Home Politics

Politics

Arthur K. Delaney

Arthur K. Delaney

 


Arthur K. Delaney

 

Best remembered today as the first mayor of Juneau, Alaska, Arthur K. Delaney began his professional career as an attorney. Born in New York State, he arrived in Alaska in the 1890s as part of the larger wave of travelers seeking fortune during the Klondike Gold Rush. At the end of 1895, Arthur K. Delaney was admitted as a judge presiding the District Court of the United States in and for the District of Alaska,

 

In 1896, one of two cases which eventually were heard in the United States Supreme Court involving Arthur K. Delaney began. The case began in May of that year when Ohlin H. Adsit filed suit against John F. Malony. In his case, Adsit charged that he had been the occupant and possessor of half of a tract of land in Juneau for nine years before April 29, 1891, upon which he had constructed a large wooden building. At that time, he charged, Malony had unlawfully ejected him from his property.

 

In his lawsuit, Adsit asked that the court award him possession of either the land in question or an interest in it. On June 8 of 1896, Malony filed a demurral, a motion stating that the person filing suit does not have sufficient basis for their litigation to proceed. However, on October 9 the court overruled him and gave Adsit time to file a response. Subsequently a trial was scheduled and was heard the following year before Arthur K. Delaney.

The right to trial by jury was waived. In his ruling, Arthur K. Delaney found in favor of Adsit. The following year, Arthur K. Delaney resigned from his position as a judge. However, the case continued after his exit as Malony first filed a "bill of exceptions," a document allowing a party in a legal case to state their objection to a ruling on a legal basis. The judge who signed this document had resigned by the time Malony filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

 

The case of Malony v. Adsit was heard by the Supreme Court in 1899. The specific issue at stake was the validity of the bill of exceptions. Because the judge who had signed it had preceded Arthur K. Delaney, the Supreme Court found that the bill of exceptions could not be considered and ruled in favor of Adsit.

 

Arthur K. Delaney appeared directly before the Supreme Court in 1901, acting as counsel for the defense in the case of Marks v. Shoup, acting on behalf of J.M. Shoup. That same year, Arthur K. Delaney was elected the first mayor of Juneau, serving in that capacity for a year. In 1902, Arthur K. Delaney was succeeded in his office by Ohlin H. Adsit, who served in that capacity until 1904. Arthur K. Delaney left that year and relocated to California, where he died in January of the following year. 

Kay McFarland

Kay McFarland

 

Kay McFarland

Kay McFarland is a former Kansas judge who served on the state Supreme Court from 1977 to 2009. Her appointment to this court marked the first time in Kansas history a woman had served in this capacity. Kay McFarland was subsequently promoted to the position of Chief Justice in 1995, another first for Kansas women.

One case in which Kay McFarland joined another judge in filing a dissenting opinion concerned a tax appeal filed by Sumner County, which was heard in 1997. The origins of the case dated to 1989, when airplane manufacturer Boeing submitted a tax grievance with the office of the Sumner County Appraiser. This grievance was in turn submitted to the state Board of Tax Appeals, which granted Boeing's grievance request. The order granting Boeing relief was returned to the offices of Sumner County on July 30, 1990 with a cover letter stating that if the city wished to file a request for reconsideration, they were required to do so within 30 days.

However, this deadline was incorrectly based on a 1981 administrative regulation which had been superseded by subsequent regulations stating all requests for reconsiderations of a final order issued by the Board of Tax Appeals must be filed within 15 days. Unaware of this, Sumner County filed its appeal 28 days later, on August 27, 1990. The Board of Tax Appeals reviewed this petition and granted it on September 4. Boeing then challenged the legality of this reversal on the basis of the expired deadline. Sumner County argued that its petition was legal since it was executed in conformance with the terms stipulated in the order given by the Board of Tax Appeals.

Two years later, new rulings from the Appeals Court let to the Board of Tax Appeals agreeing with the position taken by Boeing and withdrew its approval of Sumner County's petition. Sumner County then appealed to its district court, which reversed the dismissal and ordered the Board of Tax Appeals to review the decision. Boeing appealed this decision to the state's Appeals Court.

In considering the case, the Appeals Court took into consideration the "unique circumstances doctrine," which states that there is precedent in previous United States Supreme Court cases for granting the consideration of legal issues filed after the due date if late filing results as the result of a good faith error relying upon faulty information. The Appeals Court concluded that this was the case and ordered that the Board of Tax Appeals rule upon the dispute. Boeing appeared before the Kansas Supreme Court to appeal, which again ruled in favor of Sumner County.

