dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

The left will stoop to any means to ban guns. Our liberty is under constant attack by the left and Democrats.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/uncategorized/judicial-watch-files-complaint-with-rhode-island-supreme-court-against-u-s-senator-sheldon-whitehouse-for-unauthorized-practice-of-law/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190903223158

JUDICIAL WATCH FILES COMPLAINT WITH RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT AGAINST U.S. SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE FOR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Alleges Whitehouse filed a brief with U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of four clients while maintaining inactive status and that the brief was nothing more than an attack on the federal judiciary and an open threat to the U.S. Supreme Court

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a complaint with the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the Rhode Island Supreme Court against U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who is a member of the Rhode Island bar, for filing an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of four clients while maintaining inactive status as a lawyer. In addition, Judicial Watch argues: “the brief Senator Whitehouse filed was unbecoming of the legal profession as it is nothing more than an attack on the federal judiciary and an open threat to the U.S. Supreme Court.” The complaint contains a copy of the Whitehouse brief.

At issue in the Supreme Court case in which Senator Whitehouse submitted the brief (NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York (18-280)) is whether New York City’s ban on t***sporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.

The Judicial Watch complaint reads as follows:

August 19, 2019

Via Certified Mail and Electronic Mail (UPLC@courts.ri.gov)

Thomas W. Madonna, Chair
Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee
c/o Rhode Island Supreme Court Clerk’s Office
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903

Re: U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaint

Dear Chair Madonna:

Judicial Watch files this unauthorized practice of law complaint against Rhode Island bar member U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of four clients while maintaining inactive status. In addition, the brief Senator Whitehouse filed was unbecoming of the legal profession as it is nothing more than an attack on the federal judiciary and an open threat to the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to the Rhode Island Judiciary website, Senator Whitehouse maintains inactive status. As an inactive member of the Rhode Island bar, Senator Whitehouse cannot practice law in Rhode Island. However, on August 12, 2019, Senator Whitehouse did just that. He filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Senators Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand. The filing of a brief – let alone all that is required to file a brief – on behalf of clients is indisputably the practice of law.

To be clear, Senator Whitehouse may not have spoken to his clients, researched the law, or written the brief in Rhode Island. However, he provided a Providence, Rhode Island address to the Rhode Island Judiciary. In addition, there is no dispute that Senator Whitehouse is a Rhode Island resident and spends a substantial amount of his time in Rhode Island. If Senator Whitehouse is practicing law in another jurisdiction, it is merely incidental or temporary. Under the rules, Senator Whitehouse was practicing law in Rhode Island.

In addition, to Judicial Watch’s knowledge, Senator Whitehouse is not authorized to practice law in another jurisdiction. Senator Whitehouse lists a Washington, D.C. address on the brief; yet, according to the District of Columbia Bar website, Senator Whitehouse is not a member of the DC Bar. Therefore, if Senator Whitehouse claims he was not practicing law in Rhode Island but in Washington, D.C., he violated the “Unauthorized Practice of Law” rule of D.C.

Besides practicing law without the proper authorization, Senator Whitehouse also violated the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct by attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief concludes:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it to be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court does not rule the way Senator Whitehouse and his clients prefer, they will use their power as Senators to restructure the Court.

Such a threat violates the spirit if not the letter of Rhode Island’s Rules of Professional Conduct. As the preamble explains:

“A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”
“A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges.”
“A lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system.”
A lawyer should “maintain a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system.”
Attacking the federal judiciary and openly threatening the U.S. Supreme Court is unbecoming for a member of the legal profession as well as a sitting U.S. Senator. Senator Whitehouse’s assertion, without basis, that the Court does not rule on the merits of cases but rather on partisan beliefs undermines confidence in the legal system. It is one thing for a politician to make such a claim on the campaign trail, it is another for a lawyer to make such a charge as part of a legal proceeding. In doing so, Senator Whitehouse has violated the rules of professional conduct.

The misconduct of Senator Whitehouse noted above appears obvious on its face. Senator Whitehouse either violated Rhode Island’s or D.C.’s rules, or both. Senator Whitehouse’s filing of a brief on behalf of clients without an active law license anywhere in the country is inexcusable. Senator Whitehouse’s attack on the federal judiciary and open threat to the U.S. Supreme Court raises substantial questions about his character and fitness to practice law. His actions warrant a full investigation by the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.

“Senator Whitehouse is violating basic legal ethics in threatening the Supreme Court while engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “He should be held accountable for these abuses.”

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Well, we've been saying for awhile that liberals don't believe in the Law. Now you have it.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Oh, but they are always saying about Trump, "No one is above the law!" It is time that the hypocrites on the left follow their own advice.

Hah, ain't gonna happen!

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

I lived in Rhode Island longer than any other state. Sheldon Whitehouse is a typical Democrat. He has a slot on top of his head. You drop a coin in, then pull his ear and a recording comes out with the latest liberal line. He was among the Democratic slobs piling on Kavanaugh during the hearings.

