BREAKING: Stephen Yagman About to Begin a Federal Trial on December 14 . . .
. . . even though he is not eligible to practice law in the state of California.
In an article that gives new meaning to the term “burying the lede,” the Argonaut — a small paper published in Marina del Rey, California — tucks the following tidbit into the 38th paragraph of a 39-paragraph article about convicted felon Stephen Yagman:
Currently free pending his appeal and preparing to try a federal case on December 14th, Yagman was philosophical about his immediate future, with a jail term looming over the horizon.
“[The conviction] puts a crimp in what I’ll be doing for a while, but that’s life,” he concluded.
Apparently it’s not putting enough of a crimp.
I honestly had to rub my eyes after reading that passage.
Stephen Yagman is preparing to try a federal case on December 14th?! Are you kidding me? Are you [several expletives deleted] KIDDING me?!
Is that federal case taking place in California? Because I just looked up his page on the State Bar web site, and here’s what it says today:
And the reason he’s not eligible is really no mystery:
I suppose it’s remotely possible that the federal case is taking place in a state other than California. If so, it must be a state which doesn’t care when one of its members is convicted of more than a dozen federal felonies, and has been suspended from practice by the State Bar in his home state.
Either that — or maybe the phrase “Not Eligible to Practice Law” has some arcane meaning with which I am unfamiliar.
I have another question: how is Yagman able to conduct a federal trial when he is supposedly oh, so very sick? Isn’t this the guy whose attorney argued that he couldn’t be sent to federal prison in part because of his allegedly poor health? Why, yes . . . it is.
One other thing: UC Irvine must be very proud, because their new dean is about to help Yagman in his appeal:
In an exclusive interview with The Argonaut, Yagman vowed to appeal his conviction. Erwin Chemerinsky, the newly appointed dean of the University of California, Irvine and a well-known professor of constitutional law, will join Yagman’s trial attorney, Barry Tarlow, in appealing the sentence.
Thank God they reinstated Chemerinsky’s offer! What would Southern California do without him?
I’m going to nose around and see if I can’t get to the bottom of this Yagman December 14 trial thing. This seems like a genuine story to me.
Do you think it’s really true? Or did the Argonaut just get it wrong?