Turner v. American Bar Ass'n
| Decision Date | 05 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-426-P,Civ. A. No. 75-C-182.,Civ. A. No. S74-29,Civ. A. No. 5-74-42,Civ. A. No. 74-480,Civ. A. No. 4-74-190,Civ. A. No. S75-74,Civ. A. No. S74-84 |
| Citation | 407 F. Supp. 451 |
| Parties | Eddie A. TURNER and Jerome Daly v. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION et al. Raymond M. HARTMAN and Jerome Daly v. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION et al. Loran L. TAYLOR and Jerome Daly v. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION et al. Loran L. TAYLOR v. John MONTGOMERY et al. Larry S. PENDELL et al. v. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION et al. Daniel M. PILLA and Jerome Daly v. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION et al. Noah Jefferson CARDEN v. William Bervard HAND et al. Thomas F. STOCKHEIMER and Jerome Daly, et al. v. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Eddie A. Turner and Jerome Daly, pro se.
Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., Kenneth J. Mighell, Robert B. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Attys., and Richard A. Scully, Trial Atty., Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, for federal judicial defendants and other federal defendants in No. 5-74-42.
John L. Hill, pro se, and David M. Kendall, First Asst. Atty. Gen. of Tex., and John W. Odam, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant Justices of the Supreme Court of Texas and Dolph Briscoe, Governor of the State of Texas in No. 5-74-42.
Davis Grant, Gen. Counsel, Steven D. Peterson and Gary McNeil, Asst. Gen. Counsels, Austin, Tex., for defendants The American Bar Ass'n, Chesterfield Smith, and The State Bar of Texas in No. 5-74-42.
Raymond M. Hartman, pro se.
Richard L. Thornburg, U. S. Atty., Thomas A. Daley, Asst. U. S. Atty., pro se, and Richard A. Scully, Trial Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, for federal judicial defendants and other federal defendants in No. 74-480.
Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Alexander Unkovic and Frederick J. Francis, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants The American Bar Ass'n and Chesterfield Smith in No. 74-480.
Washington & Washington, George Washington and George Washington, Jr., pro se.
Loran L. Taylor, pro se.
John R. Wilks, U. S. Atty., Richard F. Mitchell, Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, and Richard L. Kieser, Asst. U. S. Atty., for federal judicial defendants and other federal defendants in No. S74-84.
F. Ryan Duffy, pro se.
William E. Steckler, pro se.
Cale J. Holder, pro se.
Dillon, Kelley, McCarty, Hardamon & Cohen, John J. Dillon, Bose, McKinney & Evans, William M. Evans, and William F. Harvey, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants Justices of the Supreme Court of Indiana in No. S74-84.
Milton A. Johnson, South Bend, Ind., for defendant John Montgomery, State of Indiana Circuit Court Judge in No. S74-84.
Thornburg, McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey & Murray, James F. Thornburg and William J. Reinke, South Bend, Ind., for defendants The American Bar Ass'n and Chesterfield Smith in No. S74-84.
Paul E. Beam, Gen. Counsel, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant The Indiana State Bar Ass'n in No. S74-84.
Milton A. Johnson, South Bend, Ind., for defendants John W. Montgomery and Joseph Nyikos, State of Indiana Circuit Court Judges in No. S74-29.
Richard J. McDonald, South Bend, Ind., for defendant Dean Bolerjack, Sheriff of St. Joseph County in No. S74-29.
James D. Nafe, pro se, and for the Nat. Bank and Trust Co. in No. S74-29.
Larry S. Pendell and Barbara A. Pendell, pro se.
John R. Wilks, U. S. Atty., and John S. Leonardo and Richard L. Kieser, Asst. U. S. Attys., for defendant United States District Judge Robert A. Grant in No. S75-74.
Simpson & McLaughlin, W. L. McLaughlin, Goshen, Ind., for defendants Indiana State Judges Aldo J. Simpson, James Simpson and Frank Algate in No. S75-74.
