April 15, 2009
March 27, 2009
Milk Tax
Greetings all:
The Governor’s office switchboard is kind of tied up with the furor over taxing milk. Apparently a majority of the legislature decided that they would eliminate part of the tax on food, and then re-impose the taxes on one food item at a time, through the back door. That is an important issue, but it is not the most important reason for this email.
Representative Mark Martin sponsored HB 1114, a bill to allow the sale of limited quantities of raw milk. The limit of 100 gallons a month fixed therein is absurdly too little, there are individual cows capable of producing more than that in one month. HB 1114 is too limited but nevertheless a step in the right direction.
I spent 30 days in Boguchar, Russia as part of the process of adopting two teenagers from an orphanage there. When I later asked my adopted son if pasteurized milk was sold there, he laughed and said they had no money for chemicals. While pasteurization is technically not the addition of a chemical, it is certainly a process that kills the enzymes and other life within the milk.
My wife and I recall seeing but one overweight child in the town, out of perhaps 1,000 students. The children were in good flesh but not fat. Even in the orphanage, we saw little evidence of illness, even such routine things as the common cold. Diabetes and allergies were nearly unheard of.
They eat lots of meat, milk, butter, eggs, fats, and sweets. They just don’t have the processed foods to which we have become accustomed. If this doesn’t prove that unprocessed foods are healthier than the processed, pasteurized, homogenized, and otherwise altered foods of our country, I can’t imagine what would.
We face dire economic circumstances, the product of too much government intervention. Do we have to compound our financial problems with a health crisis of our own making? Estimates suggest that up to 1 in 7 of children today will have diet related diabetes, and that’s just one of a laundry list of chronic diseases brought on by a bad diet. How do we pay for that, when we are already simply running the printing presses to “pay” for massive bailouts and stimulus packages?
Any limitation on the sale of raw milk by the force of law is in essence done at the barrel of a gun. If you think not, try disregarding the prohibition on the sale or purchase of wholesome raw milk. Men with guns will come to your house. If that isn’t good enough the guns will be drawn, and — well, I’ll put my money on the armed government agents in that showdown. People have in fact gone to jail, or faced criminal investigation and harassment, for selling raw milk. Surely we can all agree that a gunbattle over raw milk is not a feasible option. Its cheaper to buy your own cow.
Here is the stated purpose of HB1451, which taxes milk:
An Act to Ensure an Adequate Supply of Arkansas Milk for Arkansas Consumers; to Stabilize and Stimulate Dairy Farms in Arkansas; to Create the Dairy Stabilization Fund; and for Other Purposes.
Somehow, I hadn’t noticed a shortage. Even if we had a shortage, is not sufficiently established that “you get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you tax?” The General Assembly taxes tobacco to have less of it, and now seeks to tax milk to have more of it. Explain to me if you can the logic of such thinking.
Pardon me for thinking that this tax is motivated by greed and a desire to destroy the small farmer. Why else would we tax milk, the fresher refresher, the drink for busy bodies?
When will our legislators recognize that the best way to ensure that consumers get what they want and need is to return to a policy of leaving us alone? Don’t tax us, don’t stimulate us, don’t subsidize us. Government should focus on the core functions of government, and nothing else.
Oscar Stilley
os
March 5, 2009
Shagbark Hickory – the tree that keeps on giving
Shagbark hickory trees (Carya ovata) are well known to be desirable for shade, fall color, tasty nuts, and desirable timber, but perhaps their most valuable use is not well known. Mature shagbark hickory trees are natural roost sites for bats, and especially desirable as maternity roosts. Quality roost sites are key to maintaining and increasing a bat population, which in turn provides an effective natural control of mosquitoes and other night flying pests.
A bat house generally consists of one or more narrow chambers into which the bat may enter at the bottom, placed in a location with ample solar heating and reasonable protection from predators. A well pruned shagbark hickory essentially makes bat houses on the sides of the trunk. The bark “shags” off at the top and bottom leaving the middle quite firmly attached. A bat can find the side of the trunk with the most nearly ideal temperature, go up under the bark, and spend the day in relative safety and comfort.
Shagbark hickories have a large tap root that makes it difficult to transplant after the tree is more than 2 or 3 years old. Transplanted shagbark seedlings grow slowly for the first 2-3 years after transplanting, as the tree invests in a very large, strong, deep tap root. This foundation is necessary to support the natural habit of the tree, which is to grow slender, straight, and tall with a relatively narrow crown.
Shagbark hickories are high quality urban trees. They are strong, resist storm damage, have great fall color, and produce the sweetest and tastiest hickory nuts. They should not be planted where where the nuts would present a problem.
Growth is initially very slow. Growth is much faster after the tree makes the early capital investment in a large tap root. For protection and improved growth at low cost, slit a short piece of 4” diameter drainpipe, the black corrugated thinwall pipe used for French drains. Put this around the seedling, you may wish to use a couple of bamboo sticks to hold the tree protector in place. Thereupon put 1 or 2 bags of grass clippings around the tree protector 2 or 3 times a year. Any grass clippings is better than none, the amounts just stated are ideal for superior tree growth and vigor.
