His threats of legal action here.. "I will fuck you in the ass in front of the Supreme Court" are somewhat reminiscent of his invitation to Monty to sue him.
He is also deeply confused about the US constitution, the laws at issue here and the difficulty of defending himself in the situation he is in.
- Attempting to claim a sixth amendment right to disclose in public the names of people who made complaints against him will not work. Having a right to confront your accusers doesn't extend to actions which have the appearance of intimidating them outside of the actual process. An argument can be made that his conduct had the effect of intimidating those making complaints about him during the investigation. It doesn't matter if the complaints are invalid, you can't do that. Its a procedural issue.
- His issue has nothing to do with the first amendment and he will be unlikely to find any legal support for first amendment claims in this area. There are all kinds of procedural laws which dictate what can be said at what time in legal processes.
- He also doesn't understand that by attacking people during a professional investigation, that becomes a professional issue even if the original complaints were dismissed as having nothing to do with his professional conduct.
- These comments themselves in the video create even more problems. Because the have the appearance of attempting to both attack, defame and intimidate the state board. That gets into the tricky area of professional conduct around bringing the profession into disrepute.
- Calling them "faggots" brings in the whole issue of hate speech. If Nick really believes that he has an unlimited right to say things, he should call them "niggers". Because attorneys calling out people as "niggers" also has to be protected professional conduct. Except its not.
- He claims a right to sue people for defamation based on complaints made in semi-legal process. Good luck with that in the courts.
- Of course while he claims a right to sue them, he has mysteriously not initiated a single defamation suit against of them in the courts. I mean if you are so sure that they have defamed you Nick, the logical course is to sue them and make your first amendment claims in courts.
- Taking it to the supreme court implies that he expects to lose at the state court, state court of appeals, state supreme court, perhaps federal courts and federal appeals courts. And that he has maybe ten years and alot of money to fight this.
I had not seen this video before. The video itself IMO creates a whole new set of ethical problems for him. If they have the video, I can understand why the investigation is ongoing and not concluded. This is unhindged shit. And he tries to bring this in front of judges, he isn't going to get any sympathy.