The AP — published in the San Jose Mercury News — reports:

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a prominent civil-rights lawyer’s suit against the State Bar of California over the interim suspension of his law license.

Stephen Yagman, who had high-profile cases against police and President Bush, alleged the bar violated his constitutional and civil rights by suspending him from practicing law in the state in July.

Well, August, actually. But who’s counting?

So, you get convicted of more than a dozen felonies, and it’s a violation of your rights to suspend you from practicing law?

Did someone repeal Rule 11? (For non-lawyers, that’s the rule that theoretically allows judges to sanction lawyers for frivolous lawsuits.)

Yeah, I know it hardly ever gets used. That’s part of the problem.

By the way: why am I reading about this in the San Jose Mercury News? Where’s the L.A. Times? Do they run only pro-Yagman stories?

[Guest post by DRJ]

Tom Tancredo dropped out of the GOP Presidential race and endorsed Mitt Romney:

“Rep. Tom Tancredo abandoned his long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday and endorsed Mitt Romney’s candidacy, saying the Massachusetts Republican “can go the distance.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo announces he is ending his presidential campaign Thursday.

Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, is a fierce proponent of stricter illegal immigration laws, but his campaign struggled to gain traction with Republican primary voters, despite many naming illegal immigration as a top concern.

Noting the “incredibly long odds” when he launched his White House bid, Tancredo said his campaign achieved what it meant to do: put illegal immigration on the national agenda.

“I am ecstatic about the fact that we can say we have made remarkable progress along those lines,” Tancredo said during a press conference in Des Moines, Iowa. “According to Newsweek, the Tancredo campaign has already won.”

After announcing he was dropping out of the race, Tancredo endorsed Romney’s presidential bid, saying that Romney supported his stance on illegal immigration and national security and that the former Massachusetts governor could win the presidency.”

Marc Ambinder says Tancredo’s manager Bay Buchanan was pushing Romney as a way to counteract Huckabee:

“Will he endorse? Unclear. If he does, the betting is on Thompson or Romney, although advisers to both men expect the other to get it, if it’s gettable. Note that Bay Buchanan is a member of the LDS church and is said to be pushing Tancredo to endorse Romney as a way of repudiating Huckabee, somehow. We’ll see.”

Tancredo has been known for his resolute stance on immigration. Mitt Romney does not seem like the best representative for that view. I hope Tancredo endorsed Romney on principle and not out of political gamesmanship. To do otherwise would be a sad conclusion for someone known for his principles more than his politics.

H/T allan.

— DRJ

[posted by Justin Levine] 

A San Fransisco “human rights advocate” completely misses the point that Justice Antonin Scalia makes, and his commenters let him have it (almost unanimously).

[h/t: Instapundit]

UPDATE:  The “human rights advocate” has now admitted that he didn’t read Scalia’s comments too carefully. He now writes –

– [Correction] –

Oops, I made a big mistake, as several people have commented, including this anonymous poster:
“I think, in your indignation, that you entirely missed Scalia’s point, and that your post is a non sequitur.”
Yep, I missed his point and am rightly being taken to task for my error.
I should be more careful in the future to not quickly post things, especially late at night when heavily medicated with cold and cough medicines.

Your candor is much appreciated Michael. All bloggers have been there at one point or another. Glad to know that you belong to the same group of mortals that I do. Peace out.

(Now maybe commenter ‘blah’ will see the light as well. But perhaps pride will get in the way with this one.)

[Guest post by DRJ]

Hillary Clinton has a new Christmas ad out and ABC News reports her campaign also registered anti-Obama blogs. First, the Obama attack blogs:

“ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It’s the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.

The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly. Clinton has attacked Obama for having occasionally voted “present” as an Illinois state legislator when it came to contentious legislation.
***
Clinton’s campaign has also introduced, quietly, a Web site called Attacktimeline.com, which Clinton officials say chronicles the ways Obama and Edwards were criticizing her publicly long before she began returning fire.”

