Comments on Advance Indiana™: Shabazz Accuses Rosenberg Of Ex Parte Communications With Democrats In Charlie White Case

To call Lou Rosenberg's judicial temperament a...

2011-04-27T22:03:49.524-05:00

To call Lou Rosenberg's judicial temperament and integrity into question is absolutely ridiculous.

I find it distasteful that Abdul would publish this, and I guess I missed that post or I would have said so on my own blog.

That seems to be the consensus, Bob. There needs t...

2011-04-27T19:15:49.449-05:00

That seems to be the consensus, Bob. There needs to be a formal response to his accusation. Shabazz just can't be allowed to toss a grenade out like that and then walk away without answering for his actions.

I have known many judges and I have to say that Ju...

2011-04-27T18:57:07.759-05:00

I have known many judges and I have to say that Judge Rosenberg is one of the most ethical and wise men I have ever met.

I would have to stand by him in this matter.

I know he's licensed in Illinois. That makes h...

2011-04-27T14:30:29.151-05:00

I know he's licensed in Illinois. That makes him not an attorney in Indiana and beyond the reach of the Indiana Supreme Court.

He can be "of counsel," all he wants. Nothing stops a firm from keeping a guy around who can answer a question on foreign law. He still has done nothing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Indiana Supreme Court, and I've about had enough with judges thinking they are unaccountable, safe from the heat visited on all other public office holders, and able to retaliate against those who criticize them.

That's a tyranny, not a republic.

I really wish the General Assembly would take lawyer licensure away from the Supreme Court and put it in the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency, where it belongs.

You're wrong, Cato. Abdul is an Illinois-licen...

2011-04-27T12:40:18.770-05:00

You're wrong, Cato. Abdul is an Illinois-licensed attorney who works "of counsel" with an Indianapolis law firm.

He's not an attorney. He can say whatever he w...

2011-04-27T12:24:31.985-05:00

He's not an attorney. He can say whatever he wants about a public figure. It's only attorneys who are denied their right to criticize the branches of government.

If the judge can prove some malice aforethought, he might get somewhere. Then he needs to find a jury, and does the judge want to gamble on how the general public thinks judges decide cases? At the end of it all, Abdul has the First Amendment behind him, so good luck getting a favorable verdict or a judgment of any consequence.

I find it distressing that one of the three branches of government regularly escapes searching public inquiry and has protected itself from criticism by the professionals who practice before it, at pain of disbarment.

Abdul's not an attorney, so he's free to say things that Paul and Gary can't. Smart move on his part never getting licensed over here.

I'd love to get a peek at Abdul's evidence.

He better hope he has something to back up his cla...

2011-04-27T11:54:55.182-05:00

He better hope he has something to back up his claim or he could be facing some serious consequences for leveling those kinds of charges against a judge. Then again, it's Abdul. He never seems to be held to the same standards the rest of us are held; otherwise, he would have been fired by both WXNT and WRTV long ago.

I just don't buy that a judge, especially Rose...

2011-04-27T10:35:44.835-05:00

I just don't buy that a judge, especially Rosenberg, is consulting with party officials on a pending case. That's an awfully reckless charge to make and not produce any evidence.