Re: Court weighs legal services for poor (fwd)
Thomas Cagle (nh-adapt@juno.com)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 05:47:21 -0500
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:13:17 -0800 (PST) "P. Myers"
<mpwr@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Thanks Thomas.. will you shoot this to hpn and fnb? You and two others
>have *finally made it clear to me...
>
>It is a move, very much like the Istook (R-Rep: OK) Gag Order in the
>House a few years ago, that would have restricted grass roots advocacy
>efforts to a *very punitive percentage of their grant monies. A system
to
>prevent abuse was already in place, but this bill, had it passed, would
>have prevented any agencies from any e.g. teaching others (street youth;
>homeless; low income, etc.) how to deal with congress; how to lobby;
how
>to get their rep's ear and keep it, how to deal with the nervousness of
>speaking before committees and sub committees...
>
>Fortunately, *it failed, and has not again reared it's ugly head...but
it
>took a real concerted effort, by many groups, to lay it to rest.
Um, Pat actually it was written up again last year, & killed in committee
(tc). When Justin Dart does finally pass away we will be the poorer for
it.
>They are a creative bunch, aren't they? Thanks again, to you and Ellen
>and Andrew! Pat Myers
>
>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Thomas Cagle wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:47:01 -0800 (PST) "P. Myers"
>> <mpwr@u.washington.edu> writes:
>> >someone with more legal acumen please explain this one to me...I'm
>> >having trouble understanding the oppositionality! PatM
>>
>> >From: UPI / MICHAEL KIRKLAND <C-upi@clari.net>
>> > WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has heard
>> >argument on special lawyer accounts -- sometimes compulsory,
sometimes
>> >voluntary -- used in every state to provide legal services to the
poor.
>> ***************big snip*************
>> > The one Texas IOLTA program is compulsory. A conservative
Washington
>> >think tank is challenging the Texas account, saying the interest
belongs
>> >to clients, not the poor. Conservatives charge that much of the $100
>> >million generated annually by such accounts goes for political
litigation.
>> ***********big snip*****************
>> > (No. 96-1578, Phillips et al vs. Washington Legal Foundation et al)
>> Morning Pat,
>> IF I understand this article, the objection being raised by the
>> conservative folks litigating it, is that they object on the basis
that
>> these lawyers are using the interest accrued to do unintended
'liberal'
>> idealogue work. I think there is more than a little bit rotten about
this
>> action inasmuch as this IS for some folks what they got for a legal
>> lifeline.
>>
>> Tom Cagle
>> nh-adapt@juno,com