Apologists For Hamas to Face Hostile Bar Officials

WASHINGTON - Oct. 13, 2023 - PRLog -- Law students who signed on to letters seeking to justify the mass murders committed by Hamas terrorists may find it very difficult to pass the character and fitness portion of the admission process to join the bar as lawyers, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who appeared last night on the Dan Abrams Live TV news broadcast.

Banzhaf, who played a major role in triggering the "Tsunami of Backlash" (https://freebeacon.com/campus/texas-bar-application-adds-questions-about-incivility-and-free-speech-in-wake-of-stanford-law-school-fracas/)  against Stanford when a small number of its students shouted down a visiting speaker, explained that his tactics of helping persuade the Texas Bar to ask all applicants if they had participated in that disruption, and to count it against those who had, suggested that Bar officials are likely to be much more concerned about character and fitness of law students who argued that burning babies alive and beheading them is justified.

This Law Professor Took on Nixon and Trump.
Now He's Facing Off Against Stanford Law School Students (https://freebeacon.com/campus/this-law-professor-took-on-...)

He pointed out that law students are more vulnerable than other students because they must establish that they possess the character and fitness necessary to insure that they will not be tempted to misuse this enormous power, whether for personal gain or to serve some cause.

This opens the door for people such as Banzhaf, Duel, and Ackman - as well as fellow law students who believe that classmates who advocate for the murder, rape, and torture of innocent civilians - should be reported to bar admission committees.

Accuracy in Media and other organizations and individuals are already compiling and beginning to distribute lists of students who signed letters supporting, seeking to justify, or expressing solidarity with Hamas terrorists who reportedly burned Jewish infants and other children alive, as well as beheading them, in support of various Palestinian causes, including the destruction of Israel.

But this "end justified the means" policy would be highly inappropriate for lawyers who might be tempted to violate the Constitution to convict a "known" criminal when the evidence of guilt is insufficient to obtain a conviction, to violate the law to let a dangerous criminal remain free if he's serving some "worthy" cause, misrepresent the facts to a judge or regulatory agency to keep a very profitable but also very deadly drug or product on the market, etc.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf