Essentially, his license is gone. His last hope is the California Supreme Court and I doubt they will re-instate him given the thorough bar investigation. Presumably, the Claremont Institute (a right wing think tank) is paying him. California is a blue state, but there are deep red pockets in Southern California, in the central San Joaquin Valley and in the Far North.

Since only people like Trump can afford a high falutin lawyer like Eastman; and Eastman can get away advising under a corrupted version of The Constitution, and folks like Trump can blame the lawyer because he acts illegally because it is under his advisement… No wonder why folks like Trump can brag that they can kill someone and get away with it. Meanwhile commoners like me look at this and shake our heads, or we think if Trump can do it, I can do it and the fragility of our laws are further weakened. I feel this weakening in my bones, much like I feel a sickness coming on.

You’ve never been self-employed, then.

“A top contender for secretary of defense,” says DTJr. Seems like Grenell’s been working as a shadow secretary on his own the last three years, with Trump’s discrete encouragement.

(thanks for the link.)

sorry, State.

I will try to write at lawyer level. What does the first amendment have to do with it?

Of course Eastman has the right to argue that his speech was protected, but he is likely to fail in the context of his having conspired with Donald Trump to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The First Amendment does not protect “speech integral to unlawful conduct.” United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, 783 (2023); “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Ibid., quoting Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949). “Many long established criminal proscriptions—such as laws against conspiracy, incitement, and solicitation—criminalize speech (commercial or not) that is intended to induce or commence illegal activities.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 298 (2008).

On January 4, 2021 Eastman importuned Mike Pence to unilaterally delay the electoral count or to disregard and/or reject electoral votes. Solicitation of another to engage in illegal activity is “categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.” Williams, at 297.

The reporting is that the Bar Disciplinary Judge found that Eastman’s power of speech was employed to urge VP Pence to do something that was illegal and unconstitutional. And other attorneys had already told Eastman that his theories were nonsense and potentially criminal acts before Eastman spoke with Mike Pence.

Maybe I am not grounded in facts and law, so I use a religious analogy to convey the difference between the corrupted and those who corrupt others, where there are categories in the law, but what happens for those who corrupt the law? The law cannot go beyond its own field of reference to view its corruption in a hearing as a form of evidence except in Constitutional appeal, I think, but maybe in a hearing on professional conduct. That’s my original thought, that Bar Associations should be able to define fascist law practice out of professional conduct now that it has begun to appear in American life. I think fascism is controversial to define, but even a layman’s definition would include using the law as sedition for a tyrant cult of personality to overturn a lawful Presidential election.

There are sacred auspices in the law where there is power in processes over life and death. American law does not have a field of reference to capture fascist actions against it’s foundation in any special way, I think, such as it does for other forms of terrorism or hate crimes. I think, but I am not sure, that fascist law practice is terrorist by definition. Maybe I should check out Eastman’s publications at the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence to learn how fascist law practice can work in our system.

p.s.
I would happily amend my username by adding some British identifier should you believe it would better serve the community of commenters to more readily appreciate that pertinent fact.

Twaddle. The CIA and McGill suggest more than one profession has problems with self-regulation

How does the law have power over life and death such as to sentence a person to spend their entire adult life in prison? How does that happen without destroying the symbolic value of humanity? How is there justice in the law? How is truth in evidence for such as this accepted to decide fate? So truth and justice have the same ritual and sacrificial origins. There is an acceptance of sacred character in the taboos of professional norms. A doctor has a relationship to the patient which forms moral principles and an ethos called the doctor-patient relationship. It is sacred and ‘auspices’ refers to something like ‘nuptials’ at a wedding or good conduct at a funeral or why you don’t eat human flesh. The lawyer has a sacred relationship to their client and the court. It is existential to the profession and its relationship to truth and justice. I don’t believe this analysis is within a specific ‘religion’ but from structural anthropology, sociology and philosophy.

I need to return to the library and complete the manuscripts the obedientiaries assigned to me reflecting what is known on certain medicature, but like the Tatars from the Womb of Civilization, I am circumnavigating. I traveled out from the monastery west to east.

I did not expect to arrive here, but, as some say, fortune is insane, blind, stupid, and cruel, but she is also bounteous, graceful, kind and loving! She stands on a rolling rock with many wheels moving eastward. Some move westward, each inside the other. The wheels are like onion peels each inside the other with a substance like a luminiferous ether in between the wheels.

Not quite

Although the ancient Roman symbol of the bundle of rods (fascio) and an axe were the symbol of justice, Mussolini called his movement fascisti before adopting the Roman symbol.

“[By 1914] The term “fascio” (plural “fasci”) was then common in Italy’s political lexicon, in its core meaning of “bundle”, to denote a loosely-organized group grounded in a common ideology. It was the workers’ movement in Sicily of the mid-1890s that firmly cemented the word “fascio” into everyday use. At the time, the press even sometimes tagged members of the Sicilian fasci as “fascisti.”
Two decades later, especially after Italy entered the War in May 1915, there were dozens of activist groups of all stripes with “fascio’ in their name.“
T. Corey Brennan, Professor, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences

https://blog.oup.com/2022/10/the-radical-reinterpretation-of-the-fasces-in-mussolinis-italy/

“23 March 1919, Mussolini relaunched his war movement as a paramilitary group, the “Italian Fasci of Combat.” …
In late October his campaign proclaimed that “the Fascist emblem signifies unity, force and justice!”, and showed Roman fasces with cords loosened at the base of the bundle, evidently in the process of being readied for punitive use.”

Mussolini’s adoption of Roman symbolism, Roman salute and the use of Latin, was part of the propaganda effort that his project was. to ‘Make Italy Roman (ie Great) Again’