under investigation for perjury, and still prosecuting the case? what kind of bizzaro court is this anyway?
Good news! We’re now on track for a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to be named to handle district attorney Rena’s criminal acts.
Thanks for posting. Some of us want to learn the truth here.
under investigation for perjury, and still prosecuting the case? what kind of bizzaro court is this anyway?
IBTG
Bttt.
5.56mm
Thanks for the info, must say never a dull moment in WACO
Well lookee here. Must be another one of them "jailhouse lawyers".
Add her to the list that includes Paul Looney, Clint Broden, and hundreds of other attorneys.
If David Peeples, judge of the Fourth Administrative Region in some way agrees Broden has a point, then he too can be added to the list of "jailhouse lawyers".
Are you a Person of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” ?
Take The Washington State Bar Examination and see for your self, Just for your own personal information see below some of the people that the Washington State Bar and it’s Board of Governor’s found to have “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”.
Mr. Clark Garen was denied (Admission) because he did not have good moral character because he did not pay property taxes on two pieces of property that he owned, and was found because of this not to process “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”
SANDERS, J. (dissenting)—
[most of this information, is provided/ found in pages 18, and 19 of the dissent. Total of 44 pages for the dissent and seven pages from “OPINION OF THE CHARACTER AND FITNESS COMMITTEE” for a total of 51 pages.]
In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61 Dissent by Sanders, J., Denial of Application to Practice Law
In the case of Mr. Wright, for example, the court concluded “second degree murder does not exhibit good moral character.” In re Wright, 102 Wn.2d at 859. By the same token, prior engagement in criminal enterprise may also point to bad moral character. Cf. In re Belsher , 102 Wn.2d. At 851-52. Even so, we have admitted or readmitted others to practice notwithstanding prior criminal conduct when rehabilitation is demonstrated. Let us weigh the claims of the Bar by the standard we have set for ourselves in prior proceedings.
We have reinstated attorneys who have committed serious illegal and/or immoral acts including: second-degree assault (In re McGrath, 112 Wn.2d 481, 482, 772 P.2d 502 (1989));
Footnote:1
Dennis Belsher, for example, blew up his parents’ car with a home-made bomb, although his parents miraculously escaped injury. Nevertheless, the Board of Governors found Mr. Belsher fit to practice law in this State, although ultimately this court turned aside the favorable recommendation, concluding it was not in the interest of the public or the Bar to admit Mr. Belsher to practice “at this time.”
misappropriation of client funds (In re Moynihan, 113 Wn.2d 219, 220, 778 P.2d 521 (1989); In re Rosellini, 108 Wn.2d 350, 355, 739 P.2d 658 (1987); In re Chantry, 84 Wn.2d 153, 154, 524 P.2d 909 (1974)); witness tampering (In re Stroh, 108 Wn.2d 410, 41, 739 P.2d 690 (1987); In re Shain, 24 Wn.2d 598, 166 P.2d 843 (1946)); lying to a client (In re Livesey, 94 Wn.2d 251,252, 615 P.2d 1294 (1980)); possession of bank robbery proceeds (In re Egger, 93 Wn.2d 706, 707, 611 P.2d 1260 (1980)); burglary (In re Krogh, 93 Wn.2d 504, 505, 610 P.2d 1319 (1980)); grand larceny (In re Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 349, 350, 597 P.2d 113 (1979)); assault with intent to commit rape (In re Simmons, 81 Wn.2d 43, 44, 499 P.2d 874 (1972)); fraud (In re Eddleman, 79 Wn.2d 725, 489 P.2d 174 (1971)); mail fraud (In re Lonergan, 23 Wn.2d 767, 767, 162 P.2d 289 (1945)); embezzlement (In re Lillions, 196 Wash. 272, 82 P.2d 571 (1938)); and having an affair with a juror in a cause in which the attorney was counsel (In re Bruener, 178 Wash. 165, 34 P.2d 437 (1934).
Moreover, regarding just the last seven initial applicants for admission considered by this court, we have granted admission to applicants who have: sold seven ounces each of cocaine and heroin (Bar Applicant No. 60); conspired to import and distribute marijuana and transported $250,000 to another country (Bar Applicant No. 59); engaged in vehicle tampering and shoplifting (Bar Applicant No. 58); sold over a pound of cocaine to undercover officers for $30,500 in addition to possessing over a half-a-pound of cocaine (Bar Applicant No.57); furnished alcohol to a minor, delivered a controlled substance to a minor, and committed third degree sodomy with a 14-year-old girl (Bar Applicant No.56); broke into a liquor store, burglarized a home, stole payroll checks, and drove under the influence (Bar Applicant No.55); and possessed marijuana and attempted to commit fraud (Bar Applicant No.54);
In re Clark Garen, Bar Applicant
B.A. Number 61 did make a motion to {Washington Supreme Court} have this decision to be a "published decision," they (the Wa. Sup. Ct.) denied the motion, hence, the above is from a "NON-Published Decision." Justice Sanders was the only yes vote to Publish.
We had a few Freepers who had been so sure those Duke Boys had to be guilty join this little Mike Nifong pity party for a while.
Maybe TG can tweak the logo and provide support for Abel Reyna.
Birds of a feather and all that.