Byron & Daniels, Philip E. Byron, Jr., and Robert T. Sanders, III, Elkhart, Ind., for defendants Indiana State Judges Charles E. Hughes and Stanley A. Raymer in No. S75-74.
Worth N. Yoder and Alphonse J. Spahn, Elkhart, Ind., for defendant Indiana State Judge Lee Mellinger in No. S75-74.
Thornburg, McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey & Murray, James F. Thornburg, William J. Reinke and Gregory J. Utken, South Bend, Ind., for defendants The American Bar Ass'n and The Indiana State Bar Ass'n.
Daniel M. Pilla, pro se.
Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Palmer, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Richard A. Scully, Trial Atty., Tax Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, for federal judicial defendants and other federal defendants in No. 4-74-190.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., State of Minnesota, Peter W. Sipkins, Sol. Gen. and Michael P. Berman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for Minnesota judicial defendants and other Minnesota state defendants in No. 4-74-190.
Henson & Tully, Robert F. Henson and William J. Miller, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants The American Bar Ass'n and Chesterfield Smith in No. 4-74-190.
Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson, Adamson, Flaskamp & Brennan, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants George Ramier, Herbert C. Davis and Hyman Edelman in No. 4-74-190.
Patrick J. Foley, pro se.
Noah Jefferson Carden, pro se.
Edward H. Levi, Atty. Gen., Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles S. White-Spunner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Harland F. Leathers, Alexis Panagakos, Asst. U. S. Attys., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Julian M. Longley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for federal judicial defendants and other federal defendants in No. 74-426-P.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Frederick S. Middleton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court in No. 74-426-P.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., State of Minnesota, and Peter W. Sipkins, Sol. Gen., for defendants present and former Justices of the Supreme Court of Minnesota in No. 74-426-P.
William H. Morrow, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant Alabama State Bar Ass'n, The American Bar Ass'n, and Chesterfield Smith in No. 74-426-P.
M. Roland Nachman, Jr., pro se.
William L. Howell and M. Lloyd Roebuck, Mobile, Ala., for defendant M. Lloyd Roebuck in No. 74-426-P.
Thomas F. Stockheimer, pro se.
David C. Mebane, U. S. Atty., Warren W. Wood, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Richard A. Scully, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, for federal defendants in No. 75-C-182.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and James H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Wisconsin defendants and other Wisconsin state defendants in No. 75-C-182.
DeWitt, McAndrews & Porter, S. C., Jack R. DeWitt and Stuart C. Herro, Madison, Wis., for defendant The American Bar Ass'n in No. 75-C-182.
In May, 1974, and thereafter, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger, and the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, John R. Brown, began designating the undersigned to sit in seven similar cases and three related cases filed in the United States District Courts in the States of Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota, Alabama and Wisconsin.1
These suits have been filed by individual members of the American Constitutional Protective Rights Association against, among others, virtually the entire federal judiciary. The central figure among the Plaintiffs is Jerome Daly, a disbarred Minnesota attorney, who is a Plaintiff in five of these suits. The Plaintiffs' principal contention is that they have a constitutional right to have unlicensed lay counsel assist them in Court proceedings.
The undersigned was not sued in any of the nine assigned civil cases, probably by virtue of this Court's pre-trial rulings in United States v. Gaar, Criminal No. 73-B-394 (U.S.D.C., S.D.Tex., 1973). In that case, the Defendant Byron Gaar was indicted for five counts of failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203.
