THE DISQUALIFICATION ISSUE

A few interesting events occurred during the course of the above litigation.  For example, once this case was filed and assigned to Judge McKeague, he decided, without any prior notice to the parties, that Magistrate Joseph Scoville should join in hearing the case.  While a decision to refer a case to a magistrate, in and of itself, is not alarming, what Judge McKeague failed to disclose is that both he and Scoville were the only two Western District federal judicial officers who are actively involved in the affairs of the defendant State Bar of Michigan, as members of the State Bar Standing Committee on United States Courts.  This State Bar Committee is charged with the duty of maintaining the relationship between the federal courts and the State Bar of Michigan.  This active involvement with the defendant required mandatory disqualification.  28 U.S.C. 455(d)(4).  However, McKeague and Scoville refused to do so.

At the first hearing held in federal court, Scoville stated that StateBarWatch founder Frank Lawrence was "in the top 25 percent of lawyers that I see in this court day in and day out, and your ability to deal with the facts and the law, answer questions, synthesize arguments." (Click here).  Just days later, however, Scoville said Lawrence was "guilty of extremely poor scholarship" and his ability to deal with the facts and law was "utterly frivolous." (Click here).  Later, it was discovered that during the course of this litigation, the State Bar promoted Scoville to the chairmanship of the Standing Committee on U.S. Courts (Click here), something that Scoville failed to disclose until November 5, 2003, while he simultaneously made a decision to set-aside the default that Lawrence had previously taken against the State Bar. (Click here).   

In this same litigation, Lawrence brought suit against the Michigan Supreme Court Justices, in their official capacities, due to their enforcement of the challenged Rules.  However, both McKeague and Scoville dismissed the requested relief on the grounds that the Justices were legislatively immune from suit for promulgating the Rules, apparently choosing to misconstrue Lawrence's complaint.  Most troubling, McKeague failed to disclose that his wife and her employer had recently finished waging a multi-million dollar political advertising campaign for the defendant Justices so that Mrs. McKeague and her colleagues could continue to "influence state policies." (Click here).

McKEAGUE IS PUT INTO AN EMBARRASSING POSITION

Lawrence argued that the State Bar uses First Amendment activities as a basis to deny applicants licenses to practice law.  The State Bar defended the lawsuit by representing to McKeague "There is no evidence that any applicant to the State Bar of Michigan has been denied admission for exercising her or his First Amendment rights."  (Click here).  McKeague chose to believe the State Bar's representation and dismissed Lawrence's equitable claims. (Click here).  

While in Cincinnati, attending the oral arguments in the Dean v. Byerley case (Click here), Lawrence discovered paperwork filed by the State Bar (in the Dean case) that specifically stated "The bar has had several applicants who exercised free speech in a fashion that contributed to a recommendation of denial." (Click here).  Lawrence then brought this to the attention of Robert Horvath, Esq., who authored an outstanding editorial that the State Bar chose to publish in the December 2003 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal. (Click here). 

When Lawrence brought the above misstatements of the State Bar to the attention of McKeague, he behaved as if Lawrence had done something wrong.  While it is only natural to feel embarrassed about being duped by one's own State Bar, the people of this nation expect government officials, even federal judges, to admit their mistakes.  

Lastly, the unusually demeaning comments that Scoville and McKeague made about Lawrence were used by licensing officials as a basis to deny Lawrence his license to practice law in Florida.

AN UNUSUAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAK OUT

Whenever a United States president nominates federal judicial officers, it is expected that opposition will inevitably result, generally right down party lines.  However, an unusually large number of organizations and individuals have joined to oppose McKeague's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  These include the Alliance for Justice (click here), the National Society of American Law Teachers (click here), EarthJustice (click here), the National Organization of Women (click here) and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahey.  

A common theme among the organizations opposing Judge McKeague is outrage over his refusal to acknowledge facts and properly follow the law.  Recently, this behavior was seen when McKeague supported the State Bar of Michigan in the case of federal Bankruptcy Attorney Allan J. Rittenhouse.  Although McKeague's decision was promptly reversed on appeal (click here), the Rittenhouse case is further evidence of McKeague's failure to acknowledge known facts and law when dealing with State Bar of Michigan issues.  

StateBarWatch also finds particularly troubling the comments of U.S. Senator Patrick Leahey, who spoke out about comments that McKeague purportedly made about the health of sitting Supreme Court Justices.  According to Senator Leahey, McKeague ghoulishly focused on the ages of the Justices and made a chart of their particular health problems (click here).  This information speaks volumes about the politically calculating mind of David McKeague, that completely transcends every single bound of decency.  This is not a good man.