3 July 2012
An ethics complaint against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has been filed by David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh with the Office of Bar Counsel, Board on Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Codrea and Vanderboegh are the two bloggers who first broke the news of the Fast and Furious scandal in December 2010.
Said Vanderboegh, Eric Holder believes that he will escape serious consequences of the congressional investigations of the Fast and Furious scandal simply by running out the clock on his tenure. We intend this ethics complaint to place him on notice that his lies and malfeasances will follow him until justice is done."
The particulars of the complaint are included in the letter reproduced below.
July 2, 2012Office of Bar CounselBoard on Professional ResponsibilityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals515 5th Street NWBuilding A, Suite 117Washington, DC 20001In re: Ethics complaint against member Eric H. Holder, Jr.Dear board members,This letter serves as notice that a complaint is being filed against one of your members for professional misconduct. A search of your website at http://www.dcbar.org/ shows Eric H. Holder, Jr., currently Attorney General of the United States, has been an active DC Bar member since he was admitted on January 23, 1980.As per your professional standards published as Rule 8.4, “Misconduct,” at http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/rule_eight/rule08_04.cfm, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice;(e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or(g) Seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.”It would appear that several, if not all of these rules, have been violated as evidenced by Eric Holder having been found in contempt of Congress on June 28, 2012 “for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform” (Note House Calendar No. 140/Report 112-546 appearing at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt546/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt546.pdf).As per Rule 8.5, “Rule 8.5—Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law,” at http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/rule_eight/rule08_05.cfm, which states in part “A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs,” and due to the seriousness of this misconduct, we, as citizens of the Republic, with an interest in ensuring full accountability for the legal conduct of government officials, feel compelled to issue a formal complaint in accordance with your established filing protocol at http://www.dcbar.org/for_the_public/working_with_lawyers/when_problems_arise/filing.cfmBecause of the serious political ramifications involved, and because some on the Board may be sympathetic to AG Holder’s positions and hostile to those of the House contempt charges, and in order to ensure that this complaint receives proper attention and is not ignored through deliberate indifference, we are making a copy of this letter publicly available via our respective websites, SipseyStreetIrregulars.blogspot.com and DavidCodrea.com.Further, it appears your own rules may remove any discretion and require an investigation. As per Rule XI, “Disciplinary Proceedings,” Section 10, “Disciplinary Proceedings Based Upon Conviction of Crime,” at http://www.dcbar.org/inside_the_bar/structure/bar_rules/rule11.cfm:“(a) Notification. If an attorney is found guilty of a crime or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal charge in a District of Columbia court, the clerk of that court shall, within ten days from the date of such finding or plea, transmit to this Court and to Bar Counsel a certified copy of the court record or docket entry of the finding or plea. Bar Counsel shall forward the certified copy to the Board. Upon learning that the certified copy has not been timely transmitted by the clerk of the court in which the finding or plea was made, or that an attorney has been found guilty of a crime or has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal charge in a court outside the District of Columbia or in any federal court, Bar Counsel shall promptly obtain a certified copy of the court record or docket entry of the finding or plea and transmit it to this Court and to the Board. The attorney shall also file with this Court and the Board, within ten days from the date of such finding or plea, a certified copy of the court record or docket entry of the finding or plea.”“(b) Serious crimes. The term ‘serious crime’ shall include (1) any felony, and (2) any other crime a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime, involves improper conduct as an attorney, interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a ‘serious crime.’"While District of Columbia courts have not (yet) been involved, there is no question that the Congress has found the Attorney General guilty of contempt under conditions that rise to your definition of “serious crime.” It would also appear that Attorney General Holder is required to report the contempt finding to you within the ten day requirement, and that the Bar “shall” investigate this matter.Please give this matter your immediate attention and we look forward to receiving your formal written response.Sincerely,David CodreaMikeMike VanderboeghEnclosure: Complaint form
Press inquiries should be routed via email to David Codrea at email@example.com or Mike Vanderboegh at GeorgeMason1776@aol.com.
Second, they'd tried to get a statement from Jay Dobyns or his attorney on the 'ATF/DoJ screwing with whistleblowers' letter; he got this:
This morning I posted the letter by Congressman Darrell Issa to Eric Holder regarding further ATF victimization of whistleblowers, including Jay Dobyns. (Here is David's take.) At the time, I didn't yet have a response from Jay's lawyer, James Reed. Here it is:
If you're not familiar with Dobyns and the backstory to this, Wiki has some information. Very short version: he managed something no other LE officer ever had, wound up with his family and he being targeted for death, and was screwed over by ATF.Hi Mike:It is nice to meet you, through this email. In response to your voicemail to me today, requesting a comment for an article you are writing for Sypsey Street Irregulars, let me offer the following.Presently, my law firm is in discussions with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding a recent claim by my client, ATF Special Agent Jay Dobyns, of retaliation against Agent Dobyns by ATF, i.e., the matter to which House Chairman Darrell Issa, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, refers in his letter dated June 1, 2012, a copy of which you informed me in your voicemail today that you had already received and read.In that letter, we appreciate that Representative Issa recognizes Agent Dobyns as an important resource during the House committee investigation regarding ATF’s Fast and Furious operation. Further, we thank Representative Issa for his role in engendering ATF agent confidence to report and speak publicly about allegations of fraud, waste and abuse within ATF, without fear of retaliation from ATF supervisors and management.As demonstrated by publicly-available information, Agent Dobyns is not the only agent within ATF to allege that he qualifies as a federal whistleblower or to have made a claim that retaliation against him by ATF has occurred, despite federally-protected whistleblower status. In particular, Representative Issa’s letter makes clear, we believe correctly, that (1) ATF agents have a right and, under certain circumstances, even a responsibility to furnish information to Congress, (2) any limitations by ATF on such rights of communication with the Congress are impermissible, and (3) in certain instances, where prohibitions of or interference with an ATF agent’s exercise of such rights of communication with the Congress have the effect of obstructing or impeding a Congressional inquiry, such interference can rise to the level of a crime.At the present time, I prefer not to comment further on the matters under discussion with ATF regarding Agent Dobyns, matters which we consider to be serious in nature. Please know that we appreciate the attention that Sypsey Street Irregulars continues to generate regarding the House Committee’s right to properly and thoroughly investigate Operation Fast and Furious, as part of the general public’s call for transparent operation of federal agencies whenever possible and for full respect for federal whistleblower protections. The role of Sipsey Street Irregulars in pushing for full disclosure of ATF documents relevant to Operation Fast and Furious, where such disclosure does not, when viewed fairly and objectively, compromise national security or ongoing criminal investigations, demonstrates the value of a free press and of free speech.Regards,Jim ReedAttorney for ATF Special Agent Jay Dobyns
Last, Grassley has another memo and some questions for ATF and DoJ.