Most trees, including shagbark hickories, form a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi. The mycorrhizal fungi tap into sugars from the tree, and in exchange bring back minerals and moisture, which can increase the effective area of the root system several times over.
When planting an area that has not had similar trees recently, you may need to inoculate the roots of the trees you plant. You can buy a commercial dip by going to http://www.forestry-suppliers.com and searching for inoculant. Diehard Ecto Root Dip is a great choice, a 15 oz. package costs $20 and treats 10,000 seedlings.
The dip is irrelevant if the tree is planted in forest soil, because all healthy forest soils have this fungi naturally. On degraded soils or soils that have not had trees for a long time, the introduction of a good mix of mycorrhizal fungi is key to survival and growth. If you are only planting a few trees, a small amount of healthy forest soil will provide the starter necessary for a healthy tree. More fungi to start with is not necessary, since fungi will expand to take advantage of its food supply, whether small or great.
The grass clipping mulch can be picked up for free on the streets of almost any American city, and provides the following benefits:
1. It feeds the mycorrhizal fungi, which in turn increase the effective area of the tree root system, often at several times the rate achieved in the absence of feeding.
2. It moderates the temperatures of the root system, lengthening the useful growing season in spring and fall, and for many heat sensitive trees, during the heat of summer as well.
3. It moderates soil moisture, keeping the soil moisture less during wet times and greater during dry times. It also greatly increases the total moisture capacity of the soil, in large part due to the great increase of beneficial worms, grubs, and other creatures that effectively till the soil near the tree.
4. It reduces competition from grass and weeds, which along with weed eaters and rabbits constitute the greatest threats to small trees.
I have gotten 30 foot oak trees in ten years with this system, on marginal soil with little watering and no fertilization other than grass clippings. I have not yet had this much time with hickories but believe that the same approach would likewise prove highly successful.
In order to make an ideal roost tree, the shagbark hickory should have the trunk pruned clean up for about 20 to 30 feet or more, pruning perhaps 2-3 feet every couple of years depending on the total growth rate. This reduces the threat of predation and also ensures that the ideal roost locations get the best solar heating.
The first 8 feet are easy for most landowners, the later prunings may require a professional. Pruning should be done in the wintertime both for the health of the tree and to ensure that roosting bats are not disturbed.
Shagbark hickories can be bought in quantity from ArborGen. They have an enormous selection and produce very high quality seedlings. Take a look at their selection at http://www.arborgen.com/forest/fruitnut.php Shagbark hickories are available for $450 per 1,000, $100 per 100, or $60 per 25. The per thousand price is excellent, especially when you consider the quality of their product, but smaller quantities are more economical on Ebay. Selection declines early in the year, so don’t wait until spring to call.
For smaller numbers of seedlings, start with Ebay. Don’t forget you are likely to have some mortality, buy a few extras to keep in a garden or flower bed, just in case. If you can’t find what you want on Ebay, take a look a http://www.willisorchards.com or http://www.tytyga.com. Improved cultivars are available at various places including http://www.grimonut.com. You can find shagbarks for sale from a number of other vendors by simply typing in “shagbark hickory nursery” on google.
The adventurous may wish to try seed. F. W. Shumacher (http://www.treeshrubseed.com) is probably the best source of seed for this and a huge selection of other species. They not only sell seed at very reasonable prices, they have information about the trees, including germination requirements. Shagbark hickory seeds require 90-120 days of cold moist stratification (conditions that mimic winter) in order to germinate.
You can direct seed, or plant in the garden and then transplant. Don’t forget that squirrels and other rodents love the nuts and will eat them if they can. For most of us, seedlings are a better choice. However, direct seeding is cheap, gives you the option of economically starting several different hard to find trees at once, and gives you years to find them a permanent home.
Don’t forget to look for existing trees. You may have one or more shagbarks nearby that would perform well if it was released from competition, pruned, and mulched. If you are so fortunate, this will put you years ahead in the quest for permanent bat housing.
September 20, 2008
The Disbarment of Oscar Stilley
Dear Mr. Ligon:
I got your email to Ms. Lonsway as set forth below. I have had a lot of people asking why I am facing disbarment, and they deserve an honest explanation. Additionally, your response was rather misleading, and this seems as good a place as any for setting the record straight.
Let’s start with your claim that the Committee directed you to file both petitions, so you are just doing what your job requires. Hogwash. You included in your supplemental disbarment petition the following complaint:
Count 32 – Arkansas Rule 8.4(d)
1. By his repeated attempts to relitigate his Arkansas state license and
discipline issues and charges in federal courts in Michigan, Arizona, Hawaii,
Tennessee, Washington, Nevada, and Mississippi, Mr. Stilley has wasted the
time and resources of those courts that could otherwise be put to use on other
cases and business of those courts, conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice in those courts.
