Click here for information about our Directors.

Our Constitution was designed to form a more perfect Union. The First Amendment promises the freedoms to speech, association, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances shall not be abridged. The Bill of Rights further includes the rights to counsel and equal protection.

Despite these promises, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. in his 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, declares there is constitutional crisis that has been ignored far too long that undermines the integrity of the right to access to the courts. First year associates at blue chip law firms earn more than federal judges: Partner profits are often in excess of a million dollars per year. Likewise, the Los Angeles Superior Court presiding judge reported that of the 2.7 million cases heard in 2004, two million cases had at least one party acting as his own counsel. Judge William MacLaughlin reported, “The cost of legal services has grown and grown, and it seems fewer and fewer people are able to afford legal services.” The Legal Services Corporation in its report Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low Income Americans (Sep. 2005) found only one in five legal problems experienced by low income people are met, and for every client served by an LSC-funded program, one was turned down because of insufficient resources. This constitutional crisis has been swollen by government licensing blockages that like cholesterol in our arteries clog our circulation that has been ignored far too long.

The NAAMJP is a public benefit corporation that seeks to transform the constitutional rights to counsel and access to the Courts from an unmet promise into a constitutional promise fulfilled. After the printing press was invented, the struggle for the freedom of the press in the Age of Enlightenment was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. The freedom of the press and free exercise of religion set forth in the First Amendment is side by side with the constitutional freedom to petition. In this Information Age, State licensing officials are interfering with the public’s constitutional rights to licensed counsel and access to the Courts by denying reciprocal licensure on motion to experienced attorneys. The practice of requiring experienced attorneys to take another bar examination strikes at the very foundation of the freedom to petition by subjecting it to license and censorship.

The American Bar Association has carefully studied this issue in hearings held all over the United States. The purpose of a bar exam is to measure if the applicant has the necessary skill and learning to practice law at an entry level sufficient to protect the public. The purpose of a bar exam is not to provide monopoly protection. The ABA in 2002 adopted a Model Rule for Admission on Motion. The ABA has expressly rejected the hypothesis that experienced attorneys need to pass another bar exam in another state to be licensed in that state. The ABA concluded bar examinations for experienced attorneys do not provide “public protection.” They injure the public by interfering with the rights to counsel and increasing the costs to petition the Courts. Thirty-five states have either fully or partially adopted the ABA Recommendation for reciprocal licensing on motion.

A National Action Plan on Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism (Adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices January 21, 1999) declares “Legal practice in multiple jurisdictions increasingly is the rule rather than the exception, particularly given improvements in communication and transportation technology. The appellate courts of highest jurisdiction should not only provide leadership and coordination of professionalism and legal ethics programs within their own states, but also should encourage interstate cooperation.” This Conference of Chief Justice report declares the vast majority of lawyers in this country are competent professionals, conscientious advocates, honest in their representations, and, in short, conduct themselves according to the highest dictates of the legal profession.

Scientific tests  provide compelling evidence that licensing officials are far less able to accurately predict competence than laymen or other licensed experts. For example, one out of eight Americans lives in California. California is in the minority of states that deny reciprocal admission on motion. RAND Corporation statistical reports demonstrates the 100% subjective California bar examination given to experienced attorneys, exam after exam, is less reliable than flipping a coin (.40% to .48%) because of reader disagreement as to whether the experienced attorney is qualified. These tests are junk science and are not reliable or admissible under Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence.  These tests which are used to deny licensing to more than 50% of attorneys found sufficiently qualified by other State Supreme Courts provide monopoly protection not public protection. We would reject ad nauseam election results where more than fifty percent of the time it could not be determined whether the vote is republican or democrat. An experienced attorney’s license to practice law should not be subject to monopoly protecting walls and forfeiture because of the failure to satisfy the whim of her competitor.

