Yesterday, I sent the following by certified, registered mail to Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas, PO Box 13287, Austin, TX 78711.
Attorneys involved—signed Plaintiffs Main Brief:
Warren Kenneth, aka Ken, Paxton, Jr. #15649200 209 W. 14th St., Austin, TX 78701
Brent Edward Webster #24053545 500 E. St. Johns, Suite 2. 620, Austin, TX 78752
Lawrence J. Joseph. Related complaint, Washington, D.C. Bar #464777
1250 Connecticut Ave, NW Ste 700-1A, D.C., 20036. No record of Bar license in Texas.
Amici Attorneys
Michael Cloud #24038822 22770 Cascade Springs Dr. Katy, TX 77494
Louis B. “Louie” Gohmert #08068500 PO Box 8080 Tyler, TX 75711
Twelve other Texas representatives signed on as amici, but cannot locate Texas bar information. Their names (but no bar numbers) are on the amici pleadings.
Case that is the basis of this complaint: State of Texas, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin. Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, United States Supreme Court Case #220155.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf
A related complaint has been filed with the District of Columbia Bar.
This case was filed in the United States Supreme Court by the aforementioned Texas licensed attorneys on December 7, 2020. Plaintiffs requested the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for appointment of electors in the defendant states based on alleged claims that the defendant states did not follow their own laws. This case was dismissed on December 11, 2020, due to Plaintiffs’ obvious lack of standing. However, the more egregious behavior is that Plaintiff’s entire argument presupposes the validity of so-called evidence that was previously dismissed by numerous courts within the defendant states—“evidence” which is mainly based on hearsay statements, discredited statistical “reports,” selectively staged video recordings, and opinions of radical right wing disinformation and conspiracy media.
The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Conduct begin by stating that, “Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society…. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct…A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others…”
Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.01 provides that, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless that lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous. (3) A filing or contention is frivolous if it contains knowingly false statements of fact.” Rule 3.03. (a)(1) provides that, “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal. (3) Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal.”
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 also states that, “The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment.” Rule 13 further warns against “fictitious pleadings,” upon which an attorney “shall be held guilty of contempt” as well as subject to other sanctions.
Texas Disciplinary Rule 8.04(3) states that, “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Comment 7 to Rule 8 moreover states that, “Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney.” Plaintiffs’ attorney Paxton is Attorney General for the State of Texas. Amici Plaintiffs Cloud and Gohmert are elected U.S. Congressional Representatives from the State of Texas.
Every Texas Attorney is required to swear an oath to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State…” Additionally, the Attorney General (main Plaintiffs attorney Paxton) swears a similar oath upon assuming office, an oath to “support the Constitutions of the United States, and of this State;” a promise to “honestly demean myself in the practice of law;” and to “conduct myself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” Likewise, upon assuming office in the House of Representatives (Plaintiff amicis Cloud and Gohmert) swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
On December 11, 2020, the subject case was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court for lack of standing, based on the obvious logic that, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”[i] This case essentially regurgitates and repackages specious legal arguments and unsupported factual assertions that were previously propounded in a plethora of related litigation within the Defendant states. The purpose of these prior lawsuits was to overturn legitimate election results in the Defendant states for purposes of subverting the will of the majority of voters in these jurisdictions.