Rhode Island is a Democratic machine. Some of the people elected confirm the old adage that if Mickey Mouse ran for office, some people would v**e for him if he was the right party. One year in the 70s. the House or Senate was reduced to six Republicans.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Off topic a little, Tom Fitton from Judicial watch using FOIAs got into Obama's office and found ALL of Hillary's letters and more.

bikerlee

I just can't believe what the Democrats will try to pull off. the Judiciary branch is an equal branch of government and should not be swayed or attempted to be by either of the other branches of government.
All parties involved in trying to do so should be investigated and charged or expelled for trying to influence, manage or control, under threat, a branch of the government!!

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Current Elitist Threats to Our Republic
Posted Friday, September 6, 2019 | By Outside Contributor | 41 Comments

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”—Ronald Reagan

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken

“There are men [and now women] in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”—Daniel Webster

“As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”—Abraham Lincoln

In speaking of potential threats to our liberty, Lincoln warned of ambitious individuals of the type described by Mencken and Webster—people seeking power to impose their own private, elitist vision on the American people. Honest Abe said that our best defense against such lust for power was to uphold and abide by the Constitution and laws. Only by such jealous protection can we protect our rights and liberty from being subverted.

The four quotes above are cited because our system of government and law—indeed, our very rights and liberty—are under assault from many quarters within our society.

Various Americans who believe that they know the “right” path forward for our country crave the power to force their plans upon us. It’s clear they’re willing to trample the Constitution, our laws, and our traditions, if that’s what it takes to achieve their goals.

The most obvious collective movement in this direction is the radical and messianic agenda of the democratic socialists. But in this article, I would like to focus on four instances of specific ways in which our system is under attack.

Supreme Court
Last month, five U.S. senators—Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), all Democrats—launched an ugly attack against the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

Essentially, the senators have issued a two-fold threat—first, to make life miserable for justices who v**e contrary to the desires of the Democratic Party, and second, to attempt to restructure the Supreme Court itself unless the conservative justices change the way they v**e on cases.

In seeking to intimidate and control what cases the court hears and what decisions the justices render, the senators are committing aggression against the hallowed principle of the separation of powers. They also are acting with rank hypocrisy, saying they want to “reduce the influence of politics” on the court, while at the same time trying to coerce the court to rule in accord with their political agenda.

National Popular V**e
The National Popular V**e initiative seeks to bypass the constitutionally mandated E*******l College by awarding a state’s e*******l v**es to the candidate who receives the most v**es nationwide rather than in their own state. So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia (all, not coincidentally, governed by Democrats) have enacted such legislation.

How ironic that those who howl in protest about “disenfranchisement” whenever a state or municipality purges its v**er rolls of dead people and duplicate registrations have no compunctions about disenfranchising a majority of actual v**ers in their own states.

Consider, too, a recent decision rendered by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals: The judges ruled that e*****rs can v**e for whomever they want for president, regardless of any state laws requiring them to cast their v**e for the candidate who received a majority of v**es in that state. Such a policy would be an invitation to graft and corruption.

Both the National Popular V**e and the recent court decision make a mockery of our principle of representative government.

FBI
You might think that it would be impossible for p**********l e*****rs to be bought off. After all, we could have the FBI monitor their finances, right? But what if the FBI itself has become politicized and lawless? What if its top officials have decided that, for the good of the country, they need to abandon impartiality and instead actively intervene to decide who should be president of the United States? That’s where we are in the post-Jim Comey era.

I won’t belabor former FBI Director Comey’s t***sgressions here. They’ve been widely documented and discussed elsewhere. (The Wall Street Journal article “Jim Comey’s Higher Virtue” provides a useful overview.) However, it’s plain that the American republic is in jeopardy when its top law enforcement officers believe they are above the law and entitled to act as kingmakers.

Federal Reserve
Just as the machinations of Comey show the dangers of “the deep state,” so do the candid remarks of another powerful, unelected wannabe kingmaker: William Dudley, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In an amazingly brazen opinion column on Bloomberg.com on Aug. 27, Dudley floated the notion that the Fed might be justified in adopting policies designed to prevent the ree******n of President Donald Trump.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve system is already regarded in many circles as the second-most powerful person in the country. That’s already a troubling anomaly in a country based on a democratically accountable representative government.

To suggest that the Fed act to tilt the e******n of the most powerful person in the country—the president—toward the candidate of its preference is an egregious affront to our system of government.

All Americans need to be alert to what is going on around us, even though much of the actual plotting is taking place behind closed doors. Partisan and ideological zealots seek to ride roughshod over the constitution and laws that have kept Americans free for over 200 years. I’m not asserting that these are evil people. They simply are in the thrall of the three meta-errors that pervade progressivism: an unjustified faith in government competence, an exaggerated confidence in what human willpower can accomplish, and the self-delusions of good intentions.

But even if they are not inherently bad people, they are very dangerous.

Their attempts to undermine our democratic republic’s principles make Reagan’s warning exceedingly timely: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Mark Hendrickson, an economist, recently retired from the faculty of Grove City College, where he remains a fellow for economic and social policy at the Institute for Faith & Freedom.

Reprinted with permission from - The Epoch Times - by Mark Hendrickson