First, it’s really annoying that the plural of moose is moose. “Hey, look! There is one moose!” “No, wait, there’s more – I see five moose! No, I see six moose! That’s so many moose!”
If the plural version of a word is identical to the singular version, doesn’t that suggest one moose is exactly the same as five is the same as five million? One word describes them all regardless of number, so they must all be the same. Doesn’t make sense.
Anyway, my post yesterday contained a MISTAKE. Unlike some people, I like to admit/correct my mistakes as soon as possible. It’s a sign of character….lol.
Here’s the error: “Attorney Patrick who wisely reminded us comment 8 did not fucking exist in June 2024.”
ALERT!! 🚨ERROR!! 🚨MINOR PERJURY!! 🚨
In my haste to correct Pat/Bruce’s bullshit, I made a classic boo-boo — I forgot to read to the end of the damn petition (even though I shared this in my post): https://gingraslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Ethical-Rules-3.3_1.16-Rule-Petition_1.pdf
Had I been more careful (by reading to the end), I would have noticed Justice Brutinel was kind enough to include a redline version of the comment as an appendix to his petition. As you can see, the “new language” in comment 8 was underlined.
The existing text of comment 8 that is not underlined was already there (since 2003). I willfully violated the font color rule by highlighting that text for emphasis (bearing in mind — black text that is highlighted is STILL BLACK TEXT).
So, again, the petition Justice Brutinel filed in 2025 only added the underlined text starting with “If a lawyer reasonably believes that evidence hast been materially altered…” That’s the NEW part of comment 8 that became effective in January 2026. Everything before that was already part of the existing comment, so this stuff fully and unquestionably applied to my conduct in 2024.
And thus, the controlling rule for my conduct in 2024 is exactly what Justice Brutinel said:
“the existing Ethical Rules do not require a lawyer to inquire or investigate the authenticity of evidence before presenting the evidence to the tribunal, even if the lawyer reasonably believes the evidence has been materially altered or generated with the intent to deceive.”
Of course, that’s not a big deal since I actually DID fully investigate all evidence (to the extent I could). So even if the amended version of comment 8 had existed in 2024, I still complied with it. Imagine that.
NOTE — I’m going to file something with the PDJ bringing this to her attention. However, before I get to that, I have to file something responding to her question about “supremacy” (which actually has nothing to do with supremacy). I will get that filed today, and will share a copy when it’s done. Should be a real banger….with hopefully fewer mistakes than my last post. 🙏