*1 County agement the Board of function as well as over the cor- accomplished neither County aspects jail operation. local in Tulsa nor TCCJA rectional Commissioners jail power to control the or was vested with authority to oust the sheriff and transfer private contractor.29 As control to the guiding ancient
one of the common law’s teaches, quod dot eloquently nemo
beacons give cannot that which one
non habet —one i.e., have, give one can a better
does not no OK 4 possesses.30 thing title to a than one STATE OKLA- ASSOCIATION, BAR HOMA IV Complainant, SUMMARY power “privatize 19 While TCCJA’s FOSTER, Respondent. L. Robert jail”'— place management of i.e. to No. SCBD-4401. entity— facility nongovernmental in a impervious to the indeed be constitu- here, attack launched the act of en- tional operation posi-
trusting that to one iswho 18, 2000. reach of the beyond tioned sheriffs control, As Corrected Jan. oversight disuniformity creates a § fatally offensive to the 46 com- is against mand “local” law on two of the subjects
twenty-eight included the cited regulation county section'—-the uniform uniformity powers to be affairs short,
possessed by county In officials. contract not lacks a TCCJA
statutory sheriffs ouster warrant injects control, impermis- also asymmetry range of uni-
sible into the by powers possessed sheriffs
form over infirmity
the State. That fundamental-law law-imposed by
could amend- be excised
ment which would restore the sheriffs
complete oversight over the business man-
U.S.(16 Wall.) 544,
by extinguishing
statutory pow-
Hawley,
tions
ers.
the sheriffs
30. Mitchell v.
short,
absolutely
statutory
(1872);
In
no
touched child under (18) years, eighteen with the intent to com- felony procuring of obscene and inde- mit the in photographs Supp. of 21 cent violation O.S. 3, 1998, September On 1021.2. deferring entered until order was sentence July only The the issue before the of Court involves inappropriate the minor’s breasts and inci- ments made to the minor the dent. 31,1999, hearing August a was held On Responsibility the Professional Tribu-
before
(trial panel) at which the Bar Association
nal
presented
findings
attorney
agreed
the
fact and conclusions of law with a recom-
of
attorney
privately rep-
the
mendation that
be
and that
The
rimanded
costs be
agreed
testimony
and the
the
facts
ORDER
panel
giving
reveal that
rise
trial
the incident
23, 1998,
complain-
November
the
On
attorney
charges
the
to the criminal
involved
(Bar
ant,
Associa-
Association
viewing
subsequently
A.M.’s breasts and
tion),
the
charged
respondent,
making an
in which
comment
(attorney),
single
pro-
with
a
count
Foster
attorney indicated
that she had
the
to A.M.
misconduct. The
fessional
they
photo-
should be
nice breasts
of Rule
alleged violation
September
the trial
graphed.1 On
Proceedings,
Disciplinary
findings
conclu-
panel issued its
of fact and
1-A,
8.4(b),
of Rule
of Pro-
endorsing
parties’ agreed
of law
the
sions
Conduct, O.S.1991,
fessional
recommendation
attorney hav-
allegations
All
relate to the
plea
Having
on
reviewed the
ing
a
contendré
June
entered
nolo
stipulations
law and of
charge
response,
with the
the
of assault
the
fact,
along
imposition
transcript
proceeding,
felony
a
the
intent to commit
and the
panel’s
trial
recommendation
five-year deferred
The infor- with the
of a
sentence.
parties
appeal, we
joint
of the
on
relating
provides
that the
brief
mation
feloniously
that:
attorney unlawfully, wilfully, and
determine
taking
question concerning
ing
blouse off.
response to a
what led
without
their—their
In.
Well,
issue,
explained
trying
attorney
to
while I was
up
at
she was
do that and
to the conduct
backwards,
family
long running
looking
adjusting
a
herself
had been
friend-
she was
ship
parents,
exposed.
A.M.’s
A.M. and the attor-
She no-
between
her breasts were
and then
incident,
attorney
day
ney.
had
On the
at
I had seen
said no word
ticed that
them.
I
outing.
her sister
At some
taken A.M. and
for an
at that time. She was somewhat
all about that
evening,
point
attorney purchased, at
in the
about it
I
it better not to
embarrassed
and felt
request,
sports
a
for the minor.
