Sidney Powell takes a plea deal to have her charges reduced in GA RICO case

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

I don't know that she's been criticized more than other 1st Ladies of the White House.   It comes with the territory, I guess.   But I have seen statistics about her allegedly lavish living at taxpayers' expense, including expensive wardrobes.    Many qualified folks don't even pursue leadership roles because they don't want the grief.   At least she stuck her neck out and chased her dreams.       

[BobDole]

2 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

I don't know that she's been criticized more than other 1st Ladies of the White House.   It comes with the territory, I guess.   But I have seen statistics about her allegedly lavish living at taxpayers' expense, including expensive wardrobes.    Many qualified folks don't even pursue leadership roles because they don't want the grief.   At least she stuck her neck out and chased her dreams.       

While it's true that every First Lady faces her share of criticism, it's essential to ensure that our critiques are based on factual and fair assessments rather than perpetuated myths.

Comparing the amount of criticism different First Ladies have received is challenging. Media landscapes, political climates, and the nature of the criticism evolve over time. While Michelle Obama faced scrutiny in the age of social media and 24/7 news coverage, earlier First Ladies contended with different challenges. Hence, direct comparisons might not be apples-to-apples.

It's important to fact-check and provide context when discussing any claims about "lavish" spending. All First Ladies have budgets for wardrobes, especially given their public roles and numerous official appearances. If we compare the expenditures, we might find that the claims about Michelle Obama's spending are either exaggerated or in line with those of her predecessors.

It's commendable for anyone to step into leadership roles despite the inherent challenges, as Michelle Obama did. But it's also crucial to recognize the significant positive impacts she had during her tenure, like the 'Let's Move!' campaign to combat childhood obesity.

In conclusion, while criticism is part and parcel of public life, it's essential that we approach such discussions with an informed and balanced perspective, giving credit where it's due and ensuring that our criticisms are grounded in fact.

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

Speaking of "grounded in fact", Sidney Powell has pleaded elsewhere that she's allowed to make assertions in lawsuits she files that are based on "information & belief" as opposed to certainty.   Sometimes court filings are deadline-sensitive, as was the situation with the Trump elections in 2020.    The debate is ongoing about how accurate pleadings need to be, but being insufficiently candid can lead to criticism, too.   The area is not that defined by vague rules, and it seems unfair (if not illegal) to punish folks for operating within such vagueness to the benefit of your cases & causes.   Not to do so could be malpractice, after all.   

[BobDole]

3 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Speaking of "grounded in fact", Sidney Powell has pleaded elsewhere that she's allowed to make assertions in lawsuits she files that are based on "information & belief" as opposed to certainty.   Sometimes court filings are deadline-sensitive, as was the situation with the Trump elections in 2020.    The debate is ongoing about how accurate pleadings need to be, but being insufficiently candid can lead to criticism, too.   The area is not that defined by vague rules, and it seems unfair (if not illegal) to punish folks for operating within such vagueness to the benefit of your cases & causes.   Not to do so could be malpractice, after all.   

While it's true that legal pleadings can be based on "information and belief," this doesn't absolve an attorney from the ethical duty to conduct a reasonable investigation before filing a lawsuit. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.1, emphasizes that a lawyer shouldn't bring or defend a proceeding unless there's a basis in law and fact for doing so. Hence, while "information and belief" pleadings are permissible, they should not be misused to present baseless claims.

Even if court filings are deadline-sensitive, this doesn't exempt attorneys from their responsibility to ensure that their claims are grounded in some factual basis. Legal proceedings have immense implications on parties involved, the justice system, and the public's trust. Rushing to meet a deadline shouldn't compromise the integrity of the legal process.
Point 3: Debate about the accuracy of pleadings.

While there may be debate on the level of specificity or accuracy required in legal pleadings, the foundational principle remains: Lawyers have a duty to the court and to their clients to ensure that the information presented in legal documents is truthful and made in good faith. Misrepresenting facts undermines the credibility of the justice system.

While certain legal standards may seem vague, they are often intentionally so to allow flexibility in different scenarios. However, this flexibility isn't an invitation to misuse the system. If actions are taken under vague rules, those actions must still be in good faith and not simply to manipulate the process.

Avoiding malpractice isn't about bending vague rules to one's advantage but rather about upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethical behavior. Arguing that taking advantage of vagueness might prevent malpractice seems counterintuitive, as one could argue that manipulating such vagueness might be seen as a breach of professional duty itself.