However, Kay McFarland filed a dissent along with a fellow justice. In their dissent, Kay McFarland and Justice Larson stated that any filing party is legally required to familiarize themselves with all regulations and laws in question, and that the excuse of relying upon faulty information does not constitute grounds for a "unique circumstances" case review.

 

Rod Laporte

Rod Laporte

 


Rod Laporte

Rod Laporte is a Canadian attorney. He was a law student before entering the Canadian Parliament House of Commons in 1988, serving as a representative for the areas of Moose Jaw and Lake Centre in the Canadian state of Saskatchewan for one term. During his time in Parliament, Rod Laporte was particularly involved in the regulation and oversight of issues related to grain, oilseeds, wheat and agriculture in general. Rod Laporte was defeated in his run for re-election in 1993 and returned to Moose Jaw, where he resumed practicing the law.

Rod Laporte is currently a staff attorney for Legal Aid Sasketchewan, an organization which was founded in 1974 following the passage of the state's "Legal Aid Act." This legislation was designed to create a legal infrastructure providing legal representation for defendants involved in both civil and criminal legal actions who are unable to pay for private legal counsel.

As a staff attorney for Legal Aid Saskatchewan, Rod Laporte is one of over 80 attorneys working on behalf of this organization in a full service capacity. This means that every lawyer, including Rod Laporte, is assigned cases on a rotation basis that shuffles cases from one office to another. Legal Aid Saskatchewan may occasionally decide to transfer handling of a case handled by Rod Laporte or another staff attorney in the interests of easing the workload of each attorney or to avoid a potential conflict of interests. In total, this organization processes approximately 20,000 cases in a calendar year. Of those, more than 90% are handled by staff attorneys rather than contracted to a private attorney. Those seeking representation from Legal Aid Saskatchewan may not request the representation of a specific attorney, such as Rod Laporte.

In addition to its full service representation services, Legal Aid Saskatchewan also provides limited advice and representation in the initial stages of the criminal prosecution process. Once a person is arrested, they may contact Legal Aid Saskatchewan over the telephone and receive legal advice. Such a person can also request that an attorney such as Rod Laporte or another lawyer visit them following the advice received over the telephone. A representative of Legal Aid Saskatchewan, such as Rod Laporte, may also attend the first court hearing of such a defendant. Afterwards, no further counsel will be provided unless the defendant is eligible for full service representation from Rod Laporte or another attorney.

Rod Laporte is an employee of the Moose Jaw office of Legal Aid Saskatchewan. Overall, there are 14 such offices in the state of Saskatchewan. Each such office is operated under independently codified policies and has the ability to decide whether or not it will provide minimal legal advice, information or counsel of any kind, either in person or over the phone, to anyone who requests it, even if they are not required to go to court or have not been detained.

 

Jackson B. Davis

Jackson B. Davis

 


Jackson B. Davis

Jackson B. Davis is a former Louisiana state senator and currently practicing attorney in Shreveport, Louisiana. After obtaining his law degree and serving in World War II, Jackson B. Davis returned home and began practicing the law. From 1956 to 1980, he also served as a senator in the state legislature representing Caddo and Bossier parishes.

As a practicing attorney, Jackson B. Davis has been involved in a number of cases. One notable lawsuit occurred in 1970, which began as a dispute over an oil and gas lease. The lease was made to four men from South Carolina who alleged that Carl W. Jones, along with business associates, fraudulently misrepresented the value of the property in question, especially with regard to its possibilities as a site for mineral production.

In a counter-claim filed with the Court of Appeals, Jones disputed the factual evidence sworn to in affidavits presented against him. Additionally, he claimed that the charges brought forth against him by Jackson B. Davis and another attorney, Robert J. Moffatt, constituted libelous statements maliciously made with the intention of damaging his reputation. In affidavits filed with the court, Jones said he had heard Davis listening to his clients inform him that they were deliberately blaming Jones for actions they knew he did not commit. In separately filed affidavits, Jackson B. Davis and Moffatt disputed all such allegations.

Though Jackson B. Davis was not successful in obtaining a summary judgment and dismissal against Jones, the case is notable because the claims regarding potentially libelous charges made by lawyers were rejected. The case established a precedent in the Louisiana court system that plaintiffs or defendants cannot be held legally culpable for any defamatory statements made by their lawyers.