A.M.’s
bra
say anything
movie
at that time ... We saw the
attorney
explain
to
actions. The
was asked
my
we
house.
and then
went on to
Selena
transcript
provides
August
got
11 o’clock
there and
This is about
when
pp.
pertinent part at
16-17:
in
they
ice
girls
had their
decided that —after
they
you, they
have
decided
cream and what
got
"...
in the front seat
her
[A.M.]
She
right
go
after
would
to bed because it was
put
going to
and she decided she was
sister
meantime,
sports
I was
bra on and
that
trying
11:00.
sorry
girl,
that I
the little
I said I’m
The I told
parking place
to back
she said
out
accidentally
your
I said
minute,
viewed
breasts.
had
just
get
stop,
want to
on the
wait
I
seen,
ever
are not the
breasts I’ve
try
got
those
in the
this on.... But she
back seat
sorry
apologize and
about it and I
proceeded
and I
but I'm real
and I
to back out
back seat
it,
photo-
pretty. They
they manage
they were
should
don’t know how—how
put
graphed. ...”
of cloth-
some women can
on those articles
fact,
panel’s
findings
6. The trial
committed acts of
sexu-
conclu-
by this
as
al nature condemned
pro-
of law and recommendation
sions
of the Rules
Professional
violations
respondent:
in mitigation
vides
that the
Conduct,
App. 3-A
a)
was admitted to the
of law on
previ-
October
and has had no
*3
O.S.1991,
Proceedings, 5
Ch.
disciplinary investigations
ous
com-
See,
rel.
Bar
State ex
Oklahoma
b)
menced;
complied
has
with all terms
¶¶
21,
4-5,
Copeland, 1994
Ass’n v.
OK
probation including
and conditions of his
[Taking advantage
of at-
870 P.2d
completion
of a minimum of 25 hours
relationship by
torney-client
offensive-
c)
counseling;
is a retired district
public rep-
ly touching client warrants
d)
law;
judge
practice
not
and
and does
rimand.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar
freely
accepts
admits his misconduct and
¶ Sopher, 1993 OK
Ass’n v.
responsibility;
sexual advance to-
[Uninvited
public repri-
client warrants
ward
7. After a de novo review of the facts and
also,
ex rel.
mand.]. See
State
Okla-
in mitigation including
matters offered
Miskovsky,
Ass’n v.
homa Bar
attorney’s
fifty years
prac-
almost
¶55, 21,
[Sixty day
H41 OPALA, J., DISSENTING: fitness respondent’s direct that 11 would inquired in a full-scale law be into panel. PRT
adversarial
Harold SLAGELL, Es Executor of the
Walter *4 Deceased, Slagell, Maurice
tate of
Defendant/Appellee.
No. 91676. Meacham,
Randolph RANDOLPH S. S. P.C., Oklahoma, MEACHAM, Clinton, for Appellant. F.H. LAW OF- Wright,
F.H. WRIGHT FICE, Appel- City, lee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION HARGRAVE, V.C.J. appeal issue is whether 1 The appellant’s because of
should be dismissed any review preserve issues for failure to were in his motion no errors raised where is controlled Finding the case new trial. Co., Horizons, Leasing Inc. v. Keo (Okla.1984), granted opinion of the and now vacate the certiorari ap- Appeals and dismiss Civil peal.
¶2
action, in
Appellant filed an
family partnership.
One
terminate
Maurice,
brothers,
ac-
died in an automobile
notes
principle
381. The ancient
dates back to Justini-
and 5.
Digest,
apparently
phrase
an's
comes from
jurist Ulpian
plus
credited to the Roman
"nemo
County
Board
Commissioners and
potest quam ipse
iuris ad alium
habet"
private
pow
TCCJAinvested the
transferre
contractor
(no
legal rights
can
one
transfer more
than one
lay beyond
ers that
those conferred on them
Milsom,
has).
Historical
Compensation
See
Foundations
statute. See Workers’
Cowt v. Mer
Commission,
(Butterworths 1969);
it Protection
Law 331
Common
Carl S.
1226, 1227;
Corporation
Co. v.
Marathon Oil
Bjerre,
Nega-
Out:
Secured Transactions Inside
Commission,
966, 969-70;