As noted by Seth Al French has been suspended for lying to his boss about something other than John Kerry's war record, specifically an extramarital affair. As I indicated in my previous post, I think this kind of mistruth (like the previous), while perhaps not particularly offensive in and of itself, causes great concern for the cases he has and is handling.
Just in case anyone is wondering, most lawyers are not like that.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
State's first public defender quits after 30 years
A great lawyer will move on today, apparently missing most of the fallout of recent decisions. Roland Dahlin has been a federal public defender for 30 years and by all accounts has been a substantial force for justice.
HoustonChronicle.com - State's first public defender quits after 30 years
HoustonChronicle.com - State's first public defender quits after 30 years
Monday, August 30, 2004
Boat Debacle Swiftly Deepens
Alfred French, a deputy district attorney from Clackamas County, Oregon, has apparently discovered the perils of being both a lawyer and a public figure. Mr. French, a decorated Vietnam veteran appeared in one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, and also swore out an affidavit claiming that John Kerry lied or at least exaggerated his military service.
He later made public statements that he was relying on the word of his former fellow soldiers. Unfortunately for Mr. French, the affidavit he swore out included the necessary statement that the facts therein were personally known to the affiant. In response the Oregon State Bar has received several complaints, and is investigating the matter.
Assuming the complaints are true, Mr. French stands to lose much more than face. Rather minor mistruths (or perjuries) are quite often overlook for the non-lawyer, particularly in political discourse. Attorney's, however, have a higher obligation which extends beyond their professional activities. In my opinion, that is the whole reason Law is a licensed profession.
If Mr. French simply overlooked the language of the affidavit, I think he should be sternly reminded of this fact with a public reprimand. If he intentionally mislead the public, I think the Oregon Bar should take more drastic action. At the very least, I think the Clackamas County District Attorney needs to review Mr. French's caseload and assure that these sort of exaggerations/mistruths are not jeopardizing defendants. On the other hand, if these allegations turn out to be false, I hope the Oregon Bar will make a public statement to that effect. People can be wrongly accused, particularly in a bitter debate such as this.
In any case, I hope other attorneys involved in contentious political issues (including John Kerry himself) will be very careful to maintain the credibility of the profession.
Critics of prosecutor in ad go to state bar; Discovered in How Appealing
Also Props to Seth (also here) and Atrios for scooping me on this. I have been busy with the Bible...
He later made public statements that he was relying on the word of his former fellow soldiers. Unfortunately for Mr. French, the affidavit he swore out included the necessary statement that the facts therein were personally known to the affiant. In response the Oregon State Bar has received several complaints, and is investigating the matter.
Assuming the complaints are true, Mr. French stands to lose much more than face. Rather minor mistruths (or perjuries) are quite often overlook for the non-lawyer, particularly in political discourse. Attorney's, however, have a higher obligation which extends beyond their professional activities. In my opinion, that is the whole reason Law is a licensed profession.
If Mr. French simply overlooked the language of the affidavit, I think he should be sternly reminded of this fact with a public reprimand. If he intentionally mislead the public, I think the Oregon Bar should take more drastic action. At the very least, I think the Clackamas County District Attorney needs to review Mr. French's caseload and assure that these sort of exaggerations/mistruths are not jeopardizing defendants. On the other hand, if these allegations turn out to be false, I hope the Oregon Bar will make a public statement to that effect. People can be wrongly accused, particularly in a bitter debate such as this.
In any case, I hope other attorneys involved in contentious political issues (including John Kerry himself) will be very careful to maintain the credibility of the profession.
Critics of prosecutor in ad go to state bar; Discovered in How Appealing
Also Props to Seth (also here) and Atrios for scooping me on this. I have been busy with the Bible...
Bible Case News
The San Antonio Express News has a good story about the Bible case including some great quotes from parties involved (and also those trying to be involved), and some more details about the death threats and hate mail directed at the plaintiff from the Christian protestors. Alas, it requires a subscription, so if anyone asks, I am now 55. You can also check out this note in the Texas City Sun
MySA.com: Free Subscription
MySA.com: Free Subscription
Sunday, August 29, 2004
I love thememoryhole. According to that site the Justice Deparment has chosen to classify/censor portions of the ACLU's filings including a quote from a SCOTUS decision from 1972. I wonder if they will start infiltrating law schools around the country to prevent such subversives as law librarians from distributing such dangerous material.
