Bernie Neil and Ted

Too long a comment:

I am more interested in the "novel" argument from Giusto about the irrelevance of certification as to elective office. It has application in many contexts. For example, the OSB replied to an inquiry by me about the AG and their power relative to certification to compel the elected AG to comply with some particularly described duty imposed by law (not to mention oath of office). They disclaimed such power over the AG. (Novel indeed?) Ted's position does not even require certification for his office. Some lawyers had tried in the past to argue that all legislators must be members of the bar. (What a thicket that would be?) The "novel" argument is the only one available to the City of Portland Auditor to remain in office. (The unelected city attorney had an independent and affirmative duty to address any illegality in the refusal to place my name on the ballot for the position of auditor . . . wholly without regard to whether I brought/bring legal action or not. It was the OSB's own support of the "novel" theory as to the AG that guided my filing for the Auditor slot to begin with.)

The legal consequence of disbarment of Ted relative to his right and duty to serve is zilch.

What we have left is a straight up private challenge as to credibility, with the political angle solely as context and motivation. Ted's sole remedy is a private libel/slander suit. What are the odds that he would file one to clear his name?

Mr. Roberts, if there is an elective office that does arguably require membership in the OSB would it be a violation of my First Amendment Ballot Access rights for the OSB to block me from taking the bar exam solely to serve the interests of the private ABA as to education accreditation? (As to the city auditor position I would prefer to take the bar exam over that of the test by the Institute of Internal Auditors; believing as I do that it is a superior demonstration of applicable knowledge and training for the position.)

Again, sever for analysis private libel actions from the political banter. Ted could hardly argue that he does not have as big a megaphone as Lars, if he would choose to use it even at some official function related to his office. I think Lars would have no objection to handing a mic to Ted on his own show.

The fact set for Guisto to refuse to leave office if he loses his "certification" would be much more interesting, for case law purposes.

Ted has nothing to gain from speaking, relative to all those other policy related matters he must hold as more significant than his own credibility. Ted is expendable fodder. How sad that he believes that he is no more than a foot soldier and must fall on his own sword . . . for Neil.

Frank, I'd give Ted two choices 1) shut up, or 2) sue Lars (and/or others) for libel. That's it. There is no other way to get Lars to shut his trap (or others).

What are the political odds that I could get the OSB to disbar the City Attorney for the City of Portland for failure to comply with a duty to report illegality as to the City Auditor and my filing for the Auditor office? It would be poor "judgment" on my part to expect that they would do so. (And there is zero chance she will sue me for my assertion that she, and her staff, engaged in criminal conduct that should result in disbarment.)

If someone views the legal process, in part, as arbiter of the allocation of power between political folks could an effort by Bernie to remain in office after being stripped of "certification" be viewed as a positive step to vindicate the superiority of the power of local electors to choose their representative? Notwithstanding a contrary choice by a panel of appointees at the state level? The proper and preferred approach would be a recall vote.