>>19851774 pb

In the disbarment action against Trump lawyer Dr. John Eastman in California, closing arguments were postponed until Wed, Nov. 8, 2023, at 11 am PST (after the conclusion of tedious exhibit admission review).

Only live listening/watching is allowed, no recordings): https://calbar.zoom.us/j/97985435232

Issues include but are not limited to:

• a lawyer's ability (at the risk of losing the hard-earned right to practice law) to advise a client on unsettled and settled areas of law,

• a legal analysis and opinion memo that Dr. Eastman authored about the Vice President's role in resolving electoral college disputes,

• the factual accuracy of a (or factual underpinning of opinions given at a) few minutes-long talk he was asked to give, and did give, at the last minute at the J6 rally,

• his ability to repeat and rely on statements of others that were made under oath in sworn affidavits or at judicial or Congressional proceedings,

• his reliance on articles and debates going on nationwide about statistical anomalies during the vote count, particularly in swing states, during the 2020 election, and

• many other items and events that support (or don't) a "good faith basis" (the ethical standard for disbarment, i.e., losing your law license in CA, apparently) for making the statements and recommendations and filings that he did on behalf of Donald Trump associated with the 2020 election, among other things.

This is a nonprofessional quick selection of some of the happenings over 10 or so weeks, off and on, of dozens of witnesses and experts on the stand in the California State Bar proceeding. That in and of itself proves, in this anon's opinion, that a "good faith" basis for an argument in dozens of directions probably exists from amidst the the mess of opinions and statistical measures and election chaos put into the record. If everything were black and white, no lawyer could make any "good faith" argument at all.

And arguments have been made against "settled" case law (segregation and abortion come to mind) without the challenging lawyers losing their licenses over it. Quite the contrary, they are celebrated.

But, nooo, this administrative judge, Yvette D. Roland, had already made a "preliminary finding of culpability" if I heard her correctly, on November 2, right after Dr. Eastman's rebuttal testimony ended and with no motion before her.

Biased, biased, biased, against Dr. Eastman and his attorneys, from Day 1. Making objections from the bench to Dr. Eastman's attorney's questions but never to the State Bar attorney's questions (who led his witnesses too), cutting off lines of testimony "move on," "next question" all the time with Dr. Eastman's witnesses (and asking for relevance all the time) but never of the State Bar's attorney, not letting Dr. Eastman get his full impressive background into the record - cutting him off both on direct and in rebuttal, denying almost all of his expert testimony and allowing anything and everything that the State Bar offered. Just really lopsided. With the judge not only favoring the State Bar but appearing at times to be on the team of the State Bar prosecutors rather than sitting objectively on the bench between the two sides - in this anon's opinion.

Not sure what the appeal options are from a disbarment proceeding but I hope there are remedies available to Dr. Eastman from what seems will be an inevitable ruling against him from an apparently biased judge.