Comments on Advance Indiana™: Indianapolis Bar Association Responds To Shabazz' Attack On Judge Rosenberg

Not hardly, Cato. Paul's point and mine is tha...

2011-04-29T08:55:42.089-05:00

Not hardly, Cato. Paul's point and mine is that he is making a very serious allegation against a judge. He is an officer of the court as a licensed attorney. If he has credible evidence, he should bring it to the attention of the persons responsible for policing judges. If you've read his blog with any regularity, you know he has repeatedly made wild claims about exchanges that have supposedly taken place between people. To believe him, you have to believe that someone in the room who heard those conversations shared them with him. Given his relationship with the parties' typically that are the subject of those exchanges, it is doubtful that anyone would have shared that information with him. In most cases, he would be the last person with whom they would share that information. I think most people knowledgeable with the parties involved on the Democratic Party side of the Charlie White dispute would agree that Abdul is the last person with whom they are going to share information.

I make note that Wilson, an avowed Democrat, is st...

2011-04-29T08:42:04.421-05:00

I make note that Wilson, an avowed Democrat, is standing up for free speech, though the target of Abdul's comment was a Democrat, while the resident Republicans are being vindictive and seeking to silence free speech.

This is why I keep my ACLU dues paid up and have lately changed my voting habits with regard to the D's.

What Gary and Paul propose is nothing short of bul...

2011-04-29T08:37:08.433-05:00

What Gary and Paul propose is nothing short of bullying within a guild and an outright declaration of war on the First Amendment. It's big government at its ultimate. "If our government can't get him, we'll find a government that can." That attitude is really quite terrifying. It's chilling confirmation that government is nothing but men with guns who can bend you to their will.

If Abdul has taken any oath, it's solely to the Illinois bench, a bench which he does not seem to have recently impugned and a state in which he does not reside. It's difficult to see how Illinois could credibly care about what Abdul says in foreign jurisdictions.

Aren't Republicans all for states' rights and the autonomy of states to act within their own borders, but no further? Do not Republicans bristle when Mayors Daley and Bloomberg propose gun regulations for the rest of the country? If Abdul were a California attorney and spoke sharply of a judge's comment concerning the obligation of all citizens to recycle, worship the earth, and hate guns would we not expect Indiana to laugh at any complaint California would send our way?

It's an elementary rule of argumentation that an argument is always independent of its author. Instead of crafting violent plans to silence free speech, ignore the author and discuss the argument.

Even if Abdul were Indiana licensed, his comment should be able to be said without sanction. Freedom demands it. That Abdul is not licensed in Indiana makes his speech entirely beyond the rebuke of Indiana's government.

We have arrived at a truly sad place when only those who can criticize the third branch are those who do not practice before it. If I call my congressman a shill for big oil, how terrifying it would be if Congress sanctioned me and barred me from ever again sending any Congressman a letter seeking redress of a grievance.

I commented further on this subject on Paul's blog.

AI, I think Gary's exactly right. I think th...

2011-04-29T05:24:52.572-05:00

AI,

I think Gary's exactly right. I think the Commission also might have jurisidiction to go after him as he does hold himself out to be "of counsel" to an Indianapolis law firm.

I believe Indiana's disciplinary commission co...

2011-04-29T00:18:07.685-05:00

I believe Indiana's disciplinary commission could investigate and make a referral to the Illinois Attorney & Disciplinary Commission that would be taken seriously there.

In Indiana, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz is not an officer ...

2011-04-28T23:56:07.301-05:00

In Indiana, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz is not an officer of the court. He is not licensed in Indiana therefore he has absolutely no professional responsibilities. He can be as much of a jackass as any ordinary citizen precisely because he is NOT an "Indiana Barrister".