If it’s a corporation, it can only appear in court through a lawyer. Corporations, being legal fictions, can’t represent themselves.
Why not? The Supremes found that Corporations are people to, with their own Freedom of Speech. Not such a stretch to say that they could represent themselves however they see fit!
Now, back in the day when we were governed by the Rule of Law…
What I wonder is, how hard would it be to get a lawyer?
Seems like the only reason handed this to a lawyer representing Schoep and the Nazis was because Stern didn’t get a lawyer.
Am I missing something?
Cc @castor_troy
Getting one is easy, except for the payment part. I don’t think Stern wants to commit anything more than time to this stunt.
True, but allowing one attorney to represent both sides in the dispute seems a tad, well, weird.
Peorgie Tirebiter: “But, Gee, Dad - I still don’t understand how you can be the Peoples Prosecutor and my defense lawyer at the same time…"
Fred/Adolph/George Tirebiter: “Easy, son. That way I can see that you are persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Peorgie: “That’s my Dad!”
He needs to find an attorney who wants to do some entertaining pro bono work. A fun case, and no one’s life, freedom, or property truly on the line.
Come on Waahoos, one of you law-school alum need to come back and lay the wood to some Nazis! Take the case. I will be fun, and the beer is on the house!
Defending american nazis who set the stage for a murder? You first
No, representing the black guy who outsmarted the nazis. Great cross-examination: “So, Mr. Schoep, precisely how stupid are you?”
Schoep said he did so because he thought relinquishing control to a black man would help persuade the plaintiffs to drop NSM as a defendant.
“Well, see, Ah figured that if we put a nig umm (air quotes) AFrican AMerican in charge then theyz couldn’t say we was racist! How can we be racist if we’ve got a black guy runnin’ thangs? (points to head) See, smart, huh?”
Ah, “High School Madness,” from Paranoid Pictures, with music by the Norman Chubbyknuckle Choir!
“Doesn’t Bottles count?”
“Only to ten, Mudhead.”
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
A foolish precedent is the hobgoblin of little SCOTUS wingnuts.
Only in Trumpworld would this story get a “meh”…
The attorney isn’t representing both sides, but will defend both NSM and its former(?) leader against claims arising from events in Charlottesville.
Well yeah, but who is the leader of the NSM at this point? If one attorney is representing both the NSM and Schoep, where does that leave Stern’s claim that he’s actually the leader of the NSM? The judge seems to have decided that the interests of the NSM and Schoep are not in conflict. How did he arrive at that conclusion?
ETA: To elaborate a bit, the Schoep/NSM wants to defend against the suit. The Stern/NSM wants to cop a plea. Which position does the attorney put forward?
No, to dismantle the org.