Tweet by Jeff Clark
It’s Day 25 of me tagging @VP asking for her to document that she has first chaired a criminal trial and produce a transcript.
It’s Day 42 of calling for such a transcript.
Still no response. Still no transcript.
Now, let’s take a critical look at Kamala’s Martindale-Hubbell entry:
It shows the following interesting points and they’re all entirely consistent with Kamala being an empty pantsuit:
- She has no rating — because she’s not a real litigator.
- She has no peer reviews — because she’s only ever been in court rarely or on calls or in meetings with opposing counsel who could review her skills for Martindale.
- She has no client reviews — i.e., from her DA bosses or from her San Francisco City Attorney’s Office superiors.
Here are the three subject matter areas she supposedly practiced in:
- Fraud (listed twice)
- Domestic Violence
- Environmental / Natural Resources
First, let’s note what’s absent:
- Criminal Law (a lacuna inconsistent with her claim to be a deadly prosecutor)
- Any area of civil law the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office would have had her focused on.
Second, She’s supposed to know about fraud cases? Really? I see no evidence of that from my Westlaw, Pacer, or Google research.
Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law? Come on. At best, she was the titular head of the California AG’s Office when cases like that went through the Office. There is no way on God’s green earth that Kamala could handle the complexity of an environmental law case. And I say that as a subject matter expert in that area.
And I see no evidence, for instance, that she’s ever worked on a natural resources cases, such as — as is a key issue for California, arid in many areas — an issue concerning water rights.
BOTTOM LINE: Kamala’s Martindale entry is prima facie evidence of her being a litigator in name only — and, in some instances — like listing environmental law — of major puffery.
Bottom line up front: There is no evidence that Kamala Harris argued any of these five cases. And that also means, this is not a good reflection on Josh, Esq.’s legal research skills. @nyc88888
Josh seems to have assumed that where Kamala is listed in the caption of a case that she must have argued it. That is a nonsensical assumption and it certainly is not true as to any of the 5 cases below. For instance, the defendant in an immigration case in federal court is often captioned with the U.S. Attorney General as the defendant. I can safely say that 99.9999% of the time, the Attorney General did not actually argue such a case.
Let me take each of the cases seriatim:
1) Del Real, LLC v. Harris, 636 Fed. App’x 956, 957 (9th Cir. 2016). There is only one counsel listed on the opinion, and that’s Deputy Attorney General Nelson Richards, a Kamala subordinate. I went on Pacer and found that Mr. Richards indeed argued the case, as reflected on his notice filed with the Ninth Circuit on 10/2/2015.
2) In Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2015), Kamala is listed in the attorney block for California but the heading for the case specifically indicates that it was argued by Deputy Attorney General, Alexandra Robert [wonder if there’s a typo as to one of the names, as the seeming gender of the first and middle names conflicts — but hey, it’s California, so who knows what’s going on?].
3) Doe v. Harris, 535 Fed. App’x 630, 631 (9th Cir. 2013). The only counsel for California listed is Peggy S. Ruffra, who was apparently a line lawyer in the California AG’s Office, as she did not have a title listed. The audio file (no video available) indicates that the case was argued by Ms. Ruffra. https://ca9.uscourts.gov/media/audio/?20110217/09-17362/
4) Resident Minors of City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Harris, 482 Fed. App’x 293, 294 (9th Cir. 2012). Two lawyers appeared as counsel in the opinion — neither of them is Kamala: Christopher Michael Young, Office of the California Attorney General, and Robert Andres Bonta, Deputy City, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. Moreover, this case was decided without oral argument, as reflected in the issuance of the decision on 09/24/2012 on the Ninth Circuit docket sheet, as I found from PACER. Also footnote ** says no oral argument occurred. Double confirmation.
5) Harris v. Martel, 461 Fed. App’x 602 (9th Cir. 2011). Only one counsel is listed for California — Peter Quon. Not Kamala. The audio file for this argument is available at https://ca9.uscourts.gov/media/audio/?20111110/10-55370/ If you go to the 11:10 minute:second mark, you’ll hear Peter Quon say he is the man standing up to argue for the State of California.
Q.E.D. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Josh found nothing to defend Kamala’s legal acumen. I clearly need to give Josh a remedial legal research and reading class — or someone does. Sorry to be that harsh, but it’s true.
https://x.com/i/status/1850210241255772667
She’s as nothing as nothing can be.