 

Price Daniel

Price Daniel

 


Price Daniel

 

Price Daniel was a Texas lawyer who acted both in a private capacity and as the state's Attorney General, as well as serving as a Senator from 1953 to 1957 prior to being elected governor of the state.

 

One of the most prominent early cases Price Daniel argued was Sweatt v. Painter, argued before the Supreme Court in 1950.  The case had its origins in 1946, when African-American Heman Marion Sweatt, attempted to enroll in the University of Texas School of Law located in Austin, TX. Though he was academically qualified, his application was rejected because state law prohibited integrated scholastic facilities. Sweatt filed suit, claiming his rights under the Equal Protection Clause. While his hearings were delayed, the University of Texas constructed a separate school for African-American students based in Houston.

 

When the case was argued before the Supreme Court, Price Daniel represented the state of Texas. Price Daniel argued that state law prohibited integrated education, and that separate and equal facilities had been provided for African-American students. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments on a number of levels. The Supreme Court noted that the separate facilities were relatively understaffed, provided less facilities, and conferred less prestige upon graduates. Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that keeping the facility isolated geographically from where students would be applying to work conferred a further disadvantage upon them.

 

Another prominent case Price Daniel argued before the Supreme Court concerned states rights' to claim ownership of oil found on submerged Gulf of Mexico territory. Formerly, this land had been understood to belong to the states, but the issue became contested when the federal government sued the state of California in 1946. Texas joined with many other states in this lawsuit, and Price Daniel presented the argument on their behalf in 1947.

In its lawsuit against California, the federal government cited a number of reasons for its claim of ownership, including the claim that previous Supreme Court rulings on these types of issues were erroneous and should be discarded, and that issues of national defense or international relations gave the federal government authority to claim ownership if it seemed to be in the best interest of the country. Price Daniel unsuccessfully argued on behalf of the states, but the Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of the federal government, 4 to 3. 

 

In another lawsuit, the federal government sued Texas. Again under the direction of Price Daniel, the state of Texas gathered support for its right to the land it claimed from 11 experts in the field of international law. Once again, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government.

 

In 1952, Price Daniel was elected to the Senate and accomplished by legislative means what he had been unable to do as Attorney General. As the co-author of a 1953 bill, Price Daniel finally was able to pass laws granting states the right to all such submerged lands.

William Goebel

William Goebel

 


William Goebel

William Goebel was a Kentucky lawyer, senator and governor of the 19th century associated with many controversial policies and lawsuits. In 1887, he joined the Kentucky Senate. As a senator, he championed legislation removing toll fees from several of the turnpikes in the state. One of the people displeased by this action was John Sanford, who was also displeased when William Goebel took action to transfer funds from the city into Covington away from a bank owned by Sanford. The antipathy between the two men was also stoked by the fact that the family of William Goebel had sided with the Union Army during the Civil War, while Sanford's had sided with the Confederacy.

In 1895, a Convington newspaper began publishing a series of anonymous pieces attacking and mocking William Goebel, who learned from mutual acquaintances that the author of these pieces was Sanford. In retaliation, William Goebel published an anonymous article referring to Sanford in derisive terms and alleging that he had attempted to obtain a pardon for a friend convicted of fraud.

 On April 11, 1895, William Goebel was walking to another bank when they encountered Sanford on the steps of his own bank. It is unclear whether William Goebel and Sanford deliberately sought each other out for the purposes of conducting a duel, The Kentucky Constitution forbids anyone who has fought a duel from becoming a governor, in addition to the illegality of the act in general. Sanford asked if William Goebel had been the author of the recent piece against him. When William Goebel replied in the affirmative, both men drew their guns. The timing of the events is unclear, but the shot fired by Sanford only hit his opponent's clothing. The bullet fired by William Goebel hit Sanford in the head and killed him.

Following the incident, William Goebel immediately proceeded to a police station, where he surrendered himself to the authorities. In court, William Goebel claimed that Sanford had withdrawn his weapon first, necessitating that he act in self-defense. A preliminary injunction resulted in the case being released from legal custody. A subsequent jury trial ruled that William Goebel was not guilty of murder by reason of self-defense. This exonerated him from charges of conducting a public duel, making him eligible to serve as governor.

In 1898, William Goebel introduced a law into the state senate creating a new procedure for appointing county election commissioners by creating a three-man panel that would be appointed by the state legislature every year. This panel would in turn be charged with appointing every county election commissioner. While the stated purpose of this legislation was to decrease corruption practiced by members of the Republican opposition, it was widely criticized as serving the equally corrupt ends of the Democratic party.

