[
In its online article today headlined Republican group announces endorsements, the Coeur d’Alene Press quoted Brad Corkill, representing the North Idaho Political Action Committee, as saying, ” “Last but not least, Mr. [John] Green has served as legal counsel for Phil Hart, which calls into question how he would interpret and enforce the law as sheriff.”
When did John Green, candidate for Kootenai County sheriff, represent Phil Hart as Hart’s legal counsel? Corkill’s statement implies that Green is an attorney, however the Idaho State Bar shows no attorney listing for John Green.
John is an attorney in good standing in the state of Texas. He might be legally able to practice law in other states, but I’m not aware which ones.
Comment by dinosaurman — April 5, 2012 @ 9:52 pm
dinosaurman,
He may have petitioned to represent Rep. Hart pro hac vice in Idaho state courts — I don’t know. I’ve sent an email to Mr. Green asking that, and I’m also going to ask the Idaho State Bar for any pro hac vice motions he has filed with the Bar.
The purpose of my inquiry and the post is to simply resolve an apparent inconsistency in the Coeur d’Alene Press story. If Mr. Green was allowed to represent Rep. Hart pro hac vice, I believe that should have been included in the news/views/skewspaper story.
Comment by Bill — April 6, 2012 @ 6:59 am
Corkill–“calls into question how he [John Green] would interpret and enforce the law”–So Corkill has formally appointed himself and his group as legal scholars and judges of what is and what is not the proper interpretation of laws? Whew, I feel so much better to have such a qualified group to replace the judges. Lawyers will no longer be necessary. Wahoo! Just take the issue to Corkill and his buddies and they will just make the call. Faster, cheaper, and more convenient (for them). Reminds me of a lynch mob mentality that proceeds from a foundation of, ‘don’t confuse us with what the law is or isn’t’ “we know” what it means…hang ’em high! Sheez, the ‘Reasonable Republicans’ just shot themselves in their collective foot. Guilty by association. Yep, that is ‘reasonable’.
Comment by up river — April 6, 2012 @ 11:06 am