Bullying and eminent domain
Long Branch officials sure know how to play hardball in defense of their redevelopment plans, which include taking properties by eminent domain if necessary. They are opposing a request by the out-of-state lawyers defending the threatened property owners to practice law in New Jersey. City attorney James Aaron says the three lawyers from the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., failed to certify on their application that they're members of the legal bar of the highest court in the state where they live or practice and that they are specialists in a complex field of law. Since the property owners are saying the city didn't follow the rules, Aaron said, then the city is making sure their lawyers play by the rules.
How juvenile! As one of the institute's lawyers, Scott Bullock, said in response: The city is grasping at straws to get them kicked off the case. If they're not specialists and this isn't a complex case, why is the city trying so hard to disqualify them? Bullock tried, and lost, the Kelo case that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the goverment's right to seize private property for economic development - the very issue in the Long Branch case. He's practiced in New Jersey courts before. He'd undoubtedly hold up quite well going one-on-one with Aaron on property rights law.
The city comes off like a bully, first trying to seize properties and now denying their owners' right to defend them. Filing objections such as these is a terrible waste of city taxpayers' money. Instead of hurling rockets at each other, city officials should resume trying to negotiate a fair settlement with the property owners and end this sorry saga that has already brought so much unfavorable publicity to Long Branch.
How juvenile! As one of the institute's lawyers, Scott Bullock, said in response: The city is grasping at straws to get them kicked off the case. If they're not specialists and this isn't a complex case, why is the city trying so hard to disqualify them? Bullock tried, and lost, the Kelo case that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the goverment's right to seize private property for economic development - the very issue in the Long Branch case. He's practiced in New Jersey courts before. He'd undoubtedly hold up quite well going one-on-one with Aaron on property rights law.
The city comes off like a bully, first trying to seize properties and now denying their owners' right to defend them. Filing objections such as these is a terrible waste of city taxpayers' money. Instead of hurling rockets at each other, city officials should resume trying to negotiate a fair settlement with the property owners and end this sorry saga that has already brought so much unfavorable publicity to Long Branch.
posted by Larry Benjamin at 2:34 PM
4 Comments:
PUT THE EMINENT DOMAINE ISSUE ASIDE FOR A MOMENT.
IF YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY, THEN YOU SHOULD BE LICENSED. PERIOD. THIS ISSUE OR ANY OTHER ISSUE. WHY DO THE VIRGINIA LAWYERS JUST THINK THEY CAN SET UP SHOP HERE?
TRY TO PRACTICE YOUR LICENSED CRAFT (TEACHER, PARAMEDIC, HAIRSYLIST) IN ANOTHER STATE WITHOUT CREDENTIALS FROM THAT STATE AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET.
SECONDLY, WITH ALL THE LAWYERS IN NJ, (ITS SEEMS WE ARE OVERRUN WITH THEM) THERE MUST BE SOMEONE HERE IN NJ THAT CAN DO THE JOB.
Writing in all capital letters is considered yelling and it is rude.
Sorry, I'm not a good typist. I usually do all caps for uniformity. Didn't intend to "yell"
Admission of an out-of-state attorney pro haec vice (for a specific case) is a customary courtesy in the legal profession. I say this as an attorney admitted in NJ (and not in any other state), who is eager to guard my livelihood. I've never objected to a pro haec vice application in well over 20 years of litigation practice. The City's position is but another expression of its rabid opposition to the interests of its own citizens -- as well as a gross affront to the dignity and collegiality of our profession.
Post a Comment
<< Home