The NAAMJP thus seeks to eliminate licensing tests for experienced attorneys. Nominees for the Supreme Court steadfastly refuse to state their legal opinions because of the peril of partisanship. Similarly, neither experienced reporters nor ordained members of the clergy are compelled to state their opinion to obtain a license. Over 30,000 attorneys were admitted on motion to the bar of another state in the last five years. If a layman is presumed to know the law, it cannot be presumed an experienced attorney does not know the law. The state of the art for experienced attorneys is admission on motion.

Click on the Membership Page! Join us today! Let’s make the constitutional right to petition with counsel a meaningful and available constitutional right! Let’s bring the licensing of lawyers into the 21st Century!


10 Reasons to Support or Join
National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice

1. The First Amendment constitutional freedoms to advocate, associate, and petition are the most important rights we have. What distinguishes man from all other animals is his or her ability to speak, communicate with his fellow man, and exercise rational reason in making decisions. The ability to speak and understand and reason is what makes man a man. The freedom to advocate, associate, and petition is an indispensable condition predicate for manhood, and for a democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people. What occurs in the courtroom is obviously pure political speech in a public forum; it is speech that is further constitutionally reinforced and safeguarded by the united rights to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. A moment’s reflection reveals everything that occurs in the government courtroom has at its core the People’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, or the deprivation or re-distribution of these rights by our government. The First Amendment attempts to secure “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 266 (164). The First Amendment reflects “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Id. at 276. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection.” Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell, 486 U.S. 46, 55 (1988).

2. American attorneys obviously have First Amendment rights to advocate, associate with their clients, and petition for redress of grievances. In Republican Party of Minn. v. White. 536 U.S. 765 (2002), the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a canon of judicial conduct that prohibited a candidate for judicial office from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues. The question presented was whether the First Amendment permits the Minnesota Supreme Court to prohibit candidates for judicial office in the State from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the judicial canon. It held the announce clause burdened speech based on its “content” and it burdened “a category of speech” that is at the core of the First Amendment. If judges have First Amendment rights, it is to too plain for argument that lawyers also have First Amendment rights. Likewise, in Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), Congress prohibited LSC funding of any organization that represented clients in an effort to amend or otherwise challenge existing welfare law. The Supreme Court recognized the lawyer, whose speech is being restricted, is not the government’s speaker. The lawyer speaks for his client. The funding restriction operated to insulate current welfare laws from constitutional scrutiny, a condition implicating central First Amendment concerns. Id. at 547. The Supreme Court invalidated the restriction, and held the “Constitution does not permit the Government to confine litigants and their attorneys in this manner. We must be vigilant when Congress imposes rules and conditions which in effect insulate its own laws from legitimate judicial challenge. Where private speech is involved, even Congress' antecedent funding decision cannot be aimed at the suppression of ideas thought inimical to the Government's own interest.” Id. at 548-49. As attorneys we must be vigilant when government imposes rules and conditions which in effect insulate its own rules from challenge, or burden our rights to speak for our clients or ourselves.

3. The NAAMJP advocates enhanced temporary practice rules, reciprocity and general bar admission on motion be made available for experienced attorneys in every state, and asserts the failure to have authorized temporary practice rules and admission on motion rule for experienced attorneys is an unconstitutional condition.