The Memory Hole > Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote
The Memory Hole > Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote
Since there is no news on the Harris County Bible front today, I decided to read somthing else. Check out this excelent editorial by noted legal scholar/journalist Dahlia Lithwick about the Abu Ghraib...um...issues.
The New York Times > Opinion > Dahlia Lithwick: No Smoking Gun
The New York Times > Opinion > Dahlia Lithwick: No Smoking Gun
Saturday, August 28, 2004
A little editorial by the Chronicle.
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible study: County judge wasting tax dollars on needless appeal
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible study: County judge wasting tax dollars on needless appeal
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Some news stories about the Bible
News about a removal protestor; Some quotes from Mongomery County officials (a neighboring County); The Chronicle's Story;
News about a removal protestor; Some quotes from Mongomery County officials (a neighboring County); The Chronicle's Story;
Bible Case News and Analysis
So the apparent timeline is this: Over a year ago, Kay Staley files this action. At the time, the Star of Hope Mission was aware of the action, and even offered evidence at trial. They did not, however, prosecute that petition. Just after Harris County lost the case, the SOH began to consider the implications (See my previous post here) they were contacted by some interest groups and filed a new motion to intervene.
Yesterday, Judge Lake issued a new order denying the motion to intervene which, based on the legal principals it uses, is not likely to be overturned. That ruling held in part:
So the apparent timeline is this: Over a year ago, Kay Staley files this action. At the time, the Star of Hope Mission was aware of the action, and even offered evidence at trial. They did not, however, prosecute that petition. Just after Harris County lost the case, the SOH began to consider the implications (See my previous post here) they were contacted by some interest groups and filed a new motion to intervene.
Yesterday, Judge Lake issued a new order denying the motion to intervene which, based on the legal principals it uses, is not likely to be overturned. That ruling held in part:
Simply put, Star of Hope’s argument that an order requiring the removal of its bible from the Mosher Monument was “never anticipated” is not credible. This assertion is only believable to the extend [sic] that Star of Hope is stating that it “never anticipated” that the County might lose. But a failure of imagination is not germane to the law governing intervention. If Star of Hope was genuinely concerned about protecting its rights in this litigation, it could have and should have filed a motion for leave to intervene long ago.
Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2004.
The essence of the order is that because the SOH is simply arguing that they didn’t know they were going to lose, they have no right to intervene now that they have.
Judge Lake continues, however, to address a couple of other issues, which could potentially be interesting on appeal. First, in response to the SOH argument that intervention is necessary to protect the free speech and free exercise rights of SOH, Judge Lake responds that the County had indeed raised those issues during litigation, and points out that legally to intervene, SOH must prove that the County has oppositional or at least different interests than their own.
In response to the SOH argument that the ruling would result in to loss (“conversion”) of SOH property (the Bible), Judge lake responds that SOH “can simply send a representative over to the Courthouse grounds with a key, unlock the glass case, and remove its Bible, or a Star of Hope representative can stand by while the County removes the Bible and then take immediate possession of it.” More interesting though is this statement which seems to preclude some appellate arguments altogether: “Because the Bible is on County property, the County has represented to the court that, although it does not own the Bible, it has the authority to remove it or even the entire Mosher Monument at any time.”
My Analysis and Opinion
I think that this judgment will likely stand. Given the number of protests, media coverage, and the fact that members of SOH were called as witnesses during trial…coupled with the fact that SOH only petitioned for intervention when they found out their side had lost, the judges decision that the motion is untimely will probably be upheld. Furthermore, I think as a matter of pure justice, it seems clear that the County is out to protect the rights of the religious minority here. Stafford has made public statements to the effect that he thinks this case is about the County protecting the rights of religious people to express that religion. He certainly could have taken a different interpretation and suggested that this case is about protecting the rights of non-religious people from state endorsement of religion, in which case the intervention would make more sense.
To summarize, other than being wrong in my prediction (and I hate being wrong), I think this is a good result and that no one will be substantially impaired.
Star of Hope's Motion to Intervene has been Denied.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope rejected as party to suit in Bible case
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope rejected as party to suit in Bible case
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Judge Eckles, who is the executive officer of Harris County Texas, has issued this press release about the case.
