The law license of Attorney Olivito was suspended by the Ohio Supreme Court
last summer [July of 2006].
In the fall, both the northern and southern district federal courts of Ohio heard what is called
show cause motions on why his license should NOT be suspended in the various related Federal Courts for the same period of time, in what is commonly referred to as a reciprical discipline
issue process.
The outcome in each of these districts resulted after some additional oral in person presentations were made respectively to each district administrative bodies and/or single court -in the southern district- as to why the same exact suspension that the State Supreme Court
ought NOT to be followed nor supported in the U.S. courts where Attorney Olivito had focused most of his practice and particularly his critical civil rights police and municipal liability claims.
Was there any basis for Olivito to so argue that his federal license ought NOT to be subjected to the same process and result that the state supreme court applied? Was there any standard of review that the federal courts ought to have followed and should follow in making any such reciprical disciplinary decision? Did those courts 'hear' this argument and apply the federal law of such review and the long established independent review required by the reciprical disciplinary federal case law, in this particular instance and in this case?
These are the questions and issues to now which this blogger will turn his attention and the focus of his arguments before both the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio.
While the decisions were ultimately made against him on both counts, the manner in which these decisions were reached are both instructive and illuminating in exactly how the federal courts in Ohio have been defaulting their own independent judgment and oversight and even their own judicial independence to the State Supreme Court as a matter of course, without much thought, or legal understanding or even knowledge of the applicable standards, even according to their own administrative judges who heard such arguments, at least in one critical district.
We will explore this fact and how this revelation in turn played a pivitol role in the making of the decision against Olivito in the Southern District and how the very reviewing judge did not herself, even understand, much less apply the proper applicable standard, even according to the record of the two very lengthy oral hearings held in Cincinnati last fall, in relation to his particular show cause reciprical disciplinary hearings before her.
While this is true, there will be a clear focus on the merits of the case and how and why the court decided its decisions and whether or not they followed the facts, the proper reviewing standards and what if any, did these courts actually do in relation to the clear established law relating to the same, as it applied to the federal judiciary when it is to review a close case of state lawyer disciplinary actions.
In the process, even more interesting and noteworthy issues will be discussed as well and these along with the clear misguided legal findings and applications of their decision will be critiqued. Timing is everything as many say, in both the arts and entertainment fields.
The same can be said, in the experience of a veteran civil rights advocate and how the federal courts of Ohio timed their decisions in relation to Attorney Olivito's reciprical discipline, from a critical standpoint which was raised by Mr. Olivito particularly before Sandra Beckwith of the Cincinnati district administrative court in relation to his ongoing civil rights cases.
What were the arguments that Mr. Olivito utilized and openly presented inside a three hour hearing before Ms. Beckwith?
What were some of the legal standards sought to be applied and what were some of the critical due process concerns that Attorney Olivito raised within his motion contra the application of the state Supreme Court's heavy sanctions are matters which need a public airing and perhaps a another critical look or review.
The related motions created and used by Attorney Olivito will themselves will be posted by link here, soon. The various supporting documentation will also be noted. But first we will turn to the actual theories and arguments and the many factual variances which were clearly referenced, documented and presented inside each forum , but were either completely discarded, ignored and/or simply clearly miscontrued and muted inside each district's formal opinions and decisions.
One Kudro needs to be given to Sandra Beckwith, the Cincinnati district court; At least she allowed for two opportunities, at length, for Attorney Olivito to make a record and to detail his arguments orally and present his "case" before her, before simply ignoring most of what he argued effectively before her for hours, twice, first without ANY opposition or opposing counsel and the secod time, without any counsel from the Mahonining County Bar Association present, much less arguing on behalf of anything in defense of the State of Ohio's Supreme court's disciplinary decision related to the underlying issues which resulted in Olivito's 'two year, one year' actual suspension arising out of an isolated one time, signature issue case, involving a bankruptcy for clients who not only obtained everything they sought from the legal services of Mr. Olivito, for very little pay, but also had the same original bankruptcy petition prepared by Mr. Olivito and his staff, ---the very signatured document ---pass itself for the discharge inside a federal bankruptcy court and magistrate's review, with their clear and direct knowledge that the signature was that of Mr. Olivito's, signed in an derived manner, in furtherance of his clients interests.
There is much more, but what she did, is at least, allow for process; Ms. Beckwith findings are however something from a novel that does not seem to be written from the same facts that gave rise to the story. Its competely off center, imbalanced and does not do even some justice to Attorney Olivito's arguments of fact and the applicable law and appropriate standards of review which she obviously and admittedly was not even aware of, before Olivito educated
both her and the entire southern district itself as to the significant judicial independence that
the federal district and appellate courts have in making such decision as opposed to
'sucking up' administratively to oftentimes, wayward and niggardly produced state supreme court related [lawyer] disciplinary decisions.
Despite her adverse and strongly worded findings against his position, Attorney Olivito gives her recognition for one thing: in her adversity and obviously bizarre one sided findings, she did more for the "appeareance of fairness of propriety" of the administration of justice.....than did the northern district which simply forgot its own policies and its own administrative rules, much less the very applicable deep juriprudence and standard of review, in making its rush to judgment against Attorney Olivito, and issued its findings and decision, without ANY formal in court, final show cause hearing before the full court whatsoever, much less issue ANY formal opinion of why it applied the kind of related suspension it did, in a case which its own very Northern District Bankrutpcy Court of Youngstown's office did not find that this lawyer had done any thing remotely deserving of the kind of thing that the fop endorsed and supported process inside the local and state supreme court of Ohio did against Attorney Olivito.
The northern district court dispensed with the notion it had any obligation to place its finding and legal conclusions in any formal opinion and just issued a "decision"drained of any publicly stated reasoning and granted its disciplinary decision mirroring the best intentions of a few particular judge[s] which innured to the stated purpose and ideas of a particular district court
inside the northern District of Ohio, in which various civil rights cases are being litigated against the City of Warren, Ohio.
The blog here will begin to detail this process; hold on, its a ride into the world of "A Civil action" 'Ohio' indeed but its just much more personal and even more hidden, than that sad tale itself, ever could make its readers imagine.
Just like the real world plaintiffs and the plaintiff's 'suffering' counsel came face to face with the literal "wall of injustice" and was confronted with the Kalfequese world of federal procedural short cuts, so does the experience of civil rights attorney Richard Olivito come into a similar
material clash with the real world of state and federal judicial nullification and masked
agendas and less then genuine realities of law, posing as impartial independent judicial
fact based decisions.
[Any mildly interested student of america's legal system, ought to read the book as a primer,
"A Civil Action" by Jonathen Herr...its a primer on how major plaintiff counsel and their client's needs will be subverted in their search for justice inside the highest and most unique and powerful courts of this nation which is supposedly a bastion for democratic search for egalitarian justice, if indeed, it is... ]
here it goes...
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