The First Amendment liberties do not terminate at a State boundary line. A citizen’s or an attorney’s rights to advocate, associate, and petition in another State are squarely with in the ambit of the First Amendment freedoms. As in Republican Party of Minn. v. White, supra, any burden placed on the “content” of the speech or on the “category of speech” is subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The standard of review is strict scrutiny, and the government bears the burden of proving the rule is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Likewise, as in Legal Services Corporation v. Velazque, supra, rules that confine litigants and their attorneys cannot be aimed at the suppression of ideas though inimical to the government’s interests. What occurs in courtrooms throughout the United States is speech concerning matters of public concern that are decided in a public forum. Each side in the lawsuit, i.e. petition, has its own opinion about the subject, message, and ideas that are often antagonistic and inimical to the other. Each side has its own content and viewpoint. Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or it’s content. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95. A regulation that denies one group of citizens the right to address a selected audience on controversial issues of public policy is content discrimination and unconstitutional. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n., 447 U.S. 530, 546 (1980)(Justice Stevens concurring). The NAAMJP submits these First Amendment principles — applicable to one State’s admission rules in regard to experienced attorneys of another State — can be illustrated by the following examples. First, laws that allow some sister-state attorneys to practice, such as in-house counsel, and not others, is viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional. Second, laws that deny all sister-state attorneys the right to practice in that State is content and category of speech discrimination that is unconstitutional. The subject and content of a State’s law is a “category of speech” available and accessible on the internet. A citizen is presumed to know the law. If a citizen who has not passed a bar exam is presumed to know the law, and the whole contains its parts, it follows an experienced sister-state attorney who has already graduated from law school and passed a bar exam, cannot be legitimately presumed not to know the law. If a citizen can take notice of the law so can an American attorney. It has been well said a speaker’s skill boils down to: (i) knowing what to say; (ii) knowing when to say it; and (iii) most importantly, knowing how to say it. This is speech content and a category of speech accessible to the common man or woman. This is speech that is the lawyer’s particular skill and stock in trade. One State’s lawyers in fact or logic cannot have a monopoly on speech or the right to associate and petition for redress of grievances in the United States. Third, what the law is in a particular case is a matter of opinion. The plethora of U.S. Supreme Court decisions decided 5-4 based on the same facts and law illustrates the law in a particular case is often a matter of opinion. Judges, as well as lawyer’s and government official have conflicting opinions on the law. However, the suppression of expression of opinion is not tolerated by our Constitution except in very narrow circumstances. These exceptions to First Amendment subject matter protection are not relevant. Sister-state state attorneys in voicing their opinion in a public courtroom on matters of public concern do not advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence, and an accompanying clear and present danger. They will not be dancing nude, publishing pornography, engaging in defamation, or burning a cross as a means of intimidation. Thus, the NAAMJP opines in this Information Age and global economy that the failure of one State to have a reciprocity provision for experienced sister-state attorneys from another State, constitutes a restriction on the First Amendment that is overbroad and not narrowly tailored. This is an unconstitutional condition. The States that have not enacted admission on motion in this Information Age do not want to come out of the cave of ignorance into sunlight. These States have the burden of proof, and it is a burden that cannot be met as the vast majority of States (35) have general admission on motion for experienced attorneys.

4. States must act within limits imposed by the Constitution when limiting the right to association or petition for redress of grievances, and the failure to have temporary practice rules and admission on motion rules for experienced sister-state attorneys suppresses these constitutional rights. In California Democratic Party v. Jones, 503 U.S. 567 (2000), at issue was the State of California’s proposition that regulated the parties internal processes for selecting its own candidate as its representative. The Supreme Court held this law violated the party’s First Amendment right of association. The Court stated the First Amendment protects the freedom to join together to further common political beliefs, which presupposes the freedom to identify those who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people. The Court held that forced association has the likely outcome of diluting and changing the parties’ message. It follows the State cannot force its citizens to associate with whom the State chooses, when the purpose of the expressive association is to petition the State for redress of grievances. Similarly, in Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102 U.S., the Supreme Court invalidated a law that made it a crime for two men to have sex with each other. The Supreme Court reversed its prior opinion and reasoned they got it wrong in prior cases, and petitioner’s right to liberty under the Due Process Clause, gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, and expression. If the State cannot make it unlawful for two men to have sex together, it follows the State cannot lawfully tell any man who he should associate as his lawyer and petition for redress of grievances in a public forum while wearing a suit and tie. Additionally, in view of the constitutional right to "free expression", a statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content or subject matter of their speech. Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991). Thus, any governmental rule that suppresses or restricts a petitioner’s rights to free expressive association or petition, like the failure to have an admission on motion provision for experienced sister-state attorneys, cannot be justified unless the government meets its strict scrutiny burden of proof of a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored. The government cannot meet this standard because the vast majority of states (35) have general admission on motion rules.

