Tuesday, September 9, 2014

If NOM had a good case they would not have to lie

John Eastman
John Eastman
National Organization for Marriage exists to provide employment for its management (and legal fees for chairman and house counsel, John Eastman). It has become a Möbius strip of futility. NOM raises money to continue to exist in order to raise money to continue to exist — and so on. However, NOM is a proxy for, and representative of, the Catholic Church. When they lie (which often seems to be their preferred indoor sport) it remains important to call them out.

That brings us to so comments made by John Eastman, NOM's chairman, for the American Family Association's “news” blog. Referring to Judge Feldman's decision in Louisiana in favor of discrimination (emphasis added):

"Obviously a single federal judge doesn't outbalance other trial court judges or even the court of appeals," says Eastman, an attorney who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

But he argues that Feldman's opinion mirrors that of the Supreme Court, which ordered a stay in a Utah marriage lawsuit that overturned the state's traditional marriage laws.

"And they only do that when they think there's a likelihood of success on the merits of the petition that they think officials will be filing," Eastman advises.
Eastman seems to be a pathological liar. This is a lie intended to convince people to continue to fund NOM in order to continue to pay Eastman's inflated legal fees.  The standard for stays is fair prospect not likelihood of success. Those two concepts are miles apart. According to the Supreme Court Reporter's Guide to Applications [PDF]:

Case law has established four general criteria that the applicant normally must satisfy in order for the Court to grant a stay . They are:
  1. that there is a “reasonable probability” that four Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review the merits of the case;
  2. that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of the Court will conclude upon review that the decision below on the merits was erroneous;
  3. that irreparable harm will result from the denial of the stay;
  4. finally , in a close case, the Circuit Justice may find it appropriate to balance the equities, by exploring the relative harms to the applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the pub­lic at large.

Speaking of legal fees for John Eastman,we should be getting a decision from Judge James C. Cacheris for the Eastern District of Virginia any day now. The last substantive brief was filed on August 15.

As some of you may recall, NOM claims to have paid legal fees approaching $700,000 to prosecute their meritless case against the IRS (which was settled for $50,000). NOM is probably not going to get $700K back. As the US attorney pointed out, NOM lost this case in summary judgment.

What continues to be an unresolved issue is the fact that Eastman with considerable influence over NOM as their chairman is also their lawyer with a significant financial interest. It is a very clear conflict of interests. Although NOM did raise some money off of this issue, perhaps, with some more sober and disinterested guidance, they would have avoided such expensive litigation. You never really know with NOM because they are irrational religious zealots. They have no perspective.

In any event I am watching the court filings daily.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.