Fogbow

So the Kraken ate Sydney's homework?

The dog says "It wasn't me".

Imagining how things might have gone a couple weeks ago:

Klownhandler: Hey guys, ha-
Squidney: *AHEM*
Klownhandler: Sorry, guys and squids, have you completed your 12 hours of CLE? It's due in two weeks.
Squidney: What are you babbling about, Klownboy? The sanctions were stayed on appeal.
Klownhandler: That was just the monetary sanctions. We still have to do the CLEs. And you'll probably be hearing from your state bar soon.
Squidney: WHAT?! I thought this was all taken care of. 'Just appeal, and everything will be delayed for years.'
Klownhandler: I didn't think it was worth the effort to ask to stay the CLEs. We gotta do something anyway, might as well get them out of the way.
Squidney: YOU FOOL!
:a tentacle wraps around Klownhandler's neck and begins squeezing:
Squidney: I don't have TIME to be re-educated! The Jan 6 witch hunt is subpoenaing my phone records. If they get their hands on that, we're all going to jail for conspiracy!
Klownhandler: I'll *gasp* ask the *gasp* district *gasp* court for *gasp* a stay *wheeze*
Squidney: IDIOT! The district court clearly has a vendetta against me. Get a stay from the circuit court.
Klownhandler: But that wo-
Squidney: NOW!
:Klownhandler is thrown across the room, hitting the far wall with a sickening thud:
Klownhandler: Yes, oh Great Kraken.

So, Klownhandler and L. Limp Wood have submitted, what about Squidney and the rest of the gang?

Apparently, Squidney watched some YouTube videos to comply with the judge's order to complete CLE courses.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a ... education/

One of the videos she watched was a "detailed vote rigging demonstration". Sounds like some moron, claiming to be an IT expert "demonstrating" how Dominion voting machines were programmed to switch votes from Trump to Biden.

Wouldn't the judge have specified that the CLE course be approved by the ABA?

I assume that attorneys are required to complete a certain number of hours of CLE each year, in order to keep their license. I further assume that such course must be approved by the American Bar Association. Right? If so, how can a YouTube video comply with the judge's order?

noblepa wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:13 pm Wouldn't the judge have specified that the CLE course be approved by the ABA?

I assume that attorneys are required to complete a certain number of hours of CLE each year, in order to keep their license. I further assume that such course must be approved by the American Bar Association. Right? If so, how can a YouTube video comply with the judge's order?

Attorneys are licensed by the bar of the state that they practice in. The state bars approve CLE, and the ABA plays no role in this process. Most CLE providers attempt to get advance approval for the courses that they offer from the various states for advertising purposes, but some states will not give a thumbs up or thumbs down determination in advance. It is my impression that the process if far less structured than the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) requirement for CPAs.

The ABA is a voluntary membership organization. The percentage of lawyers who are members of the ABA has generally been falling over time (currently the ABA has about 60,000 members out of 1.3 million attorneys in the US, or less than 5% of the lawyer population). The ABA does offer CLE to members and non-members, but it is only one of many CLE providers in the marketplace. There are many attorneys who have never attended any ABA-sponsored conferences or CLEs.

With respect to the CLE it offers, the ABA is currently in an ongoing dispute with the State of Florida with respect to the ABA's requirement that CLE panels have a diverse speaker if the number of panelists exceeds three. Florida views this as an impermissible quota and refuses to allow Florida attorneys to receive credit for any ABA-sponsored CLE.

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:45 pm

noblepa wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:13 pm Wouldn't the judge have specified that the CLE course be approved by the ABA?

I assume that attorneys are required to complete a certain number of hours of CLE each year, in order to keep their license. I further assume that such course must be approved by the American Bar Association. Right? If so, how can a YouTube video comply with the judge's order?

Attorneys are licensed by the bar of the state that they practice in. The state bars approve CLE, and the ABA plays no role in this process. Most CLE providers attempt to get advance approval for the courses that they offer from the various states for advertising purposes, but some states will not give a thumbs up or thumbs down determination in advance. It is my impression that the process if far less structured than the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) requirement for CPAs.

The ABA is a voluntary membership organization. The percentage of lawyers who are members of the ABA has generally been falling over time (currently the ABA has about 60,000 members out of 1.3 million attorneys in the US, or less than 5% of the lawyer population). The ABA does offer CLE to members and non-members, but it is only one of many CLE providers in the marketplace. There are many attorneys who have never attended any ABA-sponsored conferences or CLEs.