2. Arkansas Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice.
Mr. Ligon, this is solely and exclusively your accusation, unless you undertook ex parte conversations and got directives that don’t appear in the record. I have complained that you made this frivolous accusation on the fly, without ever having it considered by any panel of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. In fact, you took umbrage at the perceived suggestion that you had decided to do this on the basis of ex parte communications. The majority of the accusations made against Oscar Stilley in your Supplemental Petition for Disbarment were made by you without any official directive to you whatsoever. Yet despite the fact that you are the named petitioner and the sole accuser as to much of the supplemental petition, you have thus far evaded your responsibility to sit for depositions concerning your accusations.
You are in effect saying that a constitutional due process claim is a waste of judicial resources. You know that I have never gotten any reasoned opinion on my claims of violation of due process. Yet when I asked you to admit that I had a right to raise constitutional questions, you said:
199. Admit that a lawyer has a legal right to raise claims of denial of due process,
when defending licenses to practice in jurisdictions other than a jurisdiction that has
suspended the lawyer’s license.
Response: Denied, as this issue calls for a legal opinion, interpretation, or
ruling by a court on any such foreign jurisdiction.
In my attempts to be admitted in various jurisdictions around the country, I have been admitted some of the time and denied admission some of the time. However, no one has ever ruled on my constitutional due process claims. When I am granted admission the question is moot, when I am denied admission there has always been a way to evade the questions presented. Why? You admit that you have been discussing this matter with US Department of Justice attorneys who handle federal tax cases. It appears to me that you are “tag teaming” with them to prevent me from getting a ruling on my due process claims, and seeking to intimidate me from making further attempts at a ruling, by alleging that such a request is a disbarment offense.
You have admitted that the essence of your claim for disbarment is the accusation that Oscar Stilley criticized the government, and more specifically that he made unflattering statements concerning certain judges. You have steadfastly refused to allege the falsity of these statements, presumably because you know that most of them are the truth and suspect the same of the remainder. You actually sat in depositions in which Judge James Marschewski admitted that he was not telling the truth when he said he had not been on a committee for WestArk College, now UAFS, yet you persist in seeking my disbarment because I alleged the same thing in a courtroom, in a case in which these facts were clearly pertinent to the legal issues involved.
You claim to just be doing your job, but you have blockaded my efforts to get a ruling on whether on not truthful speech about matters of public concern are protected by the US Constitution. Of course you know that they are, that’s why you are so adamantly opposed to a ruling. In June 2007 when you were opposing my efforts to get a ruling from Panel B of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, your main reason was that I had already been suspended for six months for the same thing.
Mr. Ligon, the fact that you violated my constitutional rights once is not a legitimate cause for you to violate my constitutional rights a second time. If you have official or implicit orders to obstruct my efforts to get a ruling that would exonerate me altogether, you need to say that so that the public can excuse you and blame the guilty party. Otherwise, I hold you responsible for your frontal assault on the 1st Amendment.
You didn’t have any case law to challenge my case law to the effect that truthful statements relevant to matters of public concern are absolutely privileged. Rather, you criticized the law. You took issue with the decisions of the US Supreme Court saying that the 1St amendment protects truthful speech.
If your audacity prevails, you will roll back the clock to a time before the trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was a publisher alleged to have criticized the governor of New York. The accusation that he had criticized the government was true, just as the accusation that I have criticized certain public officials for their lies and misconduct. The court in that case declared, as was the custom of that time, that truth was not a defense but rather an aggravating factor. After all, lies are much easier to rebut than the truth. Most of us know that Zenger was acquitted due to the brilliant arguments of Andrew Hamilton, but few of us remember that James Alexander and William Smith had already been disbarred for objecting to the crown’s shenanigans in attempting to hand pick its judges, in a way hardly any more egregious than that engaged in by those who selected Lineberger for this case.
Judge Lineberger agreed with you, citing only one case in support of his conclusion, Stilley v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, 128 US 1248 (February 19, 2008). This was nothing more than a denial of certiorari, in which the justices probably never read or even saw the petition that I wrote and filed. What neither of you seem to understand is that the sole question presented at the US Supreme Court case was as follows:
1) Does the usurpation of the role of judicial officer of a duly constituted and legally separate tribunal, by the accusers of an attorney, in clear and undeniable violation of the written rules of the tribunal, in order to obtain an unlawful benefit for the usurpers, constitute a violation of due process?
Mr. Ligon, you know that a denial of certiorari has no precedential value whatsoever beyond the precise language of the questions presented for review. Yet you and Mr. Lineberger rely on this to overrule many decades of clear precedent stating that truthful speech concerning matters of public interest is absolutely protected. Four key cases that I cited were Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc., Garrison v. Louisiana, and Standing Committee v. Yagman, parts of which are set forth below in the contest used in my brief :
The speech involved in this case goes to the very heart of the First Amendment. In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1034, 111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991) the Court said:
There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment. Nevada seeks to punish the dissemination of information [Page 1035] relating to alleged governmental misconduct, which only last Term we described as “speech which has traditionally been recognized as lying at the core of the First Amendment.” Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 632 (1990).
