Judge Refuses for the Second Time to Allow Attorney to Defend Cliven Bundy

Freedom Outpost ^ | 4/20/2016 | Tim Brown

[Does so]

More attorneys aboard today than one would think.

Can't have any attorneys starving...

[PAR35]

The constitution allows an American citizen to use representation of their choosing

No, it doesn't. There is a right to "Assistance of Counsel for his defence". Nothing in there about picking anyone at random.

You are probably thinking of Gonzalez-Lopez. But the Supreme Court recognized that "Nothing we have said today casts any doubt or places any qualification upon our previous holdings that limit the right to counsel of choice and recognize the authority of trial courts to establish criteria for admitting lawyers to argue before them... Nor may a defendant insist on representation by a person who is not a member of the bar, or demand that a court honor his waiver of conflict-free representation...The court has, moreover, an “independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession ...."

Or, as the court said earlier in Wheat, "Our holding in Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975), that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself if he voluntarily elects to do so, does not encompass the right to choose any advocate if the defendant wishes to be represented by counsel."

[Labyrinthos]

The constitution allows an American citizen to use representation of their choosing, up to and including their own self. Or at least that was the way it was meant to be.

The 6th Amendment only guarantees the "assistance of counsel." The SCOTUS has interpreted that mean the assistance of effective counsel. And while the SCOTUS has generally held that a criminal defendant has the right to assistance of effective counsel of his or her choosing, the judiciary has to make the threshold determination as the whether counsel will be effective, including basic competency and ethical standards in the practice of law. Indeed, at the time of the enactment of the 6th Amendment, every state and federal court required a lawyer to pass a bar exam of some sort and to meet ethical and moral standards in order to practice law before the courts of that state

[exit82]

the judiciary has to make the threshold determination as the whether counsel will be effective, including basic competency and ethical standards in the practice of law. Indeed, at the time of the enactment of the 6th Amendment, every state and federal court required a lawyer to pass a bar exam of some sort and to meet ethical and moral standards in order to practice law before the courts of that state

What you said is all true, but anyone reading this who has dealt with the justice system is laughing out loud right now.

[NormsRevenge]

Judge is an Obammy 2009 appointee

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3255&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

[RideForever]

You need to read this article (http://www.amazon.com/Birther-Attorney-Censured-Ethics-Violations/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx3SQ3RZP3MZ0VP/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299) to understand the nature of the charges.

[itsahoot]

does not encompass the right to choose any advocate if the defendant wishes to be represented by counsel.

In other words you can't have an attorney that has a chance of successfully defend ing you.

[PAR35]

So the reason Klayman lost so many of those civil cases was because all he knew was criminal defense?

[itsahoot]

So the reason Klayman lost so many of those civil cases was because all he knew was criminal defense?

Don't be obtuse Par.

[PAR35]

Look, if the judge told him he couldn’t have Dershowitz or Geragos or Deguerin, I’d be sympathetic. But Klayman? in a criminal case? They are playing to the audience, not the jury. And for the record, you wouldn’t want me in a federal criminal case, either.

[itsahoot]

But Klayman? in a criminal case?

So rights are always up to the judge? You are right, I probably would not want you.

[PAR35]

So rights are always up to the judge?

When you want to bring in someone not admitted to that court, yes. Go pull the Pro Hac requirements from the local rules. (LR IA 10-2, particularly (b)(4)- (6), (d),(f) and (h)).