I disapprove of your misquoting me. What I said was "You repeatedly smear Carter Wood in this post and in the comments -- which are unethical by your very own definition of the ethics of quoting people that you've used to smear others, as well as by the normal concept of not lying -- the multiple lies in your 3:07 PM comment, and then you have the gall in your 10:35 AM comment to lie that Neely "rebutted" my accurate quote of him when you know that's not true. You have convinced me that you're not fit to be an attorney if the character and fitness requirements have any meaning. It isn't just this post and this comment thread: it's a repeated pattern of misquoting people, misrepresenting arguments, and then lying about it afterwards without ever apologizing or retracting your comments when you get called out on it. (Indeed, even when you get called out on a lie, like the false claim that Neely was "ironic" in a book you haven't read, you then go back and unapologetically repeat the lie after you know it's false.) It isn't just honest mistakes, either, because if you were just sloppy you'd occasionally be sloppy in the other direction. You're a hazard to your future clients because you lack any ethical compass when it comes to argumentation." I never threatened to pull your bar card, because I have no unilateral power to pull your bar card. All I have is the power to present facts to the Character & Fitness Committee about your lack of fitness to be a member of the bar because of your penchant for dishonesty, a penchant repeated in this post. Whether the C&F Committee has any teeth is up to them, but I'm also going to let them know you think they are "impotent" to enforce their own rules.

According to Lane, "it is dishonest to use an author’s quote in a manner he disapproves of without at least noting that disapproval." By your alleged standards, you have an ethical obligation to note what I actually said rather than your false characterization of it. But perhaps you're also a hypocrite in addition to being dishonest.

You've also misrepresented Walter Olson's argument, but that's par for the course.

You also apparently don't know what "blowhard" means, but it's also par for the course for you to use words you don't understand.

Justinian: I thought you must be wrong, but here it is, "You owe Carter Wood multiple apologies, and a lengthy letter detailing your pattern of dishonesty *is* going to the Character and Fitness committees of two states in 2009 unless you make that apology very soon or if you repeat the smear one more time."

Ted's remark shows some frustration in the traverse. It is quite inappropriate in several ways. As someone mostly on Ted's side, I request he rebut with facts. That is when he is at his strongest. And I always learn from Ted, and like him personally.

Justinian was rebutted with facts multiple times by multiple people. Knowing that the smear was false, he repeated it. So I have a tickler on my calendar for 2009. Sending a letter isn't "pulling a bar card." It's letting a Committee know facts that are supposed to be relevant to their decision.

No, Ted, I was "rebutted" with opinion by you and the always-anonymous "Lawyer." Ted has a different opinion about what undermine means than I do. I base mine based upon the dictionary, his is based on ignorance.

Expressing my opinion that Carter (a) misunderstands the legislative process and (b) is ignorant to use undermine in the context he did is neither dishonest nor unethical. It's fully protected speech that no court or committee would ascribe any impropriety to. I would note that Ted has called me far, far worse. How many times has he called me illiterate? And in the "offending" thread, Ted stated that I misunderstand the English language. By his fallacious logic, I now have grounds to file a complaint against him with his bar association for that alone.

Oh, and blowhard means an exhaustively talkative person, which you certainly are. At least, I'm exhausted of your lame, impotent, and foolish talk of "tattling" on me to the bar for daring to disagree with you.

I hope Ted reconsiders. I do not want to see any suppression of arguing by personal uncertainty. Ted needlessly exposes himself as well, with no benefit to anyone.

A related subject gets reviewed here:

http://www.mncourts.gov/lprb/83bbarts/bb1283.html

Everyone is vulnerable to parsing by a Bar, the thug enforcers for the criminal cult enterprise.

Let's call this one a draw, and recast gaze higher, to debating policy, lawsuits, and unjust oppression by the land pirate. Justinian is a good conversation starter, so that Ted can teach the left wing ideologue here.

I have an ethical obligation under Rule 8.3 to report Lane's dishonesty, which he repeats in his 6:28 PM comment. If it was just a mistaken opinion about Wood, it would be one thing, but it is a regular course of dishonest behavior and affirmative deliberate misrepresentations. Note that he changes his story again to something he thinks will be more defensible before the Committee, which isn't as stupid as he seems to think they are.

I also note Lane's hypocrisy in violating his own rule about quoting people in this post, as he fails to adhere to his supposed standard that ""it is dishonest to use an author’s quote in a manner he disapproves of without at least noting that disapproval" -- a rule he has never adhered to.

Ted: What about classiness and sportsmanship? Winning a game by getting a ruling from a referee would get booed.

The facts abandoned the left 100 years ago. All that remains for them are attacks on the person, including the execution of 100 million people. And, they still failed to persuade.

You are both advocates. Nothing will change your minds. The target of this blog is really the public. The lawyers here should speak as if addressing a jury.

You will report each other, and live with uncertainty for a month or two. However, Bars enforce only 4 rules that promote lawyer rent seeking. This matter is not one of them. They will be dismissed after generating make-work for a lazy disciplinary counsel or Bar review committee. The Bar is biased in favor of plaintiffs and trial lawyers anyway. If they like the person, a prior conviction for murder is no biggy. If they do not, a fine for fishing without a license at age 16 is intolerable to them. They are quite unpredictable.