March 6, 2001
Mumia dismisses his attorneys
Following is the legal petition Mumia has presented to Judge Yohn
IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MUMIA ABU JAMAL : DKT.#
99 CIV. 5089
PETITIONER : (YOHN J.)
MARTIN HORN, ET. AL. :
Upon consideration of the Petitioner's Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel for Conflict of Interest (Pro Se) and supportive memoranda, the Court enters the following Order:
a.) Petitioner's Motion for Counsels Withdrawal is GRANTED;
b.) Petitioner's Motion to Proceed Pro Se is GRANTED;
C.) An Extention of Time of ________ days is GRANTED to allow Petitioner sufficient time to acquire and hire counsel.
The ORDER is hereby entered
on this, the _________ day of ________________
BY THE COURT:
Wm. Yohn, J.
IN THE U.S. DISTRICT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL :
VS. : DKT. # 99 CIV. 5089
MARTIN HORN, ET. AL. : (YOHN,
PETITIONER'S PRO SE MOTION FOR THE WITHDRAWAL
OF COUNSEL FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Now Comes Mumia Abu-Jamal, your Petitioner pro se, who moves this Honorable Court to grant the proposed Order for Withdrawal of Counsel in Above-Captioned case for its conflict of interest, as set forth in the following:
1.) The Petitioner was represented at time of filing by Leonard Weinglass, Esq. and Dan Williams, Esq., both of New York City. Local counsel, who sponsored Messrs. Weinglass and Williams for pro hac vice, was Jules Epstein, Esq.
2.) Both counsel were granted pro hac vice status by this court on or about Nov. 1999.
3.) On Sat. 2/24/01 via Fed Ex, Petitioner learned definitively that Mr. Williams was in the late processes of publishing a book on the instant case, purported to be an "inside account".
4.) Rule 1.8 (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth one of several "Prohibited Transactions,"among which is a prohibition against making or negotiating a literary agreement based substantially on information acquired by way of a lawyer's representation.
5.) Disciplinary Rule (DR5-104(B)) sets forth a similar prohibition.
6.) Upon information and belief, Petitioner avers that counsel has created a clear undeniable conflict of interest based upon the said publication of an "inside account" which constitutes a breach of client loyalty.
7.) Accordingly, Petitioner seeks the withdrawal of present counsel immediately, entry of pro se status and grant of a reasonable period of time within which to hire counsel for the Petitiioner.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the instant Motion is deemed GRANTED and an appropriate ORDER issued.
175 PROGRESS DR.
WAYNESBURG, PA. 15370
IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETITIONER : DKT. # 99 CIV. 5089
MARTIN HORN, ET. AL.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S
PRO SE MOTION FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Comes Now, Mumia Abu-Jamal, your Petitioner pro se who, in support of his Motion for Counsel's Withdrawal, files the instant Brief in Support thereof;
1. Where Conflict of Interest exists, Withdrawal Proper.
It is a longstanding principle of the law that where a conflict of interest exists between client and counsel, the right to effective assistance of counsel is seriously impaired. This is so because in such an instance "Counsel breaches the duty of loyalty, a characteristic deemed to be "perhaps the most basic " of counsel duties. Strickland V Washington, 466 vs 665, 692 (1984).
The Rules of Professional Conduct, and related Disciplinary Rules have set forth in express terms, and in mandatory language, a number of provisions which are prohibited transactions. Among them, Rule 1.8(d), re: Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions, which states (d) prior to the conclusion of representation of client a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation (West, 2000) Disciplinary Rules (Spec., DR5-104(B) have a somewhat similar provision. Thus, that this is a clear conflict of interest cannot be seriously questioned, for in such an instance the litigative interests of the client and the personal (and indeed financial) interests of the lawyer conflict. Accordingly, the said Motion should be granted, as should any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
Where, as here, clear evidence has been presented of a conflict of interest, counsels withdrawal is warranted.
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Petitioner certifies by signature below service of true correct copy of Petitioner's Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel for Conflict of Interest and Brief in Support in manner/time below shown.
Placed in mail receptacle
for 1st class U.S. mail delivery to :
Leonard Weinglass, Atty.
6 W. 20th St. 10th Fl.
New York, NY. 10011
1421 Arch St. DATE MAILED
MARCH 1, 2001
Dan Williams, Esq.
CDA 915 Broadway, 7th Fl. MUMIA ABU-JAMAL
New York, NY. PRO SE
posted to forum 03-05-01 Fatirah
FREE MUMIA! NOW!!