Appealing the Case
After filing this case the Federal Court dismissed it on a technicality and they were wrong about it. I think they just wanted to get rid of it. It's likely that the Eight Circuit Court will want to get rid of it too. After all, if I won this case it could be a serious step forward towards putting the rights of people ahead of lawyers. And they aren't going to just let that happen.
JURISDICTION
------------
This is an appeal of a case that was decided in United States District
Court Western District of Missouri.
STATEMENT OF THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE
-------------------------------------------
I filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Counsel against two attorneys.
Upon receiving the complaint I was informed that the Counsel would not
review my complaint because it is their office procedure that they will
not hear complaints against attorneys while a case is still pending.
The legal system is self regulating and there is nothing to prevent
attorneys from breaking the rules except for the Disciplinary Counsel.
This office procedure allows attorneys to break the rules without any
procedure for recourse by a citizen while a case is pending. It is
saying that an attorney can not be disciplined while he is in the act of
breaking the rules, but only after he has finished breaking the rules
and the damage is done.
This office procedure violates the equal protection clause of the 14th
amendment of the Constitution. It is also in direct violation of the
preamble of Supreme Court Rule 4 which states as follows:
"The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it special
responsibilities of self government. The profession has a
responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the
public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or
self-interested concerns of the bar."
Clearly, this rule states that the interests of the public takes
precedence over the self-interested concerns of attorneys. It is my
position that this office procedure puts the self-interest of the bar
ahead of the interests of the citizens whom the court system is supposed
to serve, and therefore violates my civil rights.
Note: I'm not coming before the Court to argue the merits of my
complaint against the lawfirm. My position is that I don't have the
opportunity to argue any complaint regardless of the merits.
Relief:
1) I want the Court to order the Supreme Court of Missouri,
Disciplinary Counsel, to overturn this office procedure.
2) I want the Court to order an investigation into all procedures of
the Disciplinary Counsel to determine if they are in compliance with
the spirit of the preamble of Supreme Court Rule 4 and the equal
protection clause of Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution.
REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION TO APPEAL
----------------------------------------
This case was dismissed on the basis of not having stated a claim for
which relief can be granted. In his decision, Judge Smith states as
follows:
"Equal protection of the laws is not denied by a statute if all
persons subject to it are treated alike under similar circumstances
or conditions. . ." Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939). Thus in
order to state a claim for violation of the equal protection clause,
plaintiff must show that either he or a class of persons of which he
is a member is treated differently than others similarly situated."
Judge Smith then correctly states and I admit that I am being treated no
differently than all other people who would bring a similar complaint.
However, Judge Smith made an error in assuming that I comparing my
rights to others filing similar complaints.
Had I been given the opportunity to be heard in court, I would have
corrected the court on it's misunderstanding of this issue. However,
since I was not permitted to make oral arguments, I was not able to
present my case.
In this case there are two classes of people, lawyers and non-lawyers.
Under the law, everyone else is responsible for their conduct or
misconduct. However lawyers and judges have special rights an immunities
and are governed under the rules of the bar. One of these rules is in
the preamble of Supreme Court Rule four which states:
"The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it special
responsibilities of self government. The profession has a
responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the
public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or
self-interested concerns of the bar."
To put it simply, the office procedure that I am asking the court to
overturn gives lawyers absolute immunity from any form of disciplinary
action during the time that a case is open. This rule does not take into
account the merits of the complaint.
It is my contention that there is no other class of people, other than
lawyers, that enjoy this level of protection. In fact, it was ruled in
federal court that not even the President of the United States is immune
from legal action while in office (Paula Jones case). Why then should
lawyers enjoy a higher level of immunity than the President?
Therefore, if lawyers enjoy enhanced protection it logically follows
that non-lawyers, the class of people for which I belong, are being
discriminated against and do not enjoy equal protection under the 14th
amendment.
Judge Smith correctly stated that I have no right to have my complaint
investigated. In fact, I made it clear that I did not expect such a
right. However, in the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Defendant
admits:
"The only right that the Plaintiff has is the right to complain to
the Defendant."
My right to complain to the Defendant is the right that is being
violated by the office procedure that I am asking the court to overturn.
Also at issue here is a question about the impartiality of the court. I
am a non-lawyer who is bringing a suit dealing with the rights of
lawyers and judges in a court system that is controlled by lawyers and
judges. It raises the question as to if the court is capable of
providing me with a fair and impartial hearing at all, let alone make a
summary judgement against me without at least giving me the opportunity
to make oral arguments.
As I see it, there is an inherent conflict of interest for judges to
determine their own disciplinary procedures which I believe was the
inspiration for the preamble to Supreme Court Rule 4 regarding the
"special responsibilities of self government". To me this statement in
the preamble was like a "message in a bottle" to give a citizen like
myself the standing to bring suit to defend the public interest against
the self interests of the bar. It is my belief that this preamble was
intended to empower me to bring this kind of suit and to compel the
court to hear it.
Because of this unavoidable conflict of interest, it would seem that the
Court should take extra measures to ensure that challenges like this one
are given special consideration to avoid the appearance of impropriety
and bias by the Court. My case has a lot more substance than a lot of
cases that the Federal Court allows to be heard, and for my case to be
dismissed without a hearing creates the appearance that the Court is
self-serving.
To summarize my positions:
1) My 14th Amendment rights are being violated because I am a member
of an inferior class of people known as non-lawyers who have no
recourse against a superior class of people known as lawyers.
2) The merits of my complaint that I filed with the bar is not
relevant. The fact that I can not file a complaint that has merit
with the bar is the relevant issue.
3) The question as to if lawyers should enjoy greater immunity from
prosecution than the President of the United States is
legitimately arguable and merits the attention of the court.
4) Because of the inherent conflict of interest, the court is
obligated to take extreme measures to ensure that this issue gets
a fair an impartial hearing.
5) The preamble to Supreme Court Rule 4 gives me the standing to
bring this action.
6) I am directly affected by this office procedure because I have a
complaint to file that the bar will not hear.
Suit
- Suit I filed in Federal Court.
Brief
- Brief I filed with the Court
|
Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.
