Opinion ID: 2092153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: concurring report to the supreme court on the application of roger roots

Text: I write this separate report to the Court because, while I agree with the Majority that neither Mr. Roots' personal beliefs nor his past criminal convictions should disqualify him from being a member of the bar, I cannot fully agree with their assessment of his credibility and candor before this Committee. I, like the majority, question whether an applicant's political or personal opinions should disqualify him from membership in the bar, so long as they do not manifest themselves in illegal, unethical or otherwise improper conduct. Furthermore, I join with the majority in the belief that Mr. Roots' past criminal conduct should not, by itself, disqualify him from the practice of law, given the nature of his crimes and the time that has passed since they were committed. During my tenure, the Committee has been especially concerned with crimes involving theft or dishonesty. An attorney is often placed in position of trust where the only real protection his client or the public has from an abuse of that trust is the attorney's own integrity and sense of honesty. Although the method Mr. Roots used to commit his last crime, lying on gun applications, and the method he used to avoid prosecution, use of aliases, certainly involved dishonest conduct, the underlying crimes did not. In reviewing Mr. Roots' criminal record in preparation for his testimony, I did not perceive his crimes as demonstrating a dishonest heart so much as a disregard for any law which was inconvenient for him or conflicted with his political beliefs or personal desire. This attitude appeared to manifest itself when he argued with the police officer in Florida, decided to leave Florida rather than comply with the requirements of his probation, and lied on several gun applications so he could purchase the weapons that he wanted. In the documents he submitted and his testimony, I hoped to see some indication that he realized that the law was more than just something to be ignored or gotten around when inconvenient or in conflict with his personal beliefs or desires. I was also hoping for candor from Mr. Roots and, as a Committee member, I believe, I was entitled to receive it. Despite his protestations of candor and production of voluminous records, I, like the minority, do not believe that Mr. Roots was fully open and frank with us. The documents he submitted as part of his application as several points provided only half truths, e.g. his characterization in his bar application of the reasons for his use of aliases, his omissions from his law school application of his attendance at the very school at which he was arrested and later convicted of having possession of firearm (whether seized from a school dormitory or his apartment, as stated in the bar and law school application, is not clear), and his mischaracterization of the reasons for his being terminated from the senator's campaign. In reviewing the recommendations before the hearing, I questioned whether Mrs. Justice Goldberg was truly aware of Mr. Roots' political beliefs listing Adolph Hitler, among others, as evidence of the superiority of the white race, and likening the physical characteristics of African Americans to apes, R. Roots, 100 Truths and One Lie (1993?), and supporting the Freemen's right to operate their own judiciary, complete with the issuance of liens on the property of public officials, Roger Roots, Five Freemen Convicted One Acquitted in Federal Show Trial, The Jubilee Newspaper, Vol.10 No. 4, April 13, 1998, How Strong Is the Case Against the Freemen? The Jubilee Newspaper, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1997 or 1998). I also wondered if Mr. Wiernusz had truly read much that Mr. Roots had written. In fact, Mr. Roots admitted that Ms. Justice Goldberg was not aware of his political/social beliefs, which he said he had held in the past. Neither was Mr. Wiernusz aware of any of his Freemen or racial writings, but only his law school articles. I do not know if these people would have recommended Mr. Roots if they were as fully aware of his writings and personal beliefs as they thought they were, but it does concern me that Mr. Roots offered recommendations of two people who were misinformed about issues of which they represented they were aware. I do not know whether Mr. Roots knew the content of the recommendations of Mrs. Justice Goldberg and Mr. Weirnusz before they were submitted, but if he did, I believe his actions were misleading to the committee and disservice to his employer and friend. I questioned Mr. Roots as to whether he believed that there should be an extra judicial system and whether the Freemen had the right to file liens that they issued themselves. His answer was that he did not. [1] I find it difficult to reconcile his answer at the hearing with his published writings as recently as 1997 and 1998. [2] When Mr. Roots asked if there was further information he could provide, I explained that may concern was with his candor and credibility. His response was to immediately deny testimony which he had clearly given just a few minutes before, causing his attorney to stipulate that he had testified to that effect. I cannot go so far as the dissent in characterizing some of these statements as flat out lies but I certainly was left with the impression that documents submitted in support of his application and his testimony contained a number of half-truths and evasive answers. It appeared that he was trying to soften the hard facts of his criminal record and avoid inquiry into his political/social writings, by evasive, incomplete or misleading statements. Nevertheless, Mr. Roots certainly did disclose his criminal record in detail and, although he did not disclose his political or social beliefs, he was not asked to do sol Moreover, anyone of the instances I described above would not cause me to vote against his application. I recognize that on paper Mr. Roots has made a significant effort to rehabilitate himself and that successful rehabilitation is a goal of the criminal justice system. Mr. Roots pleaded passionately before the Committee that he be given an opportunity to work as a attorney on behalf of prisoners in need of representation. If Mr. Roots had been as frank as the majority felt he was, he would have made my decision much easier. Weighing all of these factors, I join with the majority in recommending his admission to the bar, however, I do so with significant doubt as to the wisdom of my decision, and therefore I, like the minority, would urge the court to view Mr. Roots' entire record and interview him carefully to determine whether it believes he has the character and fitness to be a member of the bar. Respectfully submitted, Brendt W. Anderson