With respect to the CLE it offers, the ABA is currently in an ongoing dispute with the State of Florida with respect to the ABA's requirement that CLE panels have a diverse speaker if the number of panelists exceeds three. Florida views this as an impermissible quota and refuses to allow Florida attorneys to receive credit for any ABA-sponsored CLE.

I guess I should have known that. IANAL, but I do know that attorneys are licensed by the various states.

So, let me rephrase the question. Shouldn't Squidney have taken CLE courses approved by her state Bar Association (IIRC, she's from Michigan). In any case, I don't see how a YouTube video, especially one purporting to be a "detailed demonstration of vote rigging", would constitute a valid CLE course.

She is (allegedly) a real attorney, licensed by the state, so she should know better.

Squidney is Texan

Squidney basically fired a two-fingered salute at the judge with her supplemental youtube selections, several of which appear to be exhibits she was sanctioned for including. But she also took regular CLE courses. The CLE list likely meets the actual requirements in the sanctions order.

(edited for clarity)

Thanks, Kevin, that does add clarity. But it looks like she still gave the judge grounds for further sanctions, of the "You're not quite getting the message yet" variety. If the judge is so inclined, which remains to be seen.

In Arkansas, attorneys are licensed through the Arkansas Supreme Court. All CLE is accredited through the Office of Professional Programs, an administrative branch of the Supreme Court.The Arkansas Bar Association is a voluntary professional organization which offers CLE. Other professional organizations such as the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association offer CLE as do professional CLE businesses.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 8:54 am In Arkansas, attorneys are licensed through the Arkansas Supreme Court. All CLE is accredited through the Office of Professional Programs, an administrative branch of the Supreme Court.The Arkansas Bar Association is a voluntary professional organization which offers CLE. Other professional organizations such as the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association offer CLE as do professional CLE businesses.

You are correct. In several states (apparently including Arkansas), the attorney licensing authority is not a bar association, and the state bar association that exist is a voluntary one. In states where the bar association is the licensing authority (often under the oversight of the state’s highest court), membership in the state bar association is mandatory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_bar_association

Because I have been active in the ABA Tax Section for 20+ years, I tend to obtain the lion’s share of my CLE from ABA Tax Section programming. I am glad I am not licensed in Florida, or I would have to scramble for replacement CLE credits

OMG, we have a squid!!!

The complaint:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... county.pdf

So, what happens if the complaint is upheld? Does she get a tattoo on her forehead? A GPS tracker on her tablet scrolling finger? A permanent set of letters to add to her name - GIL?

Mike Dunford's doing a Twitch stream on this at 8:30pm ET (that's 19:30 CT right?) at https://t.co/s58ozybDdC

Mike Dunford @questauthority
Good evening, everyone:
Tonight's stream starts at 19:30 CST. Busy night - we've got the bar disciplinary proceeding petition against Sidney Powell to look at, Eastman hearing to discuss and then we'll (finally) look at the sanctions response in Dominion.

keith wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:44 pm So, what happens if the complaint is upheld? Does she get a tattoo on her forehead? A GPS tracker on her tablet scrolling finger? A permanent set of letters to add to her name - GIL?

Sanctions from the bar can range from public shaming, being forced to take classes, temporary suspension, and permanent disbarment. It is unusual for someone to be permanently disbarred the first time out.

But: It will hamper her ability to litigate out of state. When applying to work on an out-of-state case, the court typically asks if you've been disciplined by any bar; "yes" tends the cause the court to reject your application.

Public shaming would not be the best choice for her. You have to have shame first.

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:20 pm Public shaming would not be the best choice for her. You have to have shame first.

Maybe a few days in the stocks...

And, obviously, Powell already has been disciplined (by a court) and has been ordered to take classes.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the bar seeks permanent disbarment (because lesser sanctions haven't deterred her), but lengthy-yet-temporary suspension will end up being the eventual sanction imposed.

Forget this calls for pizza!

northland10 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:20 pm Public shaming would not be the best choice for her. You have to have shame first.

Furthermore, the Cult of Trump would take a mere public reprimand not as a shameful event, but as a badge of honor. "She must be over the target", or "They're scared to death of her". It would only increase her standing in the circles that she cares about.

It would also increase the grift. She would now need more money for her legal defense fund to fight the tyranny.