As this motion also does, these prior lawsuits variously asserted claims of so-called “voter fraud,” malfeasance by election officials, or suggested a broader unspecified conspiracy. There are indeed irregularities that occur in every election. Someone votes who is not eligible, or votes twice. Such things are (1) rare, and (2) usually caught.[ii] Any number of other administrative glitches occur during an election that do not involve intentional fraud: a ballot counter jams, or a poll-watcher is denied entrance until their legitimacy can be ascertained. These things are usually corrected promptly and do not affect the overall integrity of the election. The prior suits also contained numerous insinuations of corruption based on states’ legitimate administrative modifications to accommodate voter safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of these prior suits suggested that the defendant states were in violation of their own laws for making these public health accommodations, specifically with respect to mail-in, aka absentee, ballots. However, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington have been conducting all-mail elections for a number of years. Thirty states permit no-excuse absentee voting.[iii] Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia liberalized their absentee voting requirements in 2020 in response to the pandemic.[iv]
As of December 9, 2020, 50 of these previously filed complaints had been dismissed by the courts having jurisdiction.[v] Although many of these cases were dismissed without lengthy commentary, a few judges have not minced words in calling out the egregiousness of these filings. Nevada District Judge James Russell found numerous instances of hearsay witness statements, so-called expert witness testimony that was “of little or no value,” and that Plaintiffs (not these same parties) “did not prove under any standard of proof that illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, due to voter fraud, nor...in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election.”[vi]
In Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al, 4-20-CV-02078, U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew Brann has perhaps best articulated what Plaintiffs are attempting to do here (in State of Texas, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, the basis of this complaint). Procedurally, the Plaintiffs “made multiple attempts at amending the pleadings, and have had attorneys both appear and withdraw in a matter of seventy-two hours." Two additional Texas attorneys are named in the Pennsylvania case—John Scott and Douglas Brian Hughes—but I cannot find their names on a “live” pleading. Judge Brann then comments on the merits of the case: “…the court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.” In granting the 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (November 21, 2020), Judge Brann further argues that Plaintiffs seek to remedy the purported denial of their own votes not by counting the purportedly denied votes, but by invalidating the votes of millions of others. “A court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted.”[vii]
Although State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al, involves different parties and raises somewhat different issues than these prior cases, it borrows heavily from the manufactured “evidence” in the previous cases, bootstrapping similar unfounded claims of “rampant lawlessness,” “unconstitutional acts” and conspiracy theories couched in hypocritical patriotic rhetoric and legal sophistry that were thrown out in the prior suits. It also cites the discredited Cicchetti report,[viii] --a deceitful manipulation of statistical probabilities based on the phenomenon of electoral results shifting as absentee ballots were counted (which almost all rational pollsters predicted would happen). Thus, the attorneys named herein were on sufficient notice of the deficiencies of their own pleading, including the standing issue.
Finally, Texas Disciplinary Rule of Conduct 4.01. 5. provides that, “A lawyer should never knowingly assist a client in the commission of a criminal act or a fraudulent act.”
Again, Judge Brann best articulates the crux of the matter: The intent of these lawsuits is to disenfranchise millions of voters: “…the plaintiffs “seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians…on nothing more than speculation, conspiracy theories and a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral process….In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter (emphasis added), let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”[ix]
It is bad enough when malignant, power-deranged political hacks attempt to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. They should not be aided and abetted by duly licensed attorneys, who have sworn an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution. Here we have individuals in positions of power and privilege wielding the law as a weapon to effectively deny citizens a fundamental legal right. In addition to disenfranchisement of millions of voters, the Plaintiffs are also attempting to undermine citizen confidence in our systems of public administration. This could have dire consequences itself, but is especially pernicious in the middle of a deadly pandemic and economic recession. We are already experiencing unprecedented loss of life, precariatization, and loss of public cohesion, which has only been exacerbated by Plaintiffs’ malfeasance. It also sets a dangerous precedent by sending a message that anyone who doesn’t like the results of a legitimate election can bully the result they want by fomenting chaos in the courts and violence in the streets.[x]
Plaintiffs have not only violated their oaths as attorneys, but also their oaths as public servants. This threat to our democracy is tantamount to sedition. If the Texas Bar expects to retain the degree of public confidence that permits it to remain self-regulated—as well as any semblance of basic decency—it will take appropriate action to purge itself of this dangerous, undemocratic toxicity.
[iv] Yet, none of these states are targeted by Plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, apparently because they got the “right result” that Plaintiffs are seeking to force by means of legal gamesmanship.