5. Failure to have temporary practice rules and admission on motion rules for experienced sister-state attorneys violates the Privileges and Immunities Clauses, and the Constitutional norm of comity. The right of citizens to assemble for the purpose of petitioning for the redress of grievances is a privilege of United States citizenship protected by the privileges and immunities clause. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552-553. The United States Supreme Court in Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), stated: “The lawyer's role in the national economy is not the only reason that the opportunity to practice law should be considered a ‘fundamental right.’ We believe that the legal profession has a noncommercial role and duty that reinforce the view that the practice of law falls within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Out-of-state lawyers may — and often do — represent persons who raise unpopular federal claims.” Id at 281. The norm under the Privileges and Immunities Clause is comity. The constitutional norm of comity, i.e. admission on motion for experienced sister-state attorneys, in some States is crushed because local attorneys do not want out-of-state attorneys to engage in forum state commerce or to raise unpopular federal claims. Thus, the very purpose of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses ironically is the reason why some States do not provide comity to sister-state attorneys. They have a competitive advantage they want to protect rather than the Constitution.

6. As with the Free Press Clause, the Free Petition Clause presents peculiar dangers of censorship. The First Amendment articulates an inextricably intertwined web of freedoms. “The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. It was against that power that John Milton directed his assault by his `Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.' And the liberty of the press became initially a right to publish `without a license what formerly could be published only with one.'” City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 797 fn. 13 (1984). Under the First Amendment, “the evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens." Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 168 (2002). A scheme conditioning expression on a licensing body's prior approval of content "presents peculiar dangers to constitutionally protected speech." Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist. 534 U.S. 316, 321 (2002) A licensing body likely will overestimate the dangers of controversial speech when determining, without regard to the actual effect on an audience, whether speech is likely "`to incite'" or to "`corrupt [the] morals. Ibid. “A law or policy permitting communication in a certain manner for some but not for others raises the specter of content and viewpoint censorship. This danger is at its zenith when the determination of who may speak and who may not is left to the unbridled discretion of a government official.” Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co, 486 U.S. 750, 763 (1988). This First Amendment right to press and petition body of law reinforces the constitutional norm of comity for sister-state attorneys. Penumbral to the First Amendment right to associate and petition, is the right to associate and petition with a lawyer. The free press and free petition clauses share the same purpose in our democracy. The freedom of thought and expression that is necessary so the people can decide the truth.

7. The American Bar Association has endorsed Multijurisdictional Practice, and the vast majority of States have adopted admission on motion. The American Bar Association last year amended its Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These amendments were the result of the ABA’s adoption of its MJP Commission Report, Client Representation in the 21st Century. This report is available on the ABA’s web page www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp-home.html. These Model Rule amendments came after two years of Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP) hearings conducted nationally by a blue chip panel of recognized leaders of the bar. The MJP Commission reviewed testimony and opinions from virtually every arm of the organized bar. The ABA Model Rules, in pertinent part, now call for enhanced temporary practice rules, reciprocal bar admission on motion for experienced attorneys, and reciprocal discipline enforcement. The Conference of Chief Justices has approved these judgments. The majority of states have adopted these ABA Model Rules. However, a minority of States because of competition protection and local popular prejudice have refused to hear the Constitution or see the inherent unsuitability of manual typewriter era out-of-state attorney admission rules in an internet world, by refusing to provide temporary practice rules and admission on motion for experienced attorneys to safeguard their monopoly rather than the First Amendment.

