There’s no way of denying this very simple fact. The election of Barak Hussein Obama did far more damage to America than the 9/11/01 atrocities. The latter inflicted damage on America from without while the former has essentially been an eleven month terror attack from within.

Let’s roll.

highhopes on November 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM

Well said, Real American. Let’s Roll and Keep on Truckin!!

He told O’Reilly that he was not an attorney of record for any of the NY defendants, but was advising the attorneys of record.

Some enterprising journalist should ask the attorneys of record what relationship, if any, he has with them.

The probable answer is “None.”

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less. We have much bigger problems right now than rehashing yesterday’s news.

Is he implying the defense of his clients is more important that the defense of the United States, whose laws protect even those so vile as to attack their innocent citizens?

Great minds think alike :)

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

Talk about an encapsulation of a lawyer’s personality and professionalism. Fewer words have seldom spoken louder.

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

This is all we need to know about this man.

1. Although he was on O’Reilly spouting trial stategy, he told O’Reilly that he was not an attorney of record for any of the NY defendants, but was advising the attorneys of record. None of them confirmed his claim.

2. A petition for writ of habeas corpus he filed in Federal court in New York was dismissed because he had never been in contact with any of the petitioners and never had their permission to file the petition.

3. In a civil case against the schools in Westchester County, his discovery requests were so outrageous that the other side did not have to answer and he had to pay their attorneys fees.

This lawyer is a frikkin’ liar.

He should be disbarred for pretending not to know about 9/11 trutherism.

That’s as preposterous as Billy Jeff’s “what the definition of is is” b.s.

KSM deserves just what war criminals, spies, saboteurs and terrorists have always gotten in the past: a military court and swift execution upon sentencing.

Ed, you wasted time on this slimy esquire prevaricator.

He deserves no more platform for his murky anti-American sludge than KSM and his maniacs.

Let’s roll.

All this back and forth, procedure here, rebuttal there. It’s all a bunch of blah, blah, yadda, yadda, which cannot hide the fact that lawyers are all scum.

NavyMustang on November 25, 2009 at 9:27 AM
From a fellow sailor: “go to hell”

Squid Shark on November 25, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Thanks!

(I thought all service academies have a multi-year service requirement, but I could be wrong.)

LASue on November 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM

According to wiki

Students at four Service academies (not including Merchant Marine Academy) incur a minimum five year active duty commitment and if in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard have an additional three year reserve commitment.

Kings Point graduates also have an eight year total obligation, but, although voluntarily entered by some, active duty is not required. The United States Marine Corps, a service under the Department of the Navy, does not have an academy of its own but instead commissions officers from Annapolis and Kings Point.

If an Air Force cadet receives a pilot slot, they incur a 10 year commitment.

Midshipmen who go on to become Naval Aviators in the Navy and Marine Corps owe 8 years from the time of earning their wings (the end of flight training) and seven for those who become Naval Flight Officers. However, this commitment is independent of commissioning source; it also applies for NROTC graduates and OCS graduates who go on to become Naval Aviators or Naval Flight Officers.

I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Riiigghht.

Having said that, I am a lawyer, in every sense of the word. I was born to defend people and love every minute of doing so. That’s what I do for a living and it is my calling.

It is okay for a lawyer, out of conscience, to pass on a client. Right? I mean, you don’t have to take every murderous, terrorist, freak, thug, creep that kills a few thousand Americans for sport, as a client, do you?

Pig.

voxpopuli on November 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Heads up: concern troll provocation!

He should be airdropped in the Kabbah with a giant Star of David and Mohemmed’s mother sucking the gentils of a pig painted on him.

I agree that they owe him a better explanation of the reasons for his suspension

If presence in that corps of lawyers is indeed “discretionary”, then I would disagree with you. There is no more need for explanation than when Clinton and Bush fired US attorneys. Unless otherwise stated, if discretionary, it could have been because Col David didn’t like Fenstermaker’s argyle socks. Not a good way to keep a good team, but nonetheless not prohibited.

Ed, I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.

Although he does know, the Defense Attorney in him can’t want to know. Some defense attorneys insist on not knowing if their cleints are guilty, since it might affect the vigorousness of their effort to damage the prosecution’s case.

That said, this guy is why our advesarial legal system has the possibility to create legal cancers that may well destroy the nation at some point (But I ain’t got no solution.)

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/11/23/a-storm-is-brewing-at-best-buy/

This attention whore attorney sums it up when he says to you:

“I have no idea who attacked the WTC, and couldn’t care less.”

OMG! This guy is a tool and a sickening American out to promote his own self. You’re being used Ed. Drop this guy.

enoughalready on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM

That comment bothers me as well. Who the hell says something like that? I find it amazing that he’s never heard of 9/11 truthers, then proceeds to paint the military as if they’re corrupt. I think that’s proof enough, that he’s a possible truther, trying to pull the wool down over everyone’s eyes.

…says Mr. Fenstermaker aka Mr. Windowmaker aka Mr. Windowdresser.

Seems like he does know what a 9/11 truther is.

I’m in this so that no other country or foreign people can ever say that no American stood in defense of these men.

The thing is, they’re not entitled to a defense. They’re literal outlaws — outside the protection of any law, anywhere — by the virtue of their own actions and associations.

As far as I’m concerned, that applies as well to every “lawyer” who rushed to their defense.

Crawford on November 25, 2009 at 12:29 PM

The tribunals afforded them defense attorneys. His statement is a lie. Remember, people, there are lies of commission and omission.

Even the disgusting NAZIs had lawyers. It was and is unnecessary to bring these people here.