Posted on 04/20/2016 7:27:13 AM PDT by george76
Love the tag line. I want you on my team. lol
Bundy would be well advised to accept whatever help he can get. This would be pro-bono. Klayman is an experienced atty. and would battle relentlessly.
Here is her decision: Link
Attorneys cannot practice in any court in any state they choose. They either have to be admitted to the bar of that state to practice in state court or, for federal courts, have to be admitted to practice in that particular court.
Bundy's case is pending in the U.S District Court for the District of Nevada. To practice in that court, then, the attorney must be admitted.
Now, if an attorney is not admitted to practice in a particular federal district court, that attorney can seek what's called admission pro hac vice -- that is, admission to practice in a particular case. This is what Klayman sought.
Admission pro hac vice is governed by the local rules of a district court. In this instance, Local Rule of Practice 10.2(b)(5) for the U.S District Court for the District of Nevada requires that a petition seeking such admission state, among other things, "Whether the attorney is currently subject to any disciplinary proceedings by any organization with authority to discipline attorneys at law."
As the linked article indicates, Klayman eventually admitted (after apparently not being candid with the district court, a blunder in and of itself) that some fairly serious Washington, D.C. bar disciplinary proceedings against him for three separate conflicts of interest have not been resolved.
If you are an attorney who has these kinds of bar disciplinary proceedings pending against you (and particularly where you do not disclose their full extent), you have virtually no chance of getting pro hac vice admission anywhere.
If you want to blame someone, blame Klayman.
Klayman will sue the heck out of anyone and battle relentlessly in court, even though he has few successes to show for it. But this is a criminal case and Bundy really needs a criminal attorney. What he doesn't need is an attorney who sued the Obama administration alleging that they "secretly allowed the Ebola virus to enter the United States so it could be used against Americans of the "Caucasian race and Jewish-Christian religion"".
Maybe so, but they will die with full bellies, in air conditioned houses, happy, sexually satisfied, and with all the narcotic drugs that their system can tolerate. All provided to them free by the Government. A happier, more satisfied class of slaves have never existed.
“Under what law is a judge allowed to deny a defendant his choice of counsel providing that the counsel is legally entitled to practice law in said jurisdiction?”
My bet is that Klayman is not admitted into the Nevada bar. In that instance the out of state attorney files what’s called a motion to appear Pro Hoc Vice, asking for leave to appear in the case on behalf of a certain client. The law generally requires that the attorney be competent counsel and that there also be an attorney from the state also appearing in the case to assist the out of state counsel on local practice. This is called “local counsel.” These motions are routinely granted. It sounds like the judge has been denying such a motion from Klayman for no good reason.
“Under what law is a judge allowed to deny a defendant his choice of counsel”
Did Bundy ask the court for Klayman?
One of the original uses of a pistol was for an officer to use keeping his men going the right direction or not running. That was old school “Napoleonic warfare”, but it is what started this once great country.
Huh? Larry Klayman has been instrumental in the release of millions of documents through the FOIA lawsuits. Forcing the federal government to release documents they've attempted to keep buried from the light of day.
Sorry, I respect your opinion, but must disagree with you. Klayman is a relentless champion for the citizens of America.
[What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
Answer: Your Honor.]
As a lawyer once told me, “the difference between a lawyer and a hooker is that the hooker stops screwing you when you are dead.”
Question for you. In light of the SCOTUS ruling regarding homosexual marriage, would this not fall under the same? By that I mean, since SCOTUS ruled that what is legal in one State, must be recognized in all States, would not the lawyers (or any State specific certification) credentials need to be recognized in NV? Since Roberts opened a can of worms with his piss-poor ruling, I suggest we hit the courts at any and every opportunity.
Just shows how far we have lost America.
Those who utter this comment only expose their foolish lack of uinderstanding and incompetence as a fighter.
once upon a time, in America, justice aspired to blindness with respect to persons.
>> Attorneys cannot practice in any court in any state they choose <<
Rules, rules, rules.
We don’t need no stinkin’ rules.
Rules are for little people, not for world-historic scholars and statesmen like Mr. Bundy and Counselor Klayman.
[[The ruling demonstrates that the judge has an extra-judicial bias and prejudice against Cliven Bundy and his counsel]]
Absolutely it does if htere is no legit reason to bar him- what was the judge’s original reason for not allowing hte lawyer? Has the lawyer been disbarred in the state or something?
Not unless you can convince SCOTUS that (among other things) practicing law is, like marriage, a fundamental right.
My understanding of the SCOTUS ruling was that those in favor based their decision on licensing, not fundamental rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.