In 1900, William Goebel was elected governor of the state of Kentucky. However, he was shot before being sworn into the office and passed away a few days later.

 

Edward Terry Sanford

Edward Terry Sanford

 

Edward Terry Sanford

 

Lawyer and judge Edward Terry Sanford is best remembered for his involvement in two high-profile Supreme Court cases, serving in one as a lawyer and in one as one of the justices. After graduating Harvard Law School, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General of the United States in 1907.

 

That year, Edward Terry Sanford served as the lead prosecutor in the case of United States v. Shipp et al. The case involved Senator Joseph Shipp, the sheriff in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1906. Shipp was deemed responsible when a black prisoner, Ed Johnson, was lynched after being convicted of rape by an all-white jury. Despite a successful appeal to the Supreme Court, the case of United States v. Shipp et al. alleged that Shipp had deliberately disregarded a court order and allowed the lynching of a prisoner, leaving him open to charges of contempt of court.

 

Edward Terry Sanford traveled to Chattanooga to prepare evidence for the government and question witnesses. For nearly two days, Edward Terry Sanford also questioned Sheriff Shipp about the incidents in question. After his preparatory role in the trial, Edward Terry Sanford believed he had established the guilt of the sheriff, as well as several of his deputies and several lynch mob members.

 

The resulting Supreme Court trial took place in December 1906. Using the evidence collected by Edward Terry Sanford, the prosecution successfully argued for the conviction of Sheriff Shipp. After this success, Edward Terry Sanford was appointed to district judge status in Tennessee in 1908.

 

In 1923, Edward Terry Sanford was appointed to the US Supreme Court. Though he wrote 130 opinions as a judge, his most influential case was held in his first year on the bench. The 1923 case of Gitlow v. New York had its origins in the 1919 arrest of Benjamin Gitlow, a New York assemblyman who was a member of the Communist Party and had published an article arguing for the violent overthrow of the American government. During the course of his New York trial, Gitlow argued that because the article had resulted in no violent actions, he should be exonerated, but was convicted regardless.

 

The court heard the case in 1923 and issued its opinion, written by Edward Terry Sanford, in 1925. The issue at stake concerned the legality of the New York state laws and whether they violated the first amendment. Edward Terry Sanford wrote on behalf of the seven justices who concurred that the first amendment was equally applicable to federal and state governments.

 

However, their ruling also established a new legal precedent for restrictions that could be placed on first amendment expression of speech. Where previously the "clear and present danger" rule had been used, the opinion written by Edward Terry Sanford relied upon the "bad (or dangerous) tendency" rule. This ruling established that states could regulate speech before it led to destructive consequences, as long as federal first amendment standards were not violated.

Valerie Plame

Valerie Plame

 


Valerie Plame

 

Valerie Plame is a former undercover CIA official whose cover was destroyed in a 2003 column by the "Washington Post" journalist Robert Novak. The subsequent investigation regarding who was responsible for the leak of the cover of Valerie Plame took four years to reach its legal conclusion in several trials, although a CIA investigation is still technically ongoing.

 

The beginning of the so-called "Plame affair" began when her husband Joseph C. Wilson published a series of columns in July 2003 that effectively accused then-president George W. Bush of misrepresenting the case for the invasion of Iraq. Eight days after his column was published, Novak published a paper which, as part of the argument against Wilson, identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. This disclosure effectively ended her career as an undercover CIA operative.

 

A number of lawsuits, both federal and civil, stemmed from this disclosure. After the revelation, the CIA requested that the Department of Justice conduct an investigation into the source of the leak. In turn, the Department of Justice asked the FBI to conduct an investigation. Ultimately, the CIA conducted its own investigation to determine who was responsible for giving Novak this information. Two grand juries were convened during this investigation, which was conducted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The first grand jury convened eventually indicted White House official Lewis Libby on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury. However, he was not indicted as the primary source of the leak regarding Valerie Plame.

 

In the course of the second trial of Lewis Libby, his defense counsel argued that any inaccuracies he made during the course of the CIA's investigation were the result of memory loss due to the many White House duties he had to fulfill. His attorneys also contested the statements made by prosecution witnesses. A number of other journalists were brought in to testify about their interactions about White House officials. As a result of their testimony, it was revealed that Libby had disseminated the news of the identity of Valerie Plame to a number of journalists who did not make use of this information in their columns.

