|
That's correct. If Newdow wishes to argue the
case, he'll need leave of the Court to do so pursuant to Rule
6.3. The Court
does not invariably
grant such a motion. See, e.g., Buckley v. ACLF, 524 U.S.
975 (1998) (mem.).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:14
PM
Subject: Re: Attorney's fees in pledge of
allegiance case
Dear All,
I've been told that he is
a lawyer, although only quite recently admitted in California -- apparently so
recently admitted that he will have to proceed pro hac vice in the
Supreme Court because he doesn't have the requisite three years to be eligible
for admission to the Supreme Court Bar.
Pam Karlan
At 05:57
PM 10/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I had heard he was a lawyer; does
anyone know for sure? Paul Finkelman
Quoting "Howard M.
Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I do not believe that
Newdow is a lawyer -- part of why the
> ACLU and other
>
organizations tried so hard to get him not to argue himself in
> the
9th
> Circuit.
>
> The result would not be different if he
were not a lawyer--in
> fact it
> becomes easier. The idea
of s. 1988 is to enable plaintiffs
> to attract
> competent
counsel--the private attorney general model--by
> providing
>
incentives to lawyers to take on cases such as this, that have
> no $
value.
> If the plaintiff is going to represent himself, he does
not
> need that
> incentive to attract competen
counsel.
>
>
> Howard Wasserman
> FIU College of
Law
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
"James Maule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15,
2003 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Attorney's fees in pledge of allegiance
case
>
>
> > Is it that the litigant is a lawyer or
simply that there are
> no
> > out-of-pocket attorney fees to
be reimbursed? In other
> words, the
> > statute doesn't
cover the value of the litigant's time, just
> the value
> >
of actual expended dollars? (Same thing with the tax case
> attorney
fee
> > recovery statute (26 USC sec 7430) (see Sorrentino v US
199
> F Supp 1068,
> > and cases cited therein), and my guess
is that all such
> statutes, state
> > and federal, end up
being limited to reimbursement of actual
> outlays
> >
barring specific legislation saying otherwise).
> >
> > I
assume Newdow is a lawyer? If he weren't, would the result
>
be
> > different?
> >
> > Jim Maule
> >
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
> > Villanova
PA 19085
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
> >
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law
>
instruction)
> > (www.taxjem.com)
> > Publisher, JEMBook
Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
> > Owner/Developer,
TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
> > Maule Family
Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)
> >
> >
>
>
> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/15/2003 1:41:09 PM
>>>
> > Under Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991), a
pro se litigant
> who is
> > also a
> > lawyer
cannot be awarded fees under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988,
> which is,
I
> > assume, the fee-shifting statute most likely to apply
to
> this case.
> >
> > Pam Karlan
>
>
> > At 01:09 PM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >
>Since Mark Newdow is apparently representing himself, would
> he
be
> > entitled
> > >to attorneys' fees if he prevails
in the pledge of
> allegiance case?
> > If so,
> >
>approximately how much would they be (four figures, five
>
figures, or
> > six
> > >figures)?
> >
>
> Pamela S. Karlan
> > Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of
Public Interest
> Law
> > Stanford Law School
> >
559 Nathan Abbott Way
> > Stanford, CA 94305-8610
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 650.725.4851
> >
>
>
Pamela S. Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of
Public Interest Law
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott
Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
650.725.4851
|