It looks to me like Hillary has skipped a few votes herself, especially several high profile issues like the confirmation of AG Mukasey, 2008 defense appropriations, farm subsidies, and abortion. Nevertheless, perhaps to counter the image of Hillary attacking her competitors, her campaign also released a warm and fuzzy Christmas ad:

Hillary’s Christmas message is made-to-order if you view government as one big Santa Claus providing generous gifts to needy or greedy constituents. The message is clear: I’m the government. Elect me and I’ll give you everything you need at taxpayer expense.

I’m sure Hillary is glad to play Santa when it’s on someone else’s dime and I don’t see her as Mrs. Claus. She’s just not the type to “stay home and bake cookies and have teas.”

H/T Instapundit.

UPDATE 12/22/2007 – Here’s how Jonah Goldberg describes Hillary’s ad:

“But if you take Hillary’s ad remotely as seriously as many are taking Huckabee’s, you’re left with a disturbing glimpse of not just Hillary’s politics but her vision of government. Her programs, which would cost billions and billions of dollars by even the most generous accounting, are simply “gifts” for the American people. No sacrifice, no cost, no strings attached at all — save the price of your vote.

The implication is that the only thing standing between you and Hillary’s trinkets is a president who doesn’t want you to have ’em. This is monarchical thinking; good ruler throws loaves of bread to the peons and asks for nothing but love in return.

The truth, as Clinton knows very well, is that it’s not so easy. To govern is to choose. “Give” the people X and it will come at the expense of Y. Indeed, until recently, Clinton’s whole schtick has been to emphasize that change is hard work, requiring sacrifice and compromise. She’d lecture Iowa audiences that real change comes from fighting for it. Now that she’s on the ropes, it’s all yours for the asking.

It’s a profound commentary on the state of our political culture that Huckabee’s ad is the controversial one. Huckabee promises nothing, Hillary everything.”

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Despite the recent NIE, Investor’s Business Daily explains why we know Iran’s true intent is to acquire nuclear weapons:

“It’s no surprise Iran was behind the vicious bomb attacks that killed 114 in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s. But what is surprising is why Iran did it: Argentina wouldn’t help Iran to build nuclear weapons.

To those apologists for Iran who counsel patience, remember: Iran has been at this a long time. Its nuclear program started under the Shah, but in recent years has taken a sinister turn under the Ayatollah Khomeini’s successors.

Take the attacks on Argentina, viewed by many at the time as an isolated, bizarre attempt to kill Jews. It was that, all right — but much, much more. Indeed, the bombings of the early 1990s had what suspense sleuths like to call an “ulterior motive” — to send a message to Argentina that its refusal to help Iran build nuclear weapons would be dealt with severely.

Tehran’s Argentine terror bombings began in 1992 with an attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires that killed 29. Two years later, its agents bombed the city’s AMIA Jewish community center, killing another 85.”

An Argentinian prosecutor followed the trail that led to Hezbollah and Iran:

“According to Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who has stayed with the case while the rest of the world has forgotten it, the attacks were “ordered, planned and financed” by Iran’s top leaders — including its ex-president, the “moderate” Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Nisman told the Jerusalem Post that the AMIA bombing “had been commissioned at a meeting held in Mashad in August 1993, attended by then-president Rafsanjani, then-intelligence minister Ali Fallahian and other Iranian ministers and military leaders.”

They gave the job to their terrorist client, Lebanon-based Hezbollah. The group did the job with its usual murderous efficiency.

Why go to all that trouble halfway around the world to kill Jews? In fact, it wasn’t just about killing Jews. To Iran, that was a bonus. The real reason: Iran’s mullahs had a deal with Argentina to help it rebuild its nuclear program after the Iran-Iraq war. Argentina, under intense pressures from the U.S., pulled out of the deal.

Iran’s leaders were furious, and took their rage against the U.S. out on the much-weaker Argentina. That’s why some of Iran’s top leaders got involved.”

Argentina has enlisted the aid of INTERPOL to bring to justice the Iranians responsible for the bombings:

“Nisman, to his credit, is now seeking the arrest of several Iranian leaders who were responsible for the terrorist murders, including Rafsanjani. Somewhat surprisingly, the international police group, Interpol, has agreed to uphold the arrests, dealing what Nisman called “an unprecedented diplomatic defeat for Iran.”

