Democrats are past masters at “lawfare” and making the process the punishment, so for offering his good faith advice to his client, former President Donald J. Trump, distinguished law professor John Eastman has been forced from his home for his own safety and is being
bankrupted answering an unprecedented tsunami of lawsuits and complaints against him. (You can donate to Prof. John Eastman’s legal defense fund through this link https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman.)
And until very recently practically no one in the legal profession had risen to Eastman’s defense.
Now, 18 brave members of the Supreme Court Bar have stepped up to defend Eastman against a specious ethics complaint lodged against him by one John Teter and the Far Left Democrats of “The 65 Project.”
You can read the defense of Prof. Eastman and the list of signers through this link https://cdn-m4m.chd01.com/pro/uploads/account_2111/1504/Response_to_Teter_Complaint_against_Eastman_-_9-7-22.pdf.
As Prof. Eastman’s defenders explained, “Mr. Teter appears to base his complaint on his status as a member of the Supreme Court bar ‘who seeks to hold lawyers with different legal and political views accountable’ for conduct that ‘subvert[s] American democracy.’ According to such a nebulous standard, complaints could be filed against any members of the Bar of this Court including Mr. Teter and many of his associates.”
Eastman’s defenders further noted that Supreme Court bar “disciplinary action requires a showing of ‘conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these Rules or any Rule or order of the Court,’ but the Teter complaint cannot support either type of violation. First, the record is clear Dr. Eastman did not urge Vice President Pence to declare Donald Trump the victor in the 2020 presidential election, but instead urged the Vice President and the Senate to allow state legislatures additional time to investigate evidence of election fraud. Second, Dr. Eastman did not advance a meritless claim in his filing with the Court in the Wisconsin case identified by Mr. Teter, as explained in Dr. Eastman’s response. Third, Dr. Eastman’s position in his filing in Texas v. Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020) did not lack substance, as Mr. Teter charges, because two Justices of this Court agreed with the position of Dr. Eastman that this Court did have original jurisdiction.”
As Prof. Eastman’s defenders charged in their filing, The 65 Project which Mr. Teter heads admits to being a political advocacy organization that now seeks to enlist the Court into the organization’s campaign of intimidation of lawyers who represent clients opposed by the organization for political reasons. It is the declared mission of Mr. Teter’s organization, The 65 Project, “to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to challenge elections” and to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms.” The political motivation for the submission of the Teter complaint is underscored by his demand that Justice Thomas recuse from its consideration.
While the effects of this are deeply personal to Prof. Eastman and his family, they should also terrify every American. Imagine for a moment finding yourself before the bar of justice in a politically charged case, only to discover that no attorney will represent you because you are unpopular with the power elite and your defense relies on novel and little-known arguments and authorities and no lawyer is willing to expose himself to the campaign of destruction that would surely be heaped upon him if he represented you.
That’s exactly the intent of the attacks against Prof. Eastman, and that is why – whether you like or dislike Donald Trump – Americans of good conscience should flock to Eastman’s defense. The alternative, if the lawfare against Eastman succeeds, is a system of justice where only those who pose no threat to the established order get their day in court and only those arguments that are approved by the ruling elite get to be made in their defense.
We need more lawyers like John Eastman who represent their clients with all their vigor and talent despite the threats to their livelihood and wellbeing. If Eastman is cancelled for representing Donald Trump, then modern America has truly divorced itself from our ancient ideas of the rule of law and we are left with a husk of false liberty in which only the martyr can be free. Such a result should be intolerable to conservatives and liberals alike. You can donate to Prof. John Eastman’s legal defense fund through this link https://www.givesendgo.com/eastman.
Prof John Eastman
2020 election
challenging electors
vice president reject ballots
Judge J. Michael Luttig
Constitutional powers
Twelfth amendment
disputed votes
lawfare
John Teter
65 Project