Freedom of Speech is Non-Negotiable!


Communist Are Gagging, Silencing, Intimidating Our Attorneys

In court, Communists (likewise referred to as Democrats) silence and deny all challengers of their right to representation. This is an article by John Livingston, who shares his insights as a fan of Trump.

Lawyers are finding themselves bound to secure their expert careers in front of bar associations and principles boards, not due to any misdeed, but solely for their opposition to Democrats and their electoral misconduct. In the after-effects of the turbulent 2020 election, progressive groups started procedures involving ethics and even criminal charges versus legal representatives who contested Democrats in election-related claims. Democrats have actually now broadened these strategies to incorporate attorneys who oppose Democrats on any policy matter.

“Their most sweeping goal is to prevent and chill lawyers from representing Republicans and conservatives, especially in election law cases. They wish to apply a much higher standard to them in order to penalize them,” says attorney Jim Bopp Jr., who beat a politically inspired principles complaint after representing Wisconsin Special Counsel Michael Gableman over his 2020 investigation that uncovered “extensive election scams.

Denying legal representation to legal representatives with conservative or neutral views can deprive Democrats’ enemies of competent legal support, resulting in an unfair advantage and weakening the justice system. A popular example is former President Donald Trump’s battles to find attorneys to defend him against various lawsuits aimed at bankrupting him and avoiding his candidacy.

What They Do to Trump, They’re Doing to Everyone
Democrats are not just looking for to eliminate skilled legal defense from Trump. They’re pursuing legal representatives who oppose their policies in any domain, from former Attorney General William Barr to his former deputy Jeff Clark to Trump election advisor John Eastman and regional legal representatives with no national profile such as Janet Angus in Wisconsin and an Arizona district attorney who would not let rioters off the hook.

Justice Clarence Thomas has been unrelentingly disparaged given that the day he was chosen to the Supreme Court. Most recently, the war against his rock-solid constitutional jurisprudence has actually materialized in numerous politicized ethics grievances.

The Texas Bar Association has actually been waging war on Attorney General Ken Paxton using ethics grievances. 3 Arizona legal representatives who contested disorderly election treatments in 2020 and did work for gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake now face discipline complaints before the state supreme court.

Most of the 1,265 Americans implicated of taking part in the January 6, 2021 riot have struggled to acquire appropriate legal representation, partly due to lawyers’ issues about reaction for defending out of favor clients. This contrasts greatly with the legal community’s historical commitment to offering capable counsel to all accuseds, consisting of those accused of heinous criminal offenses, in order to uphold the concepts of constitutional due process and a fair trial, as kept in mind by Bopp.

He specified that the ACLU has the capability to offer legal defense for the Nazis parading through Skokie in the existence of Holocaust survivors, and there is no group more contemptible than them.

Federal representatives conducted a raid on Clark’s house. Eastman is facing the monetary concern of spending $3 million on legal defense for three unique cases, which puts his better half’s retirement savings at risk. Various present and former Republican chief law officers have been the topic of disciplinary grievances, with a significant number of these problems being connected with litigation referring to the 2020 election.

Such complaints not only threaten an attorney’s license to practice, but also impose legal charges and documentation burdens. Prolonged complaints can take “a huge mental toll on people,” states Shalom Stone, a well-known New Jersey attorney whose specializeds include legal principles.

Disagree with Democrats, Face a Tornado
Problems and retaliatory lawsuits are just two of lots of tools Democrats are deploying to get rid of proficient legal opposition to their policies. U.S. Supreme Court justices who are most likely to support the Constitution have been threatened with assassination and mob violence. A guy with a handgun and other weapons was apprehended in 2022 outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home after he confessed to an assassination effort.

More than 100 attorneys have actually been strung up with ethics problems from The 65 Project for opposing Democrats in election litigation. Media Matters creator David Brock, a consultant for The 65 Project, informed Axios the outfit is working not just to strip law licenses from any attorney who opposes Democrats but likewise to “shame them and make them harmful in their communities and in their firms. … You’re threatening their income.”