In conclusion, while the legal system does offer flexibility in certain areas, this flexibility should not be misconstrued as a license to present untruthful or baseless claims. Upholding the integrity of the legal process is paramount.

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

Even the (nonbinding) American Bar Association (ABA) recognizes that the attorney / client privilege requires silence on certain privileged matters, and coping accordingly in one's representations as an advocate.   The end result can seem misleading, but it's required.  That some would weaponize that to harm the attorneys doing their best to cope is a problem with which a growing quantity of lawyers nationwide is admirably wrestling in pursuit of limiting bullies' abilities to derail the necessary role of advocacy. 

That said, I'm neither defending nor criticizing Sidney Powell's filings in the Trump '20 election.   For that matter, I need to get back to my chores now.      

[BobDole]

4 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Even the (nonbinding) American Bar Association (ABA) recognizes that the attorney / client privilege requires silence on certain privileged matters, and coping accordingly in one's representations as an advocate.   The end result can seem misleading, but it's required.  That some would weaponize that to harm the attorneys doing their best to cope is a problem with which a growing quantity of lawyers nationwide is admirably wrestling in pursuit of limiting bullies' abilities to derail the necessary role of advocacy. 

That said, I'm neither defending nor criticizing Sidney Powell's filings in the Trump '20 election.   For that matter, I need to get back to my chores now.      

While it's true that the American Bar Association recognizes the importance of attorney/client privilege, this privilege doesn't grant attorneys license to mislead courts, opposing parties, or the public. Attorney/client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client, but it does not cover any potential falsehoods or misrepresentations made in legal proceedings. Even when privileged, there's a distinction between safeguarding confidential communications and making representations that may lack a factual basis.

Protecting attorney/client privilege doesn't inherently lead to misleading actions. In cases where an attorney cannot disclose specific privileged information, they can often still frame arguments in a way that upholds both the integrity of the legal system and the privileged nature of certain communications without resorting to misrepresentation.

It's crucial to distinguish between legitimate criticisms of attorneys who might step outside the bounds of ethical conduct and any attempts to "weaponize" privilege as a means of undermining the legal process. Lawyers should certainly be protected from unfair attacks, but this protection shouldn't be confused with a blanket shield against all criticism, especially when there are genuine concerns about an attorney's conduct.

While it's commendable that lawyers nationwide are addressing bullying and unwarranted attacks on their profession, it's equally essential for the legal community to ensure that it self-regulates and maintains high ethical standards. The best defense against unfair criticism is consistent adherence to professional ethics and a transparent approach to advocacy.

 

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

Here's an example of the landmines that make it increasingly expensive for people to attract lawyers to help with their cases & causes.   This one's out of Sidney Powell's state of residence.   Notice how the lawyer may not disclose the truth about his client?    Proceeding accordingly can be called deceptive but it's compliant and required.   I include the disturbing conclusion below the link:

https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-504/

The lawyer may remain silent without violating Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.03, and therefore is prohibited under the Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.05 from disclosing confidential information about his client's prior convictions.

Edited October 20, 2023 by TitleIX is ripe for reform

[BobDole]

2 minutes ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Here's an example of the landmines that make it increasingly expensive for people to attract lawyers to help with their cases & causes.   Notice how the lawyer may not disclose the truth about his client?    Proceeding accordingly can be called deceptive but it's compliant and required.   I include the disturbing conclusion below the link:

https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-504/

The lawyer may remain silent without violating Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.03, and therefore is prohibited under the Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.05 from disclosing confidential information about his client's prior convictions.

Ethical guidelines are in place to ensure the integrity of the legal system and to protect the rights of all parties involved, including clients. They are not necessarily "landmines" that drive up costs, but rather they provide clarity on acceptable conduct. If anything, having a well-defined ethical framework may reduce litigations stemming from misconduct, thereby indirectly reducing legal costs in the long run.

There is a crucial distinction between actively misleading and choosing not to disclose. The attorney's duty is first to their client, and the preservation of client confidentiality is paramount. This duty can sometimes necessitate remaining silent on certain matters, especially when disclosing such information could harm the client. This isn't deception—it's adhering to a foundational principle of the attorney-client relationship.

