(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Paxton is Granted Postponement of Bar Discipline Oral Argument due to Impeachment Conflict [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2023-08-23
Donald Trump is not the only malfeasant with court scheduling conflicts.
As some here may recall, on January 5, 2021, I filed Texas Bar disciplinary complaints against Attorney General Ken Paxton and his First Assistant Brent Webster for false statements, frivolous arguments and general dishonesty in his attempt to overturn election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.
On May 25, 2022 (this gives you some idea how long these things take), the State Bar of Texas filed a disciplinary suit against Ken Paxton and his First Assistant. Both Paxton and Webster elected to have their cases heard in their “home” District Court instead of a Bar Hearing Committee (which they allege would be biased). Paxton’s case was assigned to his home Collin County and Webster’s was assigned to Williamson County, a purple “edge” county just North of Austin.
As with most white collar defendants, Paxton and Webster filed a number of Motions to Dismiss. Their arguments to the trial court were that (1) the State Bar has no jurisdiction over any attorney in the AG’s office because it violates the separation of powers doctrine, and/or (2) the suit is barred by sovereign immunity. This would effectively mean that attorneys in the AGs office are above the law (i.e., the reach of disciplinary authorities).
The Williamson County judge ruled in favor of Webster and dismissed the suit, so the State Bar of Texas appealed. The Collin County judge ruled against Paxton, so Paxton appealed. For reasons I will not elaborate, the Paxton case has been running about a month behind the Webster case, and these cases were sent up to two different Courts of Appeal (COA).
On July 13, the El Paso-based 8th COA reversed the Williamson County decision dismissing the case against Webster. Those who want to read the opinion can find it here.
Although the 8th COA decided the Webster case without oral argument, Paxton requested—and was granted—oral argument in the 5th COA. This had initially been scheduled for September 13th, when...oooops...a minor matter of an impeachment trial presented a conflict.
So...Paxton’s attorneys in the AGs office filed a motion to postpone the oral argument that Paxton himself had requested earlier. You can read this amusing document here. The State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not oppose Paxton’s motion to postpone, and the 5th COA granted Paxton’s request to postpone oral argument until some indefinite date in the future.
Scheduling conflicts in courts happen all the time, but I wonder what the judges at the 5th COA are thinking about a request to postpone a discipline case (where the subject is sure to plead how pure and honorable and innocent they are) because he is tied up in impeachment. Hope the irony is not lost on the judges.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/8/23/2189168/-Paxton-is-Granted-Postponement-of-Bar-Discipline-Oral-Argument-due-to-Impeachment-Conflict
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
