The problem Hoff faced with appealing his application being denied involved money... Something Hoff has never really had any of. However, he sure does OWE a LOT of it (more on that in a future post)!
According to the Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, under Rule 11...
Section 8. (a) An applicant whose application is denied by the Board of Bar Examiners following a Rule Eleven hearing, may appeal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by filing twelve (12) copies of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Board. The Notice of Appeal and cost bond shall be filed by the applicant with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days after the Board's written decision was mailed to the applicant or his/her counsel. The Notice of Appeal shall set forth the basis for the appeal. Any findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the Board in connection with the Rule Eleven hearing shall be attached to the Notice of Appeal.
(b) At the same time the Notice of Appeal is filed, the applicant shall also file a good and sufficient cost bond to be approved by the Clerk of the Supreme Court in an amount sufficient to defray the costs of the appeal, including the Rule Eleven hearing transcript.In other words, in order for Hoff's appeal to be heard by the supreme court, he would have to cover the cost of the bond that would include the transcript from the Rule 11 hearing. For Hoff to appeal his case properly,he would have to come up with a significant amount of money. It was estimated that the amount of money Hoff would have had to pay was in the range of $5,000.
John didn't have that much money so, he pulled out one of his old, reliable tricks that he has used in most of his previous court cases.... To ask the court for permission for him to proceed "Informa Pauperis"
For those not familiar with that term, it more or less means the person filing the case does not have the money to cover the required costs and if the court approves the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the cost is absorbed by the court (or the taxpayers really).
Here is the Oklahoma Statute:
§ 922. Affidavit in forma pauperisHoff claimed poverty in order to appeal his case. The irony of that is that one of the reasons Oklahoma denied Hoff's application to practice law was that the Board of Bar Examiners determined that Hoff lived in poverty on PURPOSE!
The affidavit provided for in the preceding section [FN1] shall be in the form following, and attached to the petition, viz.:State [of Oklahoma, ____________ County, ____________,] in the district court of said county: I do solemnly swear that the cause of action set forth in the petition hereto prefixed is just, and I (or we) do further swear that by reason of my (or our) poverty, I am unable to give security for costs.
The following from the findings of fact conclusions of law from Hoff's denial... (click below to view larger)
John Hoff was proven to be opposite of so many things that he has long claimed to be on his blog and among his supporters is former Minneapolis city council member and current Minneapolis Public School Board member, Don Samuels. In fact, Samuels submitted a letter of support to the board on Hoff's behalf but, he did not appear as a witness for Hoff at his Rule 11 hearing.
A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Hoff's denial will be sent to Samuels to review and I will follow up after that seeking a comment on his decision to support Hoff as he has in the past.
Hoff will not be a lawyer anywhere anytime soon and Hoff has only himself to blame.