For those of you that are not familiar with Texas government, the County Judge is a quasi-judicial and quasi-executive position. In Harris County the judicial function of the County Judge has pretty much atrophied, but elsewhere the sitting County Judge retains certain judicial functions including some probate matters and civil claims. There is some information about the officer here, provided by the Texas Association of Counties.
For those of you that are not familiar with Texas government, the County Judge is a quasi-judicial and quasi-executive position. In Harris County the judicial function of the County Judge has pretty much atrophied, but elsewhere the sitting County Judge retains certain judicial functions including some probate matters and civil claims. There is some information about the officer here, provided by the Texas Association of Counties.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Well so much for my prediction. It looks like the 5th circuit will stay the judgment long enough to hear an argument about it.
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible can remain at courthouse at least for now
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible can remain at courthouse at least for now
Barring 5th Circuit intervention, the Bible is on its way out.
Well it's official. Harris County (via the talented Frank Sanders) has filed its notice of appeal. They also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, which was summarily slapped down by the judge in this three page order. What this means is the County must remove the Bible from the monument before midnight tonight unless they are granted an emergency stay from the 5th circuit.
There are three or four elements that Harris County must show to be granted a stay of the injunction requiring the bible be removed (from Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981).) It must show a likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable injury to the County if the stay is not granted, that granting the stay would not substantially harm Ms. Staley and that granting the stay would be in the public interest.
Here are some quotes to summarize the judge's opinion:
Likelihood of success:
"The County's motion merely incorporates the arguments and authorities it used during and after trial" -page 3
Irreparable Injury:
My Analysis:
I don't blame anyone for trying. I think Stafford had the right idea with not even challenging the removal in the first place, but I also understand that he has a constituency (client?...naw) who will be very upset if they didn't even go through the motions for a losing argument. It was a losing argument though. At some point tonight before midnight and after (I predict) the 5th circuit denies a temporary injunction, the Bible will be removed from the case.
Post Script:
I forgot my favorite part of this part of the appeal. You may remember that the court already awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, well now this:
"Staley's attorney has submitted an Affidavit stating that he expended 15 hours in preparing Staley's answer to the County's Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, and requesting an award of an additional $3,375.00 in attorney's fees. That request is GRANTED."
The Chronicle is also reporting on this at: "Judge says courthouse Bible display must go now."
Well it's official. Harris County (via the talented Frank Sanders) has filed its notice of appeal. They also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, which was summarily slapped down by the judge in this three page order. What this means is the County must remove the Bible from the monument before midnight tonight unless they are granted an emergency stay from the 5th circuit.
There are three or four elements that Harris County must show to be granted a stay of the injunction requiring the bible be removed (from Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981).) It must show a likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable injury to the County if the stay is not granted, that granting the stay would not substantially harm Ms. Staley and that granting the stay would be in the public interest.
Here are some quotes to summarize the judge's opinion:
Likelihood of success:
"The County's motion merely incorporates the arguments and authorities it used during and after trial" -page 3
Irreparable Injury:
"In this case compliance with the injunctive requirements of the Final Judgment will not moot the appeal because if the County succeeds in its appeal, the status quo ante can be reestablished by ordering that the Bible be returned to the monument."
Harm to Other Parties and Public Interest:
"...staying the court's injunction would substantially harm the plaintiff because it would permit a continuing violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The fact that the county has violated the plaintiff's frights for years does not mean that the violation should be allowed to continue."My Analysis:
I don't blame anyone for trying. I think Stafford had the right idea with not even challenging the removal in the first place, but I also understand that he has a constituency (client?...naw) who will be very upset if they didn't even go through the motions for a losing argument. It was a losing argument though. At some point tonight before midnight and after (I predict) the 5th circuit denies a temporary injunction, the Bible will be removed from the case.
Post Script:
I forgot my favorite part of this part of the appeal. You may remember that the court already awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, well now this:
"Staley's attorney has submitted an Affidavit stating that he expended 15 hours in preparing Staley's answer to the County's Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, and requesting an award of an additional $3,375.00 in attorney's fees. That request is GRANTED."
The Chronicle is also reporting on this at: "Judge says courthouse Bible display must go now."