At this point, you might ask: Isn’t this old news? The answer is, no. For one thing, many of those involved in ordering that attack in power in Iran are still in power now. At the very least, they should be delivered up for justice.

More importantly, this puts the lie to Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is for “peaceful purposes.” Anyone who has in mind “peaceful purposes” doesn’t murder 114 innocent human beings.

In fact, Iran’s program has always been about nuclear weapons, not energy. Just look who’s in charge: Iran’s nuke program is headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the chief of the Revolutionary Guard Corps., the head of the Defense Industries Organization and the leader of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

Strictly speaking, none of those is a civilian.

Those who trumpet the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which suggested Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, should perhaps read a little deeper. That same report also said there was “moderate-to-high confidence” that Iran is “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” It will have enough raw nuclear material by the middle of the next decade to do so, especially now that Russia is selling it fissionable material.”

IBD’s summary: Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons isn’t new nor is “the West’s ability to deceive itself about Iran’s true intent.”

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Earlier this week, Abu Zubaydah filed a Petition for Immediate Release from GTMO that asks the DC Court of Appeals to review and declare invalid his designation as an enemy combatant and challenges his hearings before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Zubaydah also reserved the right to contest the Constitutionality of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and to pursue a writ of habeas corpus in the US District Court.

H/T Scotusblog.

— DRJ

Yagman fan Alan Mittelstaedt at L.A. City Beat gives us an update on our favorite civil rights lawyer and convicted felon. The conceit of Mitterstaedt’s entry is that he is giving out presents to a list of L.A. dignitaries. Among the recipients is the “ACLU and L.A.’s civil-rights bar,” to whom Mitterstaedt would like to give:

An endless tape of the indecipherable meaningless words of a Pentecostal church gathering are what these dozens of well-fed, well-paid lawyers deserve for letting down L.A.’s most accomplished civil-rights lawyer, Stephen Yagman, in his greatest hour of need. The exception: Erwin Chemerinsky, who represented Yagman on Wednesday in a hearing to try to keep his license to practice law from being suspended. The rest of you should have been fighting to take his case. Yagman’s racked up more victories in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals than anybody on this planet. And now he could be off to the slammer because none of you came forward.

A couple of corrections.

First, the hearing Chemerinsky litigated was not “to try to keep [Yagman’s] license to practice law from being suspended.” It was already suspended, in August. The issue now is whether Yagman faces further sanctions. And given that he was convicted of over a dozen felonies, he looks well on the way to disbarment.

Second, Yagman will — not could — be off to the slammer next year. And it won’t be because civil rights lawyers didn’t attend his bar disciplinary hearing. It will be because he was convicted of tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud, and money laundering.

Speaking of Yagman going to the slammer, Mittelstadt has this:

What a great show Judge Stephen Wilson puts on in Division 6 at the federal courthouse downtown. On Monday, December 17, there stood Stephen Yagman’s lousy and whiny attorney, Barry Tarlow, pleading for more time to submit another brief in what sure looks to be a losing effort to keep Yagman out of prison while he appeals his tax-fraud conviction.

Tarlow’s reason: His brief was only 19 pages and prosecutors filed 62 pages of reasons why Yagman should start serving his three-year term on January 15. Mercifully, the judge didn’t find Tarlow in contempt, the way we did, and granted him until Monday to file more paper. For god-only-knows-why, Tarlow told the judge he wishes that a decision on bail could have been made at the time of Yagman’s sentencing last month. Did Tarlow forget his pointed exchange that ended that day with the judge telling the bad lawyer he should have filed a formal motion, setting out his 8 arguments, and not tried to fly by the seat of his pants?

So, on Monday, Wilson again slipped into preachy mode, and shared his unhappiness about Tarlow’s conduct three weeks ago. “It was somewhat insulting to me in the sense you wanted me to make a decision without carefully considering the matter. And that I couldn’t do.”

Responded Tarlow: “You came awfully close, your honor.”

Wilson: “I didn’t see any basis for granting the motion. Having said that, I’ll give you until next Monday to file some kind of responsive pleading, and that will be it.”

The sound you hear is not a bell jingling. It’s the cell door slamming shut.

It’s music to my ears.