8. American attorneys in some States have rejected comity for sister-state attorneys provide it to foreign attorneys. When the State of California enacted Rule of Court 988 authorizing foreign legal consultants to practice in California, then Chief Justice Rose Bird sua sponte filed a published dissenting opinion declaring that the Rule violated the equal protection rights of sister-state attorneys. A foreign lawyer can practice the law of his country, but a sister-state attorney in a country where federal law is supreme, cannot practice the law of her country. How can a State give comity to lawyers licensed in Iraq or North Korea, and deny comity to lawyers from New York or Pennsylvania? There is a fundamental equal protection violation when alien attorneys have more First Amendment rights than American attorneys in America. Moreover, in the European Union, lawyers from one country are free to practice law in another European Union Member State, even though the languages, legal systems, and rules may be fundamentally different from each other. The United States is also a member of the World Trade Organization, and it has signed GATS (the General Agreement in Trade in Services). GATS regulates how each of the WTO’s 150 member countries may regulate service providers, including lawyers. In 1999, legal services were the third largest U.S. export with $2.56 billion and legal service imports were $844 million. See Laurel S. Terry, GATS’ Applicability to Transnational Lawyering and its Potential Impact on U.S. State Regulation of Lawyers. 34 Vanderbilt J. of Transnational Law 989, 995 (2001). The United States has agreed in the GATS market access provisions to prohibit quotas, numerical limitations, or monopolies. Id. at 1005. GATS’ requires that licensing regulations may not be “more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service or ensure a legitimate objective.” Id. at 1077. Professor Terry, of Penn State University’s Dickinson College of Law, states “if foreign lawyers are granted greater rights than domestic lawyers, the domestic lawyers will object – sooner or later – to this ‘reverse discrimination,’ and will lobby for equal treatment.” Id. at 1087. Guess what? Foreign lawyers already have greater rights in many States that have rejected the ABA MJP Conclusions than sister-state attorneys.

9. It Is Our Manifest Destiny to Be Free. Apartheid should have no seat in the legal profession. A prime part of the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” has been our history. In this 21st Century, we believe in-State attorneys should have no more right to compel or establish for American citizens who they should hire to pursue their First or 6th Amendment rights, than they have to tell their citizens what newspaper to read, or what religion they should follow, or who they should marry. The Bill of Rights protects against this government compulsion. The final cause of an acorn is to grow into an oak tree. The final cause of the law is justice for all. The final cause of a lawyer is to oppose injustice. Foreign athletes travel from their home and come to the United States because they want to compete at the highest level. They travel not because they are incompetent but because of the opposite. Both the law and the lawyer are stunted in their development, like a house plant in a pot that does not leave room for growth, when the free competition for justice is blunted. More fundamentally, reciprocity and reciprocal rights is the calling of man. The Bible states it as the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The Declaration of Independence states the norm “as all men are created equal.” The Bill of Rights is in accord. It is our manifest destiny as Americans to be free. Free to purse happiness. Free to travel. Free to associate. Free to petition. Free to find our own truth.

10. Our Government Will Give Us Our First Amendment Rights As Soon As We Organize and Petition for Them and Not Before. Join Us and Petition for Your Rights. If our government and judicial branches were founded by the genius of our representatives from every part of our country in 1776, how can States exclude representatives from any part of our country in the 21st Century global economy and Information Age? A recent scientific study published by the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University demonstrates even monkeys know when they have been treated unfairly, and monkeys object when another monkey gets unequal treatment. We cannot remain silent as an oyster in the wake of this uncivilized First Amendment deprivation when it has been shown that even monkeys protest unequal treatment. We are all Americans. We pledge allegiance to the same flag, and the principles for which it stands. We are sent off to war at peril of life and limb as one. We pay the same taxes. We should have equal Constitutional rights in the 21st Century.

Please join us. A house divided against it-self cannot stand. There is power in numbers and in undivided purpose. We have, as this web site demonstrates, already set off on our mission for MJP. We cannot do it without you. The State attorney monopolies that have established apartheid in the legal profession and that have suppressed our freedom are well organized and financed with unlimited State funds. However, right makes might. With your support we will preserve the principles upon which America was founded. Truth and justice are always stronger and more worthy of choice than illusion and injustice.