 

The second grand jury resulted in the conviction of Lewis Libby on four of the charges filed against him. However, he was acquitted of making false statements. Lewis Libby was eventually sentenced to thirty months in prison, along with a fine. The prison sentence was later commuted by President George W. Bush.

 

 In the civil courts. Valerie Wilson and her husband Joseph Wilson filed a civil lawsuit which named Libby as a co-defendant alongside then vice-president Dick Cheney and two other administration officials, Karl Rove and Richard Armitage. However, this lawsuit, known as Wilson v. Cheney, was dismissed in 2007. Also in 2007, it was revealed that Richard Armitage was the source Robert Novak had drawn upon in outing Valerie Plame in his column. No legal consequences ensued for Richard Armitage.

Edward Lazarus

Edward Lazarus

 


Edward Lazarus

 

Edward Lazarus is a former Supreme Court clerk and Federal Communications Commission Chief of Staff. In the legal field, Edward Lazarus is known both as a lawyer and for his 1998 book "Closed Chambers," which details his time acting as a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun during the October Term which began in October 1988 and concluded in July 1989.

 

"Closed Chambers" was controversial in the legal field for several reasons and has been attacked by a number of members of the legal system. Foremost in the charges leveled at Edward Lazarus by his critics is his violation of confidentiality. Anyone who acts as a law clerk in the Supreme Court is obligated to follow a code of conduct whose rules are explained before service begins. These rules prohibit any law clerk from sharing any confidential information they learn during their service, or from profiting from it. By writing a book in which he shared what he had learned during internal deliberations and publishing it for commercial purchase. critics argued Edward Lazarus had violated the terms of the code of conduct.

 

In his defense, Edward Lazarus argued that the terms of the Code of Conduct were routinely violated by other law clerks who routinely spoke, on the condition of anonymity, with members of the press. Edward Lazarus also claimed that he had repeatedly discussed the book prior to its publication with Justice Blackmun. However, public statements made by associates of Justice Blackmun stated he was unaware of the publication of the book until it entered the marketplace.

 

Another part of the Code of Conduct that critics charged Edward Lazarus with violating concerned a clause forbidding clerks from offering any interpretation or explanation of actions taken and rulings issued by the Supreme Court. Because the narrative of "Closed Chambers" explained the rulings made during his term of service, critics argued Edward Lazarus was in violation of this part of the Code.

 

 Another issue concerning "Closed Chambers" involves the quotation and use of documents. According to the Code of Conduct, no nonpublic documents can be removed from their housing within the building of the Supreme Court at any time. Critics charged that his extensive quotation from these documents demonstrated another violation of the rules of the Supreme Court by Edward Lazarus.

 

 Among his other public actions, Edward Lazarus served at the FCC from 2009 to the end of January 2012. Following the end of his government service, Edward Lazarus resumed legal practice by rejoining the international law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Edward Lazarus had been a senior counsel at that firm's Los Angeles offices from 2000 to 2009 prior to joining the FCC. Prior to that time, he was an assistant district attorney in California. His specialty as a private lawyer concerns issues involving appellate litigation. His areas of practice include intellectual property law, matters concerning Federal Indian law, bankruptcy cases.

Alan Brownstein

Alan Brownstein

 


Alan Brownstein

Alan Brownstein is a legal scholar who is a faculty member of the University of California at Davis. His focus is on issues of constitutional law, with a particular concentration on issues regarding the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment. Alan Brownstein is particularly concerned with issues of balancing religious and secular concerns.

In a number of papers, Alan Brownstein has advanced the case that the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment is not as well understood, enforced or interpreted as the Establishment clause. Alan Brownstein has argued that America's history as a country more inclined to religious expression than most has led the courts to often privilege the free expression rights of religious groups rather than those of secular groups. Attendantly, Alan Brownstein argues that standards for ruling on the full implications the Free Exercise clause have not yet properly established the courts.

In a 2010 essay published in the "Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy," Alan Brownstein outlines some of his arguments for why this might be the case. Noting that the courts are more likely to grant freedom of expression to religious organizations rather than secular organizations, Alan Brownstein argues that it is necessary for courts to take an unusual amount of subjective and contextual judgment into consideration when ruling on such issues.

As part of his larger argument, Alan Brownstein has argued that conservative groups which take firm positions on issues such as gay marriage undermine the full use of the Free Exercise expression. Alan Brownstein has argued that if religious organizations are routinely granted the right to express their opinions and act freely, they should be prepared to grant the same freedom of expression to organizations and individuals whose interests are diametrically opposed to theirs.