Taking the Fifth » John Markham II

BILL OF RIGHTS-- First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-- Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law-- Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-- Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.-- Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law-- Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted-- Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people--Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people--.

JOHN MARKHAM II DISQUALIFIED IN LYNDON LAROUCHE LITIGATION

A former assistant United States attorney who prosecuted fraud cases against Lyndon LaRouche in the 1980′s has been disqualified to represent a woman suing LaRouche. After prosecuting LaRouche, John Markham II left the United States Attorneys office in 1989 and formed a private practice. Now he has been retained by Marielle “Molly” Kronberg, a former government witness against LaRouche to sue LaRouche and others for harassment.

But according to The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia disqualified Markham from representing Kronberg due to confidential Federal files that he viewed while prosecuting LaRouche. Judge Trenga found that Kronberg had a unnecessary advantage as a result of Markham’s knowledge obtained from viewing the confidential files.

Disqualifying Markham is unusual. Most cases involving the disqualification of a lawyer occur where she/he has represented both sides. For example, if Markham was representing LaRouche and as part of his Federal duties he had interviewed Kronberg or had read confidential reports of her interviews he should be disqualified because he could use confidential information obtained from Kronberg against her. But that is not the case. He has consistently represented parties opposing LaRouche and information obtained from Kronberg while he worked for the government will only be used to help her now. She could tell him the same information now that she did twenty years ago. There is no conflict of interest.
- Share/Save
3 Comments »