That Attorney Disciplinary Committee in New York

by Bill Corden

I’ve had extensive dealings myself with the Attorney Disciplinary committee in New York and I have to let people know that it’s the WORST process imaginable.

It’s staffed by volunteer attorneys  who make it quite plain that they don’t want to investigate anything that they don’t get paid for. The entire infrastructure is peopled by political appointments or lawyers trying to pad their resumes. They don’t call witnesses (as Mr Giuliani has repeatedly stated) they don’t answer emails or letters and they offer no assistance whatsoever to complainants unless the complainant is influential in their preferred political sphere. It’s the very same set up for complaints against judges, and  although that committee is a little more responsive, it’s still a completely toothless tiger.

The penalties they give out are laughed at by the rogue lawyers and invariably have no effect on their behaviour, which is why Giuliani  ridicules the decision. And so he should ridicule it, because there has been no legal process. There is a very legitimate case to be made for claims that the election was fixed, anyone who has the slightest understanding of statistics would question how mail-in votes went so overwhelmingly in favour of Biden, as it defies all possible odds. They have consistently refused to hear any evidence and ruthlessly silenced anyone with the effrontery to challenge the result. The corrupt media won’t give one line of ink to it.

When someone as high profile as Giuliani can’t get justice what chance does the great unwashed have?

My own case against a certain lawyer in Manhattan is lying at the bottom of somebody’s two foot high in-basket and will never, ever see the light of day.


2 Responses

  1. The reason mail-in votes were overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden has nothing to do with statistics or “defying odds”. Rather, it’s pretty simple common sense: the voters who were concerned with minimizing the transmission of COVID to others, and thus chose to cast an absentee ballot rather than stand in line and vote, overwhelmingly happened to be of the Democratic persuasion (the Republican view was something more along the line of “the hell with taking precautions, inconveniencing myself, or agreeing with the liberals on something. I do what I want.”). If you think it’s fishy that most of those votes were for Biden, rather than being something closer to say, 50/50, then you are either completely unaware of this (which I would find greatly surprising, as the topic of “preferred means of voting, Democrat vs. Republican voter” was reported and discussed at length during the election). Or, you believe that voters typically make their selections at random rather than voting in line with their views and political affiliations.

  2. Say, doesn’t it strike you as fishy that most of those in-person ballots that were initially counted were for the Republican candidate? If that isn’t clear evidence of an attempt to rig the election in the Republicans’ favor, then I don’t know what is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New English Review Press is a priceless cultural institution.
                              — Bruce Bawer

The perfect gift for the history lover in your life. Order on Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK or wherever books are sold

Order at Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold. 

Order at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Available at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Send this to a friend