Such speech, even by a lawyer, gets the highest protection. As the US Supreme Court said in Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 634, 115 S.Ct. 2371 (1995):
Speech by professionals obviously has many dimensions. There are circumstances in which we will accord speech by attorneys on public issues and matters of legal representation the strongest protection our Constitution has to offer. See, e. g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991); In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978). (Emphasis added)
………………..
Truth is an absolute defense. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209, (1964) the Court said:
We held in New York Times that a public official might be allowed the civil remedy only if he establishes that the utterance was false and that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether it was false or true. The reasons which led us so to hold in New York Times, 376 U.S., at 279-280, 84 S.Ct. at 724-726, apply with no **216 less force merely because the remedy is criminal. The constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression compel application of the same standard to the criminal remedy. Truth may not be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions where discussion of public affairs is concerned. And since ‘* * * erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and * * * it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need * * * to survive’ * * *,’ 376 U.S., at 271-272, 84 S.Ct. at 721, only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions. For speech concerning public affairs is *75 more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody our ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.’ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S., at 270, 84 S.Ct., at 721.
(Emphasis added)
Here the complaint at CPC, and the Supplemental Petition, never alleged falsity. As was said in Standing Committee v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995):
[21] Attorneys who make statements impugning the integrity of a judge are, however, entitled to other First Amendment protections applicable in the defamation context. To begin with, attorneys may be sanctioned for impugning the integrity of a judge or the court only if their statements are false; truth is an absolute defense. See Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 215, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). Moreover, the disciplinary body bears the burden of proving falsity. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776-77, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 1563-64, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986); Porter, 766 P.2d at 969.
(Emphases added)
Mr. Ligon, you know for a fact that you have a constitutional obligation to prove falsity. Nevertheless, in this case you refuse to even allege falsity, which naturally precludes you from attempting to prove it. In fact, you have personal knowledge that at least some of the speech for which you seek my disbarment is the truth.
No wonder you don’t want to sit for a deposition. No wonder you fabricate ridiculous accusations on your own initiative. You can’t honestly believe that the charges accepted by the Committee merit any punishment whatsoever, much less disbarment, so you cast about and dig and scratch for any mud that you can find to hurl against the wall, hoping something will stick.
As long as you and Judge Lineberger refuse to acknowledge the right of the citizen to engage in truthful speech critical of the government, I scarcely have any choice but to appeal to my peers. The Arkansas Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to rule on issues that would force it to rule in my favor, so I have no reasonable expectation of fairness there. The US Supreme Court considers less than 1% of the cases with respect to which a petition for certiorari is filed. You like those odds. I don’t. The only reasonable defense I have against your lawlessness in public awareness.
Mr. Ligon, I respectfully request that you send another email to Ms. Lonsway and acknowledge to her that your email was not forthright and candid. If you think I misstated anything herein, let me know. If you can show me that I am wrong, I will make corrections, and provide that correction on my blog and by email to persons on the list for this email. Ms. Lonsway, and the people of the State of Arkansas, are entitled to the truth.
Respectfully,
Oscar Stilley
os
From: Stark Ligon [mailto:Stark.Ligon@arkansas.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:26 AM
To: CaroleG
Cc: Stark Ligon; Nancie Givens; Oscar Stilley
Subject: RE: Stilley
Ms. Lonsway, I sleep well at night, because I do what I think is appropriate, given the evidence and law in each individual case here. I also admit I do not always get it right, as the Committee at times has disagreed with our analysis and proof and has dismissed (“no actioned”) complaints. The Committee gets to make final decisions in cases, unless the case gets to a court, as with Mr. Stilley. You suggest I have the authority to somehow end this disbarment proceeding, and stop ruining this man’s life. The Committee directed me to file both of them, and I did as the Committee and the rules require. The Special Judge on his case is a veteran, retired state trial judge, who will make me prove whatever we charged. I have confidence the system will give Mr. Stilley fair consideration. I think I recall you sent an unsolicited letter about the Stilley case to Judge Lineberger recently and he wrote you back that such ex parte contacts are not appropriate. I hope you will understand that I am concentrating on my work here, and will not in the future be responding to your communications about cases. Stark Ligon
From: CaroleG [mailto:caroleg@tcworks.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 10:17 PM
To: Stark Ligon
Subject:
Dear Mr. Ligon:
I immediately thought about you when I read this in today’s Parade magazine.
The last part in particular “no role for politics” applies to your case against Oscar Stilley. You know this case against him is 90% politics 10% other. I feel sorry for you because you must not be able to sleep at night knowing that you are pressed by the Supreme Court and political grievences against Oscar, and while you are paid by the Arkansas Bar Association only the Supreme Court can tell you what to do - or not do. Not even your conscience can trump the SC’s wishes especially where the written documents in Oscar’s case are burned on paper by what this body has told you, not what you find in the law.
