,
33 tweets,
15 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: the mysterious tale of an elected representative, a claim of malpractice, numerous media inquiries, and the detailed search for a #SecretCase. 1/
On Tuesday afternoon a Louisville man filed a suit in Kentucky state court, alleging that @DanielCameronAG, the R nominee for KY Attorney General, is ineligible for office because he has not been a "practicing lawyer" for 8 years, as the KY constitution requires 2/
The argument is that his two years clerking for a federal judge don't "count" as practicing. 3/ kentucky.com/news/politics-…
Numerous media outlets contacted me to comment on the case. My first response: "I need to read the complaint first." I don't comment on legal matters until I've read the underlying documents. 4/
A reporter finally found the complaint and sent it to me. After reading it, my reaction was that this is very weak argument. Surely clerking for a federal judge should count as relevant legal experience. wuky.org/post/uk-law-ex… 5/
But reporters wanted me to answer another question: doesn't a 1995 case involving Dem Ben Chandler, when he ran for AG, definitively answer this question? Again, my answer was "I'd need to read that case." The reporters were relying on this news report: 6/
Thus began the search for this case. In the meantime, KY state representative @jmnemes tweeted that the current lawsuit is frivolous because of this 1995 case (which he claimed was decided by the KY Supreme Court) 7/
I responded to ask for the citation. At first he did not respond. 8/
He then responded with some info about the plaintiff, the defendant, and even the judge, correcting his prior statement about the KY Supreme Court issuing an opinion. 9/
I again asked for a citation or link. Here is where things became weird. He refused to send it to me for fear I'd then send it to @StumboForAG, Cameron's opponent, as the plaintiffs prepare for a court hearing on Monday. 10/
@StumboForAG Rep Nemes also claimed that filing this lawsuit against Cameron without having this 1995 case in hand would be "malpractice." 11/
@StumboForAG Thus began a lengthy search for this mysterious judicial opinion, involving lots of people all over the country who looked. We located the docket sheet, but no opinion. appellate.kycourts.net/CA/COADockets/… 12/
@StumboForAG Interestingly, that docket sheet notes a "judgment" at the trial court and an "order-dismissing" at the court of appeals, which some suggested to me means that there was a one-line order, not a published opinion. 13/
@StumboForAG But Rep. Nemes then claimed that again that there were written opinions, both at the trial court and court of appeals levels. He said that they are each four pages long. But again he refused to actually disclose these public documents. 14/
@StumboForAG In addition, Jason again claimed that this 1995 case makes the current suit "frivolous," suggesting that the lawyers who filed the current case were essentially being unethical. 15/
@StumboForAG But there's a big problem with that argument: assuming the 1995 case was "unpublished," then it's not precedential under Kentucky rules. And if it's published it should be *easy* to find. govt.westlaw.com/kyrules/Docume… 16/
@StumboForAG Several others then chimed in that this case should be "easy" to find. 17/
@StumboForAG Yet numerous people spent time yesterday looking for it, with no luck. This included numerous lawyers and law librarians. I've heard from probably 20-25 people who looked for these opinions. No one can find them. 18/
@StumboForAG Through it all I've continued to say that the current lawsuit against Cameron is weak. I agree with Nemes and the others that Cameron is eligible for office. But if there's a case that so strongly proves this point, why wouldn't Cameron's supporters want everyone to see it? 19/
@StumboForAG It's also a bit unseemly to essentially accuse a lawyer of malpractice based on that person not locating a key precedent and then purposefully refuse to provide that precedent. 20/
@StumboForAG Through it all I've stayed *politically* neutral. I'm non-partisan in my election law commentary specifically so that I can comment on issues fairly. I don't donate to or endorse candidates. Yes, I voted in the Dem primary in May, but this is a question of law, not politics. 21/
@StumboForAG This morning I called the clerk of the Kentucky Court of Appeals. I spoke with a very nice woman who said she would look for the case. She said she would have to pull it from the microfiche (is this a good use of taxpayer dollars when an elected official already has it?). 22/
@StumboForAG An hour or so later she contacted me to say she located it! And here it is! dropbox.com/s/65nsi1b5m22y… 23/
@StumboForAG A few things about this opinion. Rep. Nemes said it is 4 pages long, and technically it does fall onto page 4, but page 1 is just the caption and page 4 only has a half page of text 24/
@StumboForAG The court's analysis boils down to several sentences, which start at the bottom of page 3: "The trial court found that the constitution established a broad standard of eight years as an attorney as a qualification for one to serve in the position of Attorney General and found 25/
@StumboForAG that one who has been licensed to practice law for eight years meets that standard. We believe that the trial court was correct in this interpretation. There simply is no other standard available for defining the practice experience required under Section 92. 26/
@StumboForAG Neither this Court nor the trial court should impose upon the Supreme Court’s authority to define and regulate the practice of law.
Such an interpretation is also consistent with protecting the rights of the citizens to choose their elected officials. 27/
Such an interpretation is also consistent with protecting the rights of the citizens to choose their elected officials. 27/
@StumboForAG The constitution establishes only the broadest qualifications. Evaluation of the character and experience of candidates who meet those minimum qualifications is left to the electorate." 28/
@StumboForAG As it's not clear from the doc itself if the opinion was published and thus precedential, I asked the court of appeals clerk. Her response: "This case was not to be published. There was no opinion rendered, the case was dismissed." 29/
@StumboForAG Thus, under KY rules, though the case is certainly persuasive, and I still agree the suit against Cameron should fail, this 1995 case is not binding precedent, contrary to what Rep. Nemes and others have argued. 30/
@StumboForAG In the end, my biggest problem with this episode is the refusal of a public official to disclose a public document. 31/
So here's the opinion, @StumboForAG, @DanielCameronAG, the plaintiff here, reporters, or anyone else who wants it. It's a public document: you own it, so do with it as you wish! /end
dropbox.com/s/65nsi1b5m22y…
dropbox.com/s/65nsi1b5m22y…