The Defendant Gaar expressed beliefs similar to those of the members of the American Constitutional Protective Rights Association. He filed a pre-trial motion requesting that Admiral John G. Crommelin, an unlicensed lay attorney, be allowed to assist him in the preparation of his defense. On January 18, 1974, the Court granted that motion and Admiral Crommelin was allowed to sit with Gaar and speak freely in the pre-trial hearings in Gaar's behalf. On September 3, 1974, the day of the trial, the Court informed the Defendant that Admiral Crommelin would not be allowed to speak in front of the jury although the Admiral could still assist Gaar at the counsel table. The Defendant objected to this on the grounds that he had been led to believe that the Admiral would be allowed to carry on his defense in front of the jury and that he was not prepared to represent himself pro se on such short notice. The Court gave the Defendant Gaar thirty minutes to re-align his strategy and then proceeded to trial. The Defendant was found guilty on all counts. He thereafter obtained licensed counsel who filed a Motion for New Trial. Upon reading the transcripts of the pre-trial conferences, the Court felt that it had indeed misled the Defendant to believe that he would be allowed to have Admiral Crommelin represent him in front of the jury. In the interest of justice, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion for New Trial. The matter is presently pending on the trial docket of this Court and is to be tried on November 3, 1975. All of the suits at bar that name the entire federal judiciary as Defendants were filed after the Court allowed Admiral Crommelin to assist the Defendant Gaar in pre-trial matters and before the Court refused to let the Admiral act as an attorney at trial. By striking the undersigned's name off of the xerox copies of the Federal Reporter's "Judges of the Federal Courts" which was attached to these complaints, the Plaintiffs have obviously engaged in a vigorous form of forum shopping.2
Eight of the cases to which I have been assigned are discussed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consolidated Exp., Inc. v. New York Shipping, Inc.
...had no right to sell electricity, then by definition Power Company could not interfere with this right."); Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.D.Ind.1975), aff'd sub nom. Taylor v. Montgomery, 539 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1976) (unlicensed lawyers). If "illegality" were a mere ......
-
Rowland v. California Men Colony, Unit Ii Men Advisory Council
...only through licensed counsel. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); see Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F.Supp. 451, 476 (ND Tex., 1975) (citing the "long line of cases" from 1824 to the present holding that a corporation may only be represented by l......
-
People v. Johnson
...Achtien v. Dowd (7th Cir.1941) 117 F.2d 989, 992; United States v. Wilhelm (3d Cir.1978) 570 F.2d 461, 465; Turner v. American Bar Ass'n (N.D.Ind.1975) 407 F.Supp. 451, 474-477, affd. sub nom. Taylor v. Montgomery (7th Cir.1976) 539 F.2d 715; People v. Felder (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 287, 418 N.Y.S......
-
Dorwart v. Caraway
...... for the welfare of the people so that the people can more fully enjoy the heritage of American liberty within the structure of that government. . Montana Constitutional ... Reisdorff, ¶ 35, quoting Turner v. American Bar Ass'n (N.D.Texas 1975), 407 F.Supp. 451, 482 . . 58 P.3d 149 ¶ ......
-
Table of Cases
...(D.D.C. June 28, 1994): 28.2(5) Smith v. United States, 94 A.F.T.R. 2d 2004-5283 (W.D. Pa. 2004): 23.8(2)(b) Turner v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 407 F. Supp. 451 (N.D. Tex. 1975), aff'd sub nom. Taylor v. Montgomery, 539 F.2d 715 (7th Cir.), aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.......
-
Involuntary Petitions Under the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978
...950 (1963). Regarding partnerships, see, MOVE Organization v. U.S. Department of Justice, 555 F.Supp. 684 (D.C.Pa. 1983); Turner v. ABA, 407 F.Supp. 451 (D.C.Tex. 1975). 67. 2 Collier on Bankruptcy, Para. 18.33 [1.3] (14th ed. 1976). 68. In re Jack Cardow Plumbing, 451 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 19......
-
Chapter §27.3 - Commencement of the Case
...court only if the partner is a member of the bar. Otherwise, a partner cannot represent a partnership. See Turner v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 407 F. Supp. 451 (N.D. Tex. 1975), aff'd sub nom. Taylor Montgomery, 539 F.2d 715 (7th Cir.), aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976......