Go by your conscience Mr. Ligon. Give Oscar a chance to win this case (not throw it, just a chance to be heard honestly and properly according to the laws). Please, keep your eyes, ears and heart open to doing the right thing. You will live longer and more peacefully by doing what’s right not by doing what others make you do and where the law is concerned especially. You will ruin a man’s life if you continue this disbarment proceedings. Is this what you want?
He does not solicit,instigate, or approve of my writings to anyone on his behalf. I do copy him on correspondences but only after I’ve sent them.
Respectfully,
Carole Lonsway
August 4, 2008
Is a request for due process a waste of judicial resources?
I sent a letter to Judge Mihm of the Central District of Illinois, which is reproduced below.
Some three weeks letter I received a show cause order. Instead of the 30 days to respond, I got 10 days, and 4 of those were used up because I was notified by snail mail instead of the electronic CM/ECF system ordinarily used. I had to pay 16 cents to download the electronic version, a copy of which is reproduced below the letter.
I had asked for a statement that a good faith request for consideration of a claim of a due process violation would not be considered a waste of judicial resources. This request was not acknowledged.
I had asked for the appointment of an opposing attorney. This request was not addressed either.
I asked that the letter to Mihm be made a part of the record. The notice of suspension I sent in was an attachment to the show cause order, but the cover letter I sent to Judge Mihm was not attached or even acknowledged.
Furthermore, as you can see, Judge McClusky said in his order that membership in a state bar is required as a condition of membership in the bar of Illinois, but failed to say anything about the fact that a suspension taken in violation of the due process clause is not sufficient to allow a federal court to impose a reciprocal suspension. One can hardly say he was not aware of the law, in light of the fact that I supplied a citation to In Re Ruffalo, which makes that point unequivocally.
Curiously, Judge McClusky mentioned the 6 month suspension but not the other suspension pending disbarment. I am facing disbarment, basically for having criticized judges (in other words, the government), or (more centrally to the point) for having allegedly agitated for other persons to criticize the government.
Oscar Stilley
os
………………………………………..
July 8, 2008
Hon. Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge
204 U.S. Courthouse
100 N.E. Monroe Street
Peoria IL 61602
Re: Suspensions in Arkansas Via fax and hard copy
Dear Judge Mihm:
I am writing this letter to you because I have a current 6 month suspension, and a suspension pending disbarment proceedings, both concerning my Arkansas license. Copies of these orders of suspension are attached. Ordinarily I would just send this to the clerk, for the reasons set out in this letter I am asking that certain language be included in your show cause order.
It was brought to my attention by a magistrate in Tennessee that I might have a need to supply these suspensions directly. The rules in this jurisdiction say that I should send a list of my jurisdictions to the Arkansas Supreme Court Clerk and the Committee on Professional Conduct, and that they would distribute the suspensions to the jurisdictions in which I am admitted. I called your clerk, and was informed that for whatever reason the Central District of Illinois has not received copies of these suspensions.
I have been denied the opportunity to practice pro hac vice in a number of jurisdictions, and in others I have been allowed to practice despite the unpleasantness in Arkansas. No court yet has seen fit to consider and issue a reasoned opinion deciding the question concerning whether or not the Arkansas suspensions were taken and had in compliance with due process.
I stand suspended and facing disbarment for having in essence criticized the government. There is not even an allegation that the criticism was false. The Arkansas proceedings and rulings would in practical effect roll back the clock to a time before the trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735, some 273 years ago and long before the US Constitution. Until a courageous lawyer named Andrew Hamilton risked disbarment (a fate suffered by 2 previous lawyers for Zenger) to argue that libel laws that considered truth no defense should be disregarded by the jury, it was the established law that one who criticized the government could be imprisoned for libel. Truth was no defense, and in fact truth was considered an aggravating factor, since false criticism is easier to rebut than truthful criticism. See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html for an account of this trial.
Furthermore, I was denied disinterested tribunals willing to hear and determine my constitutional arguments on the merits. My accusers usurped the power of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, in order to enter orders prejudicial to my defense. Another court has observed that this might well violate due process, but that not all violations of due process reach constitutional dimensions. However, the constitution prohibits violations of due process. It is the position of undersigned counsel that the constitution does not countenance the deprivation of any process so long as it is “due” to the citizen.
Stark Ligon, the Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, has decided that the mere attempt to get a reasoned decision is a violation of lawyer ethics. Apparently on his own initiative, without any panel vote, he included the following count.
Count 32 – Arkansas Rule 8.4(d)
1. By his repeated attempts to relitigate his Arkansas state license and discipline issues and charges in federal courts in Michigan, Arizona, Hawaii, Tennessee, Washington, Nevada, and Mississippi, Mr. Stilley has wasted the time and resources of those courts that could otherwise be put to use on other cases and business of those courts, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in those courts.