A similar organization called Lawyers Defending Democracy released a memo in January prompting state bar associations to start principles investigations and disciplinary problems to “regulate [] the legal profession” and “safeguard democracy.” The memo specifies outright that “principles examinations of lawyers like John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Kenneth Paxton are at the heart of what state bars can and need to do.

In 32 states and D.C., bar subscription is compulsory to practice law. The American Bar Association has actually suggested “variety and addition” provisions in legal representatives’ principles codes, successfully sanctioning grievances against those who notice men and women are various and who oppose racial preferences. Vermont, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, New York, New Jersey, and some federal courts have actually embraced such provisions.

According to Stone, he has not experienced politically driven ethics grievances in New Jersey. However, individuals involved in legal disagreements sometimes submit principles claims versus their adversaries as a method to acquire an advantage in court. Consequently, New Jersey’s principles board usually refrains from attending to these problems till the litigation in between the parties has pertained to an end.

According to Bopp, even if the people being implicated can effectively conquer these complaints, the preliminary accusation tends to have a much longer-lasting impact compared to their eventual reaction or exoneration. For those who are not financially well-off, a protracted legal defense can be financially crippling.

The wealthy are not immune to legal disputes, and lawsuits can potentially strip them of their assets. In the past two years, Trump has spent a minimum of $76 million on legal fees, and his New York businesses, valued in the hundreds of millions or even billions, are at risk due to a property estimate that the legal system is contesting.

“The actual feeling of intimidation exists,” Bopp remarked. “These regulatory boards are under the authority of the highest courts in each state. Moreover, numerous state supreme courts have been infiltrated by extreme left-wing individuals. Have you considered the implications of their influence on the hiring and appointment processes?”

‘People Are Taken Care of on the Left’
Successful complaints against elected attorneys general would deny voters their choice of top attorney to represent state interests in court. A Marquette University professor’s database shows Republican attorneys general have initiated 55 lawsuits against the Biden administration, versus Democrat AGs initiating 131 lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Pervasive imbalances can be seen throughout this field, according to Andrew Kloster, legal counsel for Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and a previous lawyer for the Trump administration. Kloster pointed out that there is a significant disparity in resources, with the left enjoying a 10-to-1 advantage in nonprofit organizations. This is due in part to the fact that many large law firms have a strong left-leaning bias, which limits career opportunities for conservative lawyers. As a result, Democrats have been able to establish a robust legal infrastructure that provides funding for policy research, scholarships for law students and young attorneys, and free legal representation for left-leaning activists and criminals, often using public funds.

“People are taken care of on the left. On the right, not so much. We don’t have the defensive advantage, and we don’t have the offensive appetite,” Kloster said.

According to, Democrats received 81 percent of the donations from lawyers and legal associations during the 2020 election. This statistic is significant considering that non-leftist lawyers are already a minority in their field. It can be argued that targeting and causing financial ruin for these lawyers is a strategic move to effectively eliminate Democratic Party’s legal adversaries.

Large law firms that donate tens of millions of dollars almost entirely to Democrats rake in tax dollars through legal contracts from red states, says a 2022 Alliance for Consumers report. The report also noted that from 2017-2020, eight large law firms put more money into Democrat coffers than the world’s largest asset management firm, Blackrock.

“Their goal is what our goal should be: They lower costs on their side and raise costs on our side,” Kloster said. He also said people should stop giving smear campaigns the time of day, no matter what institution sanctions them: “We say, ‘We don’t trust the swamp, we hate the swamp,’ and then they have a targeting campaign, and we suddenly accept everything they say is true.”

The only way to stop this weaponization of the legal system is to counterattack, Kloster said: “There does need to be funding to make complaints and to do serious investigations … to file complaints against the organized left.” Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who is on the executive board of the Republican Attorneys General Association, noted to The Federalist that in some states these complaints are prosecuted by courts instead of private bar associations, amounting to government policing attorneys’ speech.

In December, the Center for Renewing America filed an ethics complaint against Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was selected for her race and sex, for failing to complete legally required financial disclosures. Kloster also recommended hiring lawyers and paying for insurance to indemnify employees and volunteers against complaints that could easily bankrupt the average person. The Courage Under Fire legal defense fund backs officials targeted for effective opposition to Democrats, including Clark.