Richard Mayberry‎ > ‎Litigator‎ > ‎

Constitutional Law

Before turning to estate planning in the mid-1990's, Mayberry was --for a season of his professional career -- a Washington D.C. political lawyer practicing before the Federal Election Commission and federal courts on behalf of individual citizens, candidates and political committees which in many cases raised constitutional law issues which were litigated. 

Select reported political law cases


Historical Note

LaRouche movement saw LaRouche as a political leader in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Other commentators, including The Washington Post and New York Times, have described him over the years as a conspiracy theorist, fascist, and anti-Semite, and have characterized his movement as a cult. Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff in 1984 as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, while the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote that he leads "what may well be one of the strangest political groups in American history." Wikepediah

Lyndon LaRouche's U.S. Presidential campaigns were a staple of American politics between 1976 and 2004. LaRouche ran for president on eight consecutive occasions, a record for any candidate, and has tied Harold Stassen's record as a perennial candidate. LaRouche ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States seven times, beginning in 1980. His current Political Action Committee is called "LaRouche PAC." wikipedia

Gottlieb v. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 143 F. 3d 618 (1998)
[alleged illegal campaign finance by President Clinton]

Mayberry's Philosophy: Believing all Americans have the right to the counsel of their choice, Richard Mayberry represented political candidates and political committees irrespective if independent, democrat or republican, and irrespective of popularity with the public. Persons committed to estate planning and elder law are invited to call irrespective of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, age, or any other immutable factor.

"Our pluralistic system works through peaceful but conflicting, competing ideas in the public arena as well as the electoral and legislative process. The danger is when the discourse is silent, not when it is too loud for some."-Richard Mayberry


Richard Mayberry litigated for over 25 years.. Today, Mayberry focus is avoiding litigation for his trust and estate clients. 

Virginia Bar Notice: MENTION OF CASE RESULTS DEPENDS UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE AND CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE THAT RICHARD MAYBERRY MAY ELECT TO UNDERTAKE.

Press Access to Military Operations

Richard Mayberry represented Mr. Flynt in Larry Flynt v. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, 588 F. Supp 57 (D.D. C.1984), aff'd but opinion vacated
762 F. 2d 134 (D.C.1985) challenging a ban on the press accompanying American troop's military action in Grenada. The legal issues were a case of first impression for American courts.

For public policy issues raised in this litigation, see RW Pincus, Press Access to Military Operations: Grenada and the Need for a New Guidelines, , U. Pa. L. Rev., 1986 which is excerpted below:

In the predawn hours of October 25, 1983, several hundred United States Navy Seals, Marines, and Army Rangers landed on the island of Grenada, 1spearheading an assault force that included contingents from seven Caribbean nations. The commander of the invasion task force, backed by the Reagan Administration, excluded the news media from the island for the first two days of the operation. Administration officials asserted that the exclusion was necessary to achieve military surprise, to permit the invasion force to concentrate on its objectives without the distraction and obstruction that a press presence would cause, and to avoid devoting troops to the task of protecting the safety of reporters. Press groups and others, however, swiftly denounced the exclusion as a violation of the norms of freedom of the press. 

The question of whether the press may constitutionally be excluded from the battlefield pits the guarantee of freedom of the press against the obligation of the government to protect national security during crises and involves a situation that neither Congress nor the courts have addressed. While apprehension on the part of the news media may have subsided somewhat since a special Defense Department panel issued a report on the subject of press coverage of military operations, the truce between the Pentagon and the press remains uneasy. 
Ċ
sodus point,
Aug 29, 2014, 7:40 AM