Those who read my last article, Hollister to Berg: Butt out! may have observed that the article is basically 3 hyperlinks with some text to hold them. There’s no analysis of any of these legal filings.
The main reason is that while I can debunk the “factual” allegations in a legal complaint (and have done so with several), I am not a lawyer, and I really can’t say whether somebody’s amicus brief is extraordinary or not. I have no business pontificating about quo warranto or qui tam. I got into this business because I have some expertise in birth certificates, but the lawsuits raise issues about which I have no expertise.
So if anyone who has legal expertise would like to write thoughtful, analytical, informative articles about any of the denialist lawsuits/documents, I would be more than happy to publish them under whatever name or character you wish. If the article is just text, you can email it to “admin” care of this blog’s domain, and if it has formatting, a Microsoft Word document attachment would be good.
I doubt that there is any useful analysis to do on this intra-birther spat regarding an amicus curiae brief. My understanding is that it is very much within the discretion of the Court of Appeal whether to accept an amicus brief. There’s no real legal standard or criterion for determining whether such a brief should be accepted.
I think there are circumstances where an amicus is clearly submitted for improper reasons, and should be rejected.
The purpose of an amicus is to give an opportunity for an outside party with a legitimate interest in the outcome to weigh in on an issue that might not be fully addressed in the briefs. So in the Supreme Court, in case coming out of one state, you might see a brief submitted by a governor’s association or network of district attorneys from other states, that attempts to demonstrate the possible beneficial or adverse impact of a ruling in other jurisdictions. Or you will see a brief from an advocacy organization like the NRA or the ACLU or the NAACP — asserting the interest of its members. Often the amicus places a very specific, narrow legal issue in a broader context.
What is NOT appropriate is an amicus by a dismissed attorney who is unhappy with the reasons for dismissal– or who wants to salvage their personal or professional reputation in some way. The dismissed attorney still has duties to their original client — one of those duties is not to mess with the case once they have been fired.
You have to ask — who does the counsel for amicus represent? Attorneys are NOT supposed to be advocating on court on behalf of themselves or their personal agenda — they need to represent *clients*.
Okay Doc, have you seen this? I looked to see if you’d done a post on it yet but don’t see anything. I’d love to hear the crew on this blog go to town on this.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/new_orly_taitz_filing_in_dismissed_case_i_get_deat.php?ref=mp
I swear Orly has reached new levels of total insanity. I doubt she could even qualify to ride the short bus after this filing. I can’t even begin to imagine what the judge is going to do with this.
Thanks.
What I worry about is that some legally constituted body (like a grand jury) in some tiny corner of our huge country will do something that adds an iota of legitimacy to this conspiracy nonsense, even if it is quickly overturned.