February 18, 2005
Greg Moses on Andy Taylor's Law License
By Byron LaMasters
Greg Moses of the Texas Civil Rights Review tells us that Andy Taylor's Law License Should be revoked:
Andy Taylor's double bad faith counts as a Civil Rights infringement in two ways. First, it was an effort to criminalize voters of color by deliberately overlooking exculpatory evidence on the record. Second, it counts as a bad faith effort to overturn the election of a candidate of color. Going after voters of African descent in an effort to unseat a candidate of Vietnamese descent, accusing all parties of fraud when your own evidence indicates they have done nothing wrong, this is offensive, outrageous, indecent, and should cost Andy Taylor his license to practice law in Texas.
Read the rest.
Posted by Byron LaMasters at February 18, 2005 03:39 AM
| TrackBack
Unfortunately, not liking the motives of a lawyer's client is insufficient grounds to disbar, and the rules of evidence are different in civil proceedings. Greg's little screed against Andy strikes me as reminiscent (in reverse) of the logic that we prosecute lawyers of terrorists as collaborators.
My experience with Andy Taylor is that he follows the rules of evidence and rules of procedure. And, like any lawyer, he plays every angle in the process.
I think your boy here is confusing bad ethics and bad faith with politics.
Yeah, I'm not knowledgable on the issue of disbarment or of what could provoke the loss of a law license. I just wanted to inform our viewers the conclusions that Greg Moses reached upon reviewing the archives of the original documents on the case.
Nah, he won't get disbarred.
Seems to me that if this were federal litigation, though, he'd get slapped with a Rule 11 sanction.
This story is based on documentary evidence, so there is no parallel to any story based on rumors.
And the argument depends upon a Civil Rights or Voters Rights framework. It is not about rules of evidence. It is about using the power of the bar to deprive voters of their rights.
Furthermore, the argument against Taylor's actions are not parallel to attacking a lawyer who is a friend of civil rights (there is more to say here, but I'll cut the argument short in deference to positions already taken on this blog).
In sume, the argument (as I see it) is based on hard evidence that an attorney used the power of the state to investigate two voters for illegal voting when his own evidence showed that the voters were victims of fraud, not perpetrators. With this evidence in front of him, he proceeded to call down the intimidating powers of the state in order to deprive these voters of their right to vote. Taylor crossed the line against these voters. He said he was looking for legitimate cases of illegality and fraud. On the face of it, his prosecution of these two cases was no good faith play.
But mostly, I'm afraid, this argument is beginning to reveal how little solidarity exists in and among Democratic voters when it comes to protecting each others voting rights.
Oh, and did I forget to say thank you Burnt Orange Report for being the first to take note of this story. Thank you Burnt Orange Report. Thank you.
...why is everyone talking about disbarring the Sherriff of Mayberry? Don't you know that means Barney Fife takes over?