2. Arkansas Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Surely this Court can see the “Catch 22″ situation in which undersigned counsel finds himself. If no response to your show cause is made, you and others will presume that there I have waived my legal rights, and that there was no good cause to disregard the Arkansas suspensions. On the other hand I face sanctions for merely claiming my constitutional due process right to be heard concerning the validity of state proceedings. I am therefore requesting that you state in your show cause order that you would not consider a good faith response to the show cause order to be a waste of your time or resources. Your local rule states that:
RULE 83.6 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
This court, in furtherance of its inherent power and responsibility to supervise the conduct of attorneys who are admitted to practice before it, promulgates the following rule superseding all of its other rules pertaining to disciplinary enforcement heretofore promulgated.
(A) Discipline.
When it is shown to a judge of this court that any member of the bar of this court has
been suspended or disbarred from practice in any other court of record, or has been
guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the member will be
subject to suspension, disbarment, or other appropriate disciplinary action by the court.
The member shall be afforded an opportunity to show good cause, within such time as
the court shall prescribe, why the member should not be suspended, disbarred or
otherwise disciplined. Upon the member’s response to the rule to show cause, and after
hearing, if requested, or upon expiration of the time prescribed for a response if no
response is made, the court shall enter an appropriate order.
(B) Appointment of Counsel.
The court shall appoint an attorney from its pro bono panel to prosecute its interests
under this rule.
(Emphases added)
In addition to the statement that a good faith response would not be deemed a waste of resources, I further request that you appoint an attorney to prosecute the Court’s interests under the rule. In such a serious matter as this, in which an attorney’s livelihood is at stake, I prefer and request that the matter be handled through the adversarial process contemplated by your local rules. I request 30 days for my response to the show cause order, 30 days for a reply to the response, and 15 days for a sur-reply, unless the times are extended by the Court for good cause shown. I don’t intend to use more time than is reasonably necessary and presume that your counsel would likewise act with reasonable dispatch. Nevertheless I consider this schedule to be prima facie reasonable for both sides.
There is one other issue that I would request you to address in your show cause order. I have received a recent order [docket # 40] by Judge Thomas W. Phillips in US v. Dirr, No. 3:08-CR-42, from the Eastern District of Tennessee, in which Judge Phillips opines:
.
The defendants next take issue with the magistrate judge’s finding that
because Mr. Stilley’s law license has been suspended by the State of Arkansas, he does not meet the requirements of LR 83.5 for admission pro hac vice. As explained by Magistrate Judge Shirley in his memorandum and order, the certificate of good standing from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois is premised upon Mr. Stilley having a valid law license and being in good standing in the State of Arkansas. Neither of these requirements is true at this time, and the court cannot allow an attorney with a suspended license to represent the defendants in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
(Emphasis added)
Under the local rules of the Eastern District of Tennessee, non resident lawyers are entitled to pro hac vice admission by submitting a certificate of good standing from some other US District Court. This is why I recently requested such a certificate from your clerk.
The language of Judge Phillips’ order, in the context of other statements during those proceedings, suggests that Judge Phillips holds the belief that this Court would immediately and certainly revoke the license of Oscar Stilley if it became aware of the Arkansas suspensions, thus rendering the certificate of good standing a nullity. I believe that my certificate of good standing is actually premised not merely upon a valid license in Arkansas, but rather upon the absence of any suspension taken and had in compliance with due process. I therefore request that you state in the show cause order that I will remain in good standing until my due process claims have been heard and decided.
The case law is in accord with your local rules. For example, see the case of In re Crow, 283 F.2d 685, 686 (6th Cir. 1960) where the Court said:
It has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that disbarment from practice in a state is not alone sufficient to disbar one from practice in a Federal Court once he has been admitted to practice there. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 378, 61 L.Ed. 585; Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342.
Furthermore, the Honorable Judge Phillips’ order contravenes In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968), where the Court said:
Disbarment, designed to protect the public, is a punishment or penalty imposed on the lawyer. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380; Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515. He is accordingly entitled to procedural due process, which includes fair notice of the charge. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273. It was said in Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall. 523, 540, that when proceedings for disbarment are “not taken for matters occurring in open court, in the presence of the judges, notice should be given to the attorney of the charges made and opportunity afforded him for explanation and defence.” Therefore, one of the conditions this Court considers in determining whether disbarment by a State should be followed by disbarment here is whether “the state procedure from want of notice or opportunity to be heard was wanting in due process.” Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51.
In the present case petitioner had no notice that his employment of Orlando would be considered a disbarment offense until after both he and Orlando had testified at length on all the material facts pertaining to this phase of the case. As Judge Edwards, dissenting below, said, “Such procedural violation of due process would never pass muster in any normal civil or criminal litigation.”[fn3] 370 F.2d, at 462.
