Michelle Malkin has the story
here. It is appalling. Blogger and former prosecutor in Arizona
with a law license suspended for… well, I’m STILL not clear
exactly what she did wrong, except try to prosecute some scummy
people who then were let off by retired insider judges. Now the Bar
appears to be trying to intimidate her into giving up speech
rights, too. But, again, I can’t even begin to explain it all,
which is why you MUST read
Malkin’s piece.
NOTE: When I first wrote this, I mistakenly wrote that Ms.
Alexander had been “disbarred.” That was in error. As
Aaron Goldstein subsequently, and accurately, noted, she wasn’t
disbarred; she just had her law license suspended for
six months. It still seems an unfair punishment, based on my
continuing review of the case. I completely agree with Aaron’s
particular complaint that the punishment meted out to Ms. Alexander
seems designed as a flagrant wet blanket on First Amendment speech
rights.
I am re-posting this blog entry, which originally was posted
Saturday early evening, in order to reflect the correction and my
agreement with Aaron.
Leenation | 6.9.12 @ 7:13PM
Michelle Malkin's story would be appalling if it were true. I am a right wing writer. If you doubt that, look at my web site. leftwingnonsense.com Anyway, Michelle is way off base. I am an AZ lawyer with no axe to grind, other than I kinda think justice is important. Andy Thomas and his minions, including Rachel, time and time again acted unethically. Sorry, but to accuse the AZ Supreme Court as liberal is simply silly. Your not clear what she did wrong? Did you read the opinion? And what did the "scummy people" do that they prosecuted and sued (even after agreeing with the Bar counsel that it was a conflict to prosecute them) What? Anyone?
I always respected Am Spectator. Do a little homework before jumping on Michelle's bandwagon.
Lee Nation
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.9.12 @ 11:38PM
I haven't jumped on anyone's bandwagon, but I am in the process of reading the 247 page complaint, or rather, the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the complaint. As I read dozens of state and federal court opinions each week, including disciplinary decisions, I can state based on my experience that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge William J. O'Neil is one of the most obnoxiously bloviating judicial officers I've ever read.
Oldefarte| 6.10.12 @ 2:07PM
"....Your not clear what she did wrong? " This guy is supposedly an attorney and he doesn't know the difference between YOUR and YOU ARE or YOU'RE?? I would want his legal services!!!!!!
Legal Beagle| 6.10.12 @ 5:15PM
Lee Nation, I am also an attorney in Arizona and followed the bar proceedings as we all did since they were highly publicized every day in the media. Can you please name the "time and time again" instances where Alexander acted unethically? The disciplinary judge's ruling in the case said she acted unethically for filing the racketeering complaint. Problem is, she didn't file it. She was brought on to help with research and writing after the racketeering complaint was filed, then instructed to dismiss it. Maybe you should think before you leave such an embarrassingly uninformed comment under your own name. Odefarte, I wouldn't hire him either! He has some predisposed bias against Andrew Thomas for something. Probably got prosecuted by him and now he's out for revenge!
Occam's Tool| 6.11.12 @ 1:59PM
My opinion about lawyers, which is closely modelled on the Bard of Avon's, needs no further elaboration.