Violent thugs and hooligans brutally attack police officers in D.C.

Except now there is an Attorney General willing to enforce the law.

 

It doesn't necessarily matter if they personally comply, what matters is if AT&T and Verizon comply.

 

Sad commentary on the attorney, appears he has passed, non-responsive. All his bravado and now he is gone. I guess the Jan 6th tourists need to find new counsel.

 

Oops. Misrepresenting to the judge about the reason for his non-availability and a non-lawyer making court appearances. This won't go well.

 

Wait until you see why he’s a non lawyer.

 

All the best people.

 

Practicing law without a license (a crime in Florida and probably everywhere else) while on pretrial release for other crimes is always a smart play.

 

If he gets charged for practicing law without a license, and he took it trial, could he represent himself in that case?

 

Sure, after the judge conducts a Faretta inquiry.

 

A man who chooses to represent himself…

 

My Congressboy says "they" have a plan to help the Jan 6th patriots facing trial.

and to hell with the rule of law I guess.


But don't worry, he's a patriot (and the reason why I've donated money to everyone R & D that has announced they were going to run against him in 2022. Really need to get this dangerous clown out of office.

At Macon County GOP event yesterday, Madison Cawthorn called January 6 rioters “political hostages,” and spoke of trying to “bust them out.” Then- Attendee: “When are you gonna call us to Washington again?" Cawthorn: “We are actively working on that one.”

 

Good lord. What a wanker.

 

He attended college for 1 semester, got bad grades, left and never came back. Being a congressboy is his first full time job and he told several whopping lies in the campaign. But he is a Republican and has really nice teeth

 

Cawthorn tries to “own the libs“ so gets the trump follower vote, no matter what. He’s not the most intelligent - which he admits.

 

Hmmmm. Interesting in that I am not surprised by either development.

 

The practice of law, by definition, entails representing other ppl. (or giving other ppl. legal advice about legal matters in which you do not have a stake).

Nothing about the mere existence of lawyers, or licensure to practice law, ever served to deprive ppl of their natural right to represent themselves.

(which certainly isn't to suggest that it is advisable; there are many reasons for the existence of lawyers and the practice as a profession--but you can still always go it alone, and speak on your own behalf--as long as you are legally competent, anyway).

 

I think he’s pointing out the lawyer inception of an unlicensed lawyer representing himself in a criminal case, where the crime alleged is practicing law without a license. Not sure it was a serious question as to whether this Saul
Goodman inspired fellow would be “allowed” to represent himself.

I’m sure this guy is technically more competent than the average Joe to represent himself having attended (graduated?) law school, although he’s obviously disgraced whatever law school it was he attended.

 

Perhaps, but my point(s) stand(s). He can represent himself even if the charge was UPL.

(...and, as @g8rjd insinuated, he'd "...have a fool for a client", if he chooses to go that route--but you have an (almost) absolute right to be a fool, too...c'est la vie).