(Emphasis added)
I am simply asking that you state in your show cause order that you consider Oscar Stilley to be a member of the bar of the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois, in good standing, at least until Oscar Stilley’s due process claims have been heard and decided. Please further state that if my claim that I was denied due process in Arkansas are upheld, then I will not suffer any loss of license, unless an independent disciplinary in the Central District of Illinois results in suspension of my license.
Of course, it is recognized that if my due process claims are analyzed and rejected by this Honorable Court, then punishment (presumably a suspension) could start upon the date specified in the pertinent order.
I would request that a copy of this letter to be made an exhibit to your order, or otherwise made part of the official record. I prefer that a miscellaneous case be opened, from which your show cause order may be issued. If it is customary practice I will pay the filing fee for the opening of such a case.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration of these requests.
Kindest personal regards,
[signed in the original]
Oscar Stilley
os
c: Clerk
enclosures: notices of suspension in CPC 2002-077, CPC 2006-067
……………………………………………………………………
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
In re: )) Case No. 08-MC-2043
OSCAR AMOS STILLEY )
O R D E R
This Court has been advised by the Supreme Court of Arkansas that OSCAR AMOS STILLEY has
been suspended from the practice of law in the courts of Arkansas. A copy of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s
Notice of Suspension of Attorney’s Privilege to Practice Law dated February 26, 2008, to this effect is
attached hereto.
In this regard, MR. STILLEY is advised that, pursuant to Local Rule 83.6(A), an attorney must be
licensed to practice law in any state or the District of Columbia in order to be eligible to practice in this
District. This raises the question of whether MR. STILLEY should be suspended from practice in this
District. Local Rule 83.6(A) provides:
(A) Discipline.
When it is shown to a judge of this court that any member of the bar of this
court has been suspended or disbarred from practice in any other court of
record, or has been guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of
this court, the member will be subject to suspension, disbarment, or other
appropriate disciplinary action by the court. The member shall be afforded
an opportunity to show good cause, within such time as the court shall
prescribe, why the member should not be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
disciplined. Upon the member’s response to the rule to show cause, and
after hearing, if requested, or upon expiration of the time prescribed for a
response if no response is made, the court shall enter an appropriate order.
Accordingly, this Court grants MR. STILLEY ten (10) days from the date of this Order within which
to show cause, in writing, why this Court should not suspend him from practice in this District.
ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2008
s/ Michael P. McCuskey
MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
E-FILED
Thursday, 31 July, 2008 03:53:06 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
November 4, 2007
A $25 million pledge for Ron Paul
I have set up a new pledge site for Ron Paul. It is www.oscarstilley.com/ronpaulpledge. Anyone can pledge as little or as much as they like, and the person making the pledge can raise their own pledge at any time using a code that we provide by email.
The pledge is due only if we get pledges for $25 million by the end of the year. Otherwise no one owes anything as a result of making the pledge. Here is the logic for the pledge. Over and over I hear people say “I’d love to support Ron Paul but he can’t win” or some variation thereof. People want a true statesman such as Ron Paul, but they just don’t think we can provide the financial backing to get him nominated and elected.
If Ron Paul gets $25 million this quarter, he beats all the other Republicans in fundraising by a wide margin, probably 2 to 1. He can then advertise heavily in the early states and probably sweep them. If he sweeps the early states he will get a flood of money from people who want to jump on the bandwagon and support a winner, and from that point on Ron Paul is unstoppable.
I know that Iowa goes in early January and New Hampshire may actually go in December, but if we can get on track to complete this pledge on time, the official campaign will be able to see this and plan accordingly. The rate of pledging is the key to making this pledge drive beneficial in the early states.
Plus, if this gets promoted in the right circles, we could conceivably get this drive completed well before the end of the year. This pledge is complementary to every pledge, drive, or other fundraising plan out there. For example, if you pledge today and pay on Monday November 5, that donation counts toward the pledge. Early money is like yeast, it makes the dough rise.
Therefore, this pledge campaign is geared toward getting the money in asap, yet obtaining commitments from those who only want to contribute money to a winner. Could I get your help in promoting this pledge? Perhaps you could email some of your friends. Maybe you know a few people who think that $25 million is not possible, but they would like to be part of such a sea change in the political scene if we could get to that number.
If you have any ideas for improvement by all means please let me know. The pledge drive is starting Sunday, November 4, 2007. Thanks for your help.
Oscar Stilley
October 3, 2007
Ron Paul is for real
Ron Paul raised $5 million in the last quarter, more than twice the amount of the previous quarter. Other Republican candidates experienced declines in their rate of fundraising.
One of the most intriguing efforts I have seen is a pledge to pay $100 if 1,000,000 other people agree to do the same thing. I think this is entirely possible, but practical only if the pledge is reworded to allow people to pledge in $100 increments up to $2,300.
Lots of people would like to support Ron Paul if they think he has a chance. Raising $100 million by the end of this quarter gives him a chance almost by definition, and every day earlier that he gets the cash raises his odds. Therefore, there are a lot of wealthy individuals who would gladly pledge $2,300, the max under federal law, if they are assured that Ron Paul is going to have a $100 million dollar budget.