Our Directors

Joseph Robert Giannini has B.B.A. from Temple University and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law (1983). He is a member in good standing of the bar of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and U.S. Supreme Court, as well as numerous other federal courts. He has attended Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College. He is a member of the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section and Legal Education and Admissions. He testified before and presented written argument to the ABA MJP Commission hearing in San Diego. See “A Nationwide Need for the Primacy of the First Amendment Rights to Advocate, Associate, and Petition in the New Millennium” at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/mjp-giannini_witness.html. He has written numerous articles published in legal newspapers calling for full reciprocal bar admission. He spearheaded legislation in California that was enacted into law 98-0 in 2002 calling for full reciprocal admission for experienced sister-state attorneys, that was subsequently watered down, behind closed doors by a California MJP Commission appointed to implement reciprocity, to provide only second class limited bar admission privileges for corporate counsel and attorneys working for qualified pro bono organizations. Mr. Giannini is presently scheduled to personally meet with several members of Congress responsible for federal rules and members of the California State Judiciary Committees.

Jeffrey L. Russell is a graduate of the University of Akron School of Law (1974). He has 16 years experience as an Assistant United States Attorney having served as a federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland), Southern District of Florida (Miami), Central District of California (Los Angeles), Northern District of California (San Francisco and San Jose ), and the Department of Justice Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Mr. Russell has conducted 45 criminal trials in seven United States District Courts, and he has successfully argued appeals in the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Supreme Court of the United States, and many other federal courts.

Mr. Russell testified before and presented written argument to the ABA MJP Commission hearing in San Diego. See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/mjp-russell_witness.html, “It is my opinion that the entire hypothesis that one can test experienced attorneys on a subjective entry level bar examination to determine whether they are qualified to practice is fundamentally flawed. Many cases turn as much on facts as on the law. Thus experience with developing facts is often a product of just that—experience. For a professional licensing test to be valid, it has to measure the skills necessary to practice that profession. Therefore, to use my case as an example, the fact that I was employed as a federal prosecutor for many years is ample demonstration that I am qualified to practice law. It is simply illogical to assume that an attorney who has successfully practiced law in one jurisdiction somehow becomes incompetent or develops amnesia on crossing a state line. These are the reasons why I believe the vast majority of jurisdictions have adopted reciprocity provisions for experienced attorneys, and this Commission should endorse reciprocal State licensing for experienced attorneys.”

Robert Bloom is a graduate of Northwestern and he holds a J.D. form New York University School of Law (1965). He is admitted to practice in New York, the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Northern District of California. He has been counsel for defendant in numerous high profile criminal cases including Geronimo Pratt.

Kenneth Owen is a graduate with Great Distinction, from Oakland College of Law. He has an L.L.M. with honors from Golden Gate University School of Law. He is a member of bar of the Arizona Supreme Court, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has authored, Environmental Justice Enforcement Requires Reassessment Under the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Environmental Statutes. 30 Golden Gate University Law Review 379. Mr. Owens is an Instructor of Constitutional Law and Environmental Law at Oakland College of Law.

John F. O’Rourke has a Bachelor of Engineering (Dean’s List) and a Masters of Science degree from Villanova University. He is a graduate of Temple University School of Law (1993), and was on Dean’s List (1991-92). Mr. O’Rourke is a Registered Patent Attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is a member of the bar of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Mr. O’Rourke was awarded the 1998 John J. Gallen Memorial Award, Villanova University College of Engineering in recognition of professional contributions in the fields of health care, computer engineering, telecommunications, and aerospace. The Award further recognizes his work as a patent attorney protecting intellectual property related to a variety of emerging technologies, including electronic communications and the Internet. He has published numerous technical articles.