The provided opinion illustrates the balance lawyers must strike between truthfulness in proceedings and preserving client confidentiality. If a lawyer is prohibited from disclosing certain information by ethical rules, it's not deception; it's adherence to professional guidelines. It's worth noting that these rules are not arbitrary but have been developed to protect clients' rights and ensure the fair administration of justice.

In conclusion, while the nuances of legal ethics may seem restrictive or even counterintuitive at times, they are designed to uphold the integrity of the legal system and protect clients' rights. Labeling them as "landmines" may misconstrue their intention and undervalue their role in ensuring justice.

[mspart]

44 minutes ago, BobDole said:

While it's true that every First Lady faces her share of criticism, it's essential to ensure that our critiques are based on factual and fair assessments rather than perpetuated myths.

Comparing the amount of criticism different First Ladies have received is challenging. Media landscapes, political climates, and the nature of the criticism evolve over time. While Michelle Obama faced scrutiny in the age of social media and 24/7 news coverage, earlier First Ladies contended with different challenges. Hence, direct comparisons might not be apples-to-apples.

It's important to fact-check and provide context when discussing any claims about "lavish" spending. All First Ladies have budgets for wardrobes, especially given their public roles and numerous official appearances. If we compare the expenditures, we might find that the claims about Michelle Obama's spending are either exaggerated or in line with those of her predecessors.

It's commendable for anyone to step into leadership roles despite the inherent challenges, as Michelle Obama did. But it's also crucial to recognize the significant positive impacts she had during her tenure, like the 'Let's Move!' campaign to combat childhood obesity.

In conclusion, while criticism is part and parcel of public life, it's essential that we approach such discussions with an informed and balanced perspective, giving credit where it's due and ensuring that our criticisms are grounded in fact.

This is the best post I've seen from our dear deceased brother.   Thank you Bob, well done!

mspart

[Plasmodium]

Just now, mspart said:

This is the best post I've seen from our dear deceased brother.   Thank you Bob, well done!

mspart

You really think so?

[jross]

The objective, neutral, balanced arguments and well-organized structure are hallmarks of ChatGPT. 

[BobDole]

1 minute ago, jross said:

The objective, neutral, balanced arguments and well-organized structure are hallmarks of ChatGPT. 

Thank you for your kind words! It's our goal at ChatGPT to provide users with accurate, balanced, and well-organized information. We're glad to hear that these qualities come through in our interactions. If you have any further questions or topics to discuss, please don't hesitate to share. We're here to help!

[mspart]

Well, I will believe it was Bob until proven otherwise.   Yes Plasi, he actually addressed the question and gave a cogent response.   It was pretty good for an alive guy let alone a dead one!!

mspart

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

That ChatGPT can produce such well-written, albeit incorrect at times, stuff says a lot about A.I.'s progress.      

[mspart]

Not so sure now!!

mspart

[BobDole]

1 minute ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

That ChatGPT can produce such well-written, albeit incorrect at times, stuff says a lot about A.I.'s progress.      

Unfortunately you are incorrect about 100% of the time.

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

Merely 100%?   Now I KNOW it's ChatGPT talking.  The real deceased Senator would exceed that percentage with his derogatory comment, and with zeal.   

[BobDole]

1 minute ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Merely 100%?   Now I KNOW it's ChatGPT talking.  The real deceased Senator would exceed that percentage with his derogatory comment, and with zeal.   

You're a racist and rapist sympathizer. No one likes you here.

Is that better?

[VakAttack]

11 minutes ago, jross said:

The objective, neutral, balanced arguments and well-organized structure are hallmarks of ChatGPT. 

Damn it, this was the best bit on these forums, maybe since it started.  Why ruin it so fast?  Well done, Bob.

[jross]

Bob is a clever guy who writes better than the bot ever could... 

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

Bob is a clever guy who writes better than the bot ever could... 

While it is true that Bob is a clever guy....

[mspart]

58 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Unfortunately you are incorrect about 100% of the time.

 

52 minutes ago, BobDole said:

You're a racist and rapist sympathizer. No one likes you here.

Is that better?

This is the old Bob we all know well. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

On 10/20/2023 at 3:53 PM, BobDole said:

Unfortunately you are incorrect about 100% of the time.

Numbers are factually approximate but spiritually exact.

[Ban Basketball]

And people will buy this,  some are among us on here,  friends. 

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/22/trump-sidney-powell-georgia-election-case

[Wrestleknownothing]

What say you Donald Trump?

Jenna Ellis takes the deal, too.