Check it out at www.pledgebank.com. I think that another $1 million challenge has been started, but I think that the $100 million pledge will draw a huge number of people into the fray that would not otherwise give anything.
I have asked for a “slim jim” or small advertising flyer, in electronic format to go on the bottom of all emails as a footer. If this was made easy, so anyone could easily add such a footer to their own emails, the advertisement would spread exponentially. But this has to be a small file, maybe 50kb, so that it won’t slow down other users’ computers.
These are exciting times to live. The election of Ron Paul would have an enormous positive impact on the United States and the rest of the world. Can you imagine the impact of diverting $300 billion annually from policing the world to cutting our tax burden and paying off the national debt? That’s just the beginning, look for spending cuts across the board, a balanced budget and major reductions in the national debt during a Ron Paul administration.
Send Paul some money, buy some slim jims and bumper stickers and yard signs and T-shirts. It’s money well spent. Put a blurb about Ron Paul on your emails, you can get this somewhere on the internet fairly easily.
Oscar Stilley
os
September 5, 2007
Comparative justice: Thomas Coughlin vs. Mike Nifong
The government convinced a jury that Thomas Coughlin took money from Wal*Mart, amounting to a fraction of his agreed salary. Coughlin was sentenced among other things to 27 months home confinement.
Coughlin’s sentence was reversed by the 8th Circuit. The 8th Circuit decided that federal prisons can manage serious heart disease just fine, and that putting Coughlin on 2.5 years of home confinement was an abuse of discretion.
I spent 7 weeks in Sebastian County jail earlier this year. While I was there one inmate in this grossly overcrowded lockup had his jaw broken by someone who erroneously concluded that he was a snitch. Are overcrowded federal prisons really that much better managed than state lockups?
How long would it take to get help when assaulted? I kicked a metal door as hard as I could and screamed as loud as I could for about 15 minutes (time keeping devices are prohibited) to get help for an inmate in another cell. This is not likely to be possible when you are one of 4 inmates in a 2 man cell, a common practice before the new wing opened at the Sebastian County jail. Since I was in a one man cell (mostly because of my status as an attorney) I did not face the threat of assault.
Administration of drugs and medical services by the jail was sometimes creditable but sometimes almost comical. The best advice? Don’t get sick and don’t need drugs while you are incarcerated.
Mike Nifong gained national press by trying to deprive several white athletes of their liberty, money, civil rights, and reputation, with false testimony and evidence. His apparent motive? He needed to be elected one more time to secure a lucrative pension. He was sentenced to one day in jail.
Back to Coughlin’s case, consider this question. Why didn’t the jury find the facts essential to the sentence? In order to keep juries from finding the facts essential to a sentence, federal courts declare that the guidelines are advisory only, and thus do not violate the right to jury trial.
When they don’t like a sentence, the courts make the guidelines mandatory, for all practical purposes. Thus the “voluntary” nature of the sentencing guidelines is made of no effect. Defendants in federal court get the worst of both worlds; on the one hand they are denied protection against judge found facts, and on the other they are effectively denied what little mercy a federal judge might deem proper for a particular defendant.
August 29, 2007
Huckabee’s hard drives
I just finished asking the Department of Finance and Administration for copies of the documents related to the emergency spending of the last three years of Mike Huckabee’s tenure. The media has shown a lot of interest in the destruction of the hard drives, but I suspect that there are other legal issues, related to public spending, that will overshadow the issue of the destruction of the hard drives.
I have a question for anyone who wants to defend Huckabee’s actions. How do you argue that the desire to destroy hard drives constitutes an “emergency?” Arkansas state law states in pertinent part that:
A.C.A. § 19-2-404. Emergency expenditures.
(a)(1) In the event of riots or threatened riots; sabotage, public insurrection, or threatened insurrection; storm, flood, famine, or other public calamity which jeopardizes the public peace, health, and safety of citizens of Arkansas that calls for immediate action, the Governor is delegated and authorized by the General Assembly to declare an emergency to exist and to issue a proclamation declaring an emergency to exist.
(2) Other requests for utilization of this appropriation shall be submitted for prior review by the Governor to a Governor’s Emergency Fund Review Committee, meeting in committee, composed of the chairmen and vice chairmen of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee and Legislative Council.
Surely these expenditures don’t fall within subsection (a)(1), unless the Huckabee team had threatened insurrection or rioting unless the hard drives were destroyed. Given the unlikelihood of such a scenario, I want to see the reviews by the legislative officers designated in the law, in which they determine that destroying hard drives is a proper use of public funds.
I have a second question. Why wouldn’t Huckabee simply use readily available software to thoroughly erase the hard drives and leave them in the computers? Are public employees to unreliable to trust to do such a job? Surely the cost would be minimal. The skill level necessary for such a task is not particularly high. Then there would be no hard drives to destroy and none to replace.
