[EL] Judge Real

[bzall]

I was raised in California, went to undergrad in California, am admitted to 15 federal and state courts and and have appeared pro hoc in many more. Some of them are in California. Yet I am not admitted to the bar in California. Why, exactly, is this rule a good idea? 
Thank you Judge Real, for this  "lack of collegiality."
Barnaby Zall 


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Eric J Segall <esegall at gsu.edu> 
Date: 5/2/2016  9:03 AM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: JBoppjr at aol.com 
Cc: law-election at uci.edu 
Subject: Re: [EL] Judge Real 






And I never said rule was desirable. I said as a matter of collegiality and professionalism he should have gone along with or at least not obstructed the rule passed and favored by every one of his colleagues. 



This was not an academic debate. This was taxpayer money and real life.



Of course he lost on all issues after much work and expense for many others.



Best,



Eric

Sent from my iPhone


On May 2, 2016, at 8:58 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:






Yes, I understand your point.  And my point is that just because "every other judge felt differently" does not make the rule desirable.  And if I understand it, I don't think it is.  Jim
 

In a message dated 5/2/2016 8:45:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
esegall at gsu.edu writes:


My point was every other judge felt differently....every other one. 



Sent from my iPhone


On May 2, 2016, at 8:42 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:






Interesting, thank you.  If I understand the rule he fought, I required lawyers to be admitted to the Calif bar to practice in federal court in Calif.  This is obviously a terrible rule in my opinion so I understand his opposition but I am certainly not
 in a position to evaluate his Art. III argument.  But I am glad he fought it and it is not the rule now. 

 
PS This rule is another restraint of trade rule.  Full employment for Calif lawyers!  Jim
 

In a message dated 5/2/2016 8:34:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
esegall at gsu.edu writes:


The rule was to practice in the federal district courts of the various districts that had the rule, the lawyer has to be a member of the California bar (with exceptions). DOJ didn't say the rule was good or bad just that it was constitutional. My point
 was in the affected districts, every single judge was represented by one DOJ Attorney but Real demanded a private attorney at gov't expense to support the plaintiff. He made a crazy Art: III argument. He was wrong, he cost taxpayers money, and he continually
 insulted both his colleagues and DOJ.



Best,



Eric 


Sent from my iPhone


On May 2, 2016, at 8:25 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:






Eric, I wonder what the rule was about.  Just because a bunch of judges want it does not make it ipso facto desirable.
 
And I wonder also whether this judge would have suffered this attack if he had ruled the other way.  Jim Bopp
 

In a message dated 5/1/2016 11:24:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
esegall at gsu.edu writes:


I'll make no comment about any campaign finance issue but Judge Real is in fact a nut. When I was a lawyer at DOJ in 1990, he fought a war over a local rule that was favored by over 75 other judges and refused to be represented by the DOJ in a frivolous
 challenge to that local rule causing all kinds of strife and showing great disrespect to his colleagues who unanimously wanted to support and defend the rule (which we did).



And that's not close to the worst things he has done.



Best,



Eric



Sent from my iPhone


On May 1, 2016, at 11:17 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:







One growing trend we see is that any judge who decides a  campaign finance contrary to the wishes of the regulatory lobby will be subjected to hit jobs from that same "ethics" lobby, focused not on the merits of the decision, but framed as an attack on the
 personal ethics and attributes of the judge. 



Disgraceful.



(P.S. To be clear, this is not targeted at Rick for including these pieces in his daily roundups, but at the people launching the hit jobs.)




Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
   Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx




From:

law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 10:40 PM

To: 
law-election at UCI.edu

Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/2/16Posted
 in election
 administration, The
 Voting Wars


“At
 age 92, Judge Manuel Real is still abusing his power”


Posted
 on May
 1, 2016 2:58 pm by Rick
 Hasen



Alison
 Frankel for Reuters:


The 9th Circuit opinion shows that age has not mellowed Judge Real, who was born in 1924 and appointed to the bench in 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson. For much of his long career, the judge has been dogged
 by controversy and overruled by the 9th Circuit. As the Los Angeles Times reported
 in 2009, Judge Real’s reversal rate has been as high as 10 times the average for federal judges. The Times found the appeals court removed
 Real from presiding over remanded cases at least 11 times.

Real was called to testify at a 2006 House Judiciary Committee hearing exploring
 his alleged misconduct in the handling of a bankruptcy case and related California unlawful detainer action. The House dropped the matter but he was later publicly reprimanded by the 9th Circuit.

Since 2006, according to Westlaw
 statistics on Judge Real’s record at the 9th Circuit, he has been reversed 87 times. The judge has been affirmed 233 times. His reversal rate in the last 10 years – not counting his 47 partial reversals – is nearly
 17 percent. (I calculated the rate by dividing the number of complete reversals by the sum of complete reversals plus complete affirmances.) In 2015, according to the Westlaw report, the judge was reversed 12 times and affirmed 20, an astonishing 37.5 percent
 reversal rate. Before Wednesday’s decision in the Wijegunaratne case, Judge Real had been reversed in two other cases in 2016, compared to seven affirmances.


This is the judge that recently
 decided against the state of California and in favor of the Koch Brothers-linked Americans for Propserity on disclosure issues, soon to face a 9th Circuit appeal.<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160502/e062f520/attachment.html>