Monday, August 23, 2004
Some other opinions about the Bible Case
Editorials:
A press release by the Houston Athiests Society; An anti-Houston Chronicle site's editorial;
Bloggers:
Amanda Strassner; Trivial Pursuits; Off the Kuff; Carefully Selected Garbage.
Editorials:
A press release by the Houston Athiests Society; An anti-Houston Chronicle site's editorial;
Bloggers:
Amanda Strassner; Trivial Pursuits; Off the Kuff; Carefully Selected Garbage.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Bible Case Update:
HoustonChronicle.com - New evidence claimed in Bible display lawsuit
What new evidence is that? Well apparently the Star of Hope is offering to put disclaimers on the monument. Interesting. I would be surprised if this gets back to Judge Lake since he already ruled on the matter. Even if it did, however, I don’t see how any of this evidence would change anything for a few reasons. First, the monument was put there to promote Christianity, and the only reason Judge Devine put the bible back in the case (that I have seen) is to promote Christianity. Second, there are no disclaimers on it now, so what has changed? Third, the payment of the electric bill will not reduce the impropriety. Perhaps if they moved it off of the courthouse grounds, or even surrounded it by other monuments, but one single monument, no way.
Stay tuned for Judge Lake’s ruling.
HoustonChronicle.com - New evidence claimed in Bible display lawsuit
What new evidence is that? Well apparently the Star of Hope is offering to put disclaimers on the monument. Interesting. I would be surprised if this gets back to Judge Lake since he already ruled on the matter. Even if it did, however, I don’t see how any of this evidence would change anything for a few reasons. First, the monument was put there to promote Christianity, and the only reason Judge Devine put the bible back in the case (that I have seen) is to promote Christianity. Second, there are no disclaimers on it now, so what has changed? Third, the payment of the electric bill will not reduce the impropriety. Perhaps if they moved it off of the courthouse grounds, or even surrounded it by other monuments, but one single monument, no way.
Stay tuned for Judge Lake’s ruling.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Harris County Bible Update
The Star of Hope Mission has publicly stated that they will petition to intervene in the case. At this point it is unclear what that means since the district judge has ruled on the case and closed it, and the County has determined that they are going to appeal.
They will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund which appears to be a sort of litigation clearing house for pro-religion causes. Based on the variety of cases, it appears they support any Christian religious cause. My prediction is that they will be permitted to intervene because as I stated in a previous article the Star of Hope Mission actually owns the Bible in question. In Texas legal parlance, "that dog'll hunt."
This is shaping up to be a good clean fight. Disregarding the absurd publicity aboutI think both sides on this issue have legitimate arguments, so regardless of which side I support (not that there is any ambiguity), I look forward to the briefs.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope to file motion to keep Bible on display
The Star of Hope Mission has publicly stated that they will petition to intervene in the case. At this point it is unclear what that means since the district judge has ruled on the case and closed it, and the County has determined that they are going to appeal.
They will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund which appears to be a sort of litigation clearing house for pro-religion causes. Based on the variety of cases, it appears they support any Christian religious cause. My prediction is that they will be permitted to intervene because as I stated in a previous article the Star of Hope Mission actually owns the Bible in question. In Texas legal parlance, "that dog'll hunt."
This is shaping up to be a good clean fight. Disregarding the absurd publicity aboutI think both sides on this issue have legitimate arguments, so regardless of which side I support (not that there is any ambiguity), I look forward to the briefs.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope to file motion to keep Bible on display
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Bible Case Documents.
For any legal geeks, I have decided to make available a couple more documents from the bible case. Here are judge Sim Lake's ruling and opinion on the Motion for leave to intervene, and the final judgment.
For any legal geeks, I have decided to make available a couple more documents from the bible case. Here are judge Sim Lake's ruling and opinion on the Motion for leave to intervene, and the final judgment.
A bit more on the Harris County Bible Case
It turns out my assumptions were wrong (in the previous posting). There were no intervening parties to the suit. Karen Friend and William and Lisa Drout petitioned to intervene, but on January 12 their Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene was denied.
If you are interested you can read the judgment, but let me summarize by saying I think it is a good result. As usual
What is different about the Star of Hope Mission, however, is that they actually own the bible and possibly the monument in question. They may very well have a very important interest in whether it is removed since it is theirs. As far as intervening just to assert some sort of first amendment religious argument, I think it is more of a stretch. Owning the book might overcome that though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
