he does it again he will be sanctioned.
 
2022-07-02 6:59:12 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: So law-talking people, do you have to be a licensed lawyer to file an Amicus brief?

/not to imply the motion filed was essentially an Amicus brief
// ' friend of the court my ass, not this court '


Also, "you dont" obviously is an over generation / academic response written before my morning coffee completely ignoring any number of state rules, court rules, and other procedural rules that in practice probably do require an attorney even if it isn't a bright line rule.   After all, a person can always represent themselves in court.  They just shouldn't in many circumstances.

Blarg - time to make coffee
 
2022-07-02 8:17:51 PM  
Even to your hurt.. new testament... It's like the supreme court heard something...file in a new courtroom dumbass.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.