Activist Bill Scheidler accuses Washington State Bar of being a shadow government

Amended RICO     Left_Arrow  click to the left to review Bill Scheidler’s RICO complaint

Bill pic

Bill Scheidler, a great American!

Looks like another Washington resident is fed up with corruption inside the Washington State Bar Association’s “little gang of thieves” declares the Gold Bar Reporter.

Thank you Bill for standing up for what you believe in.  We need more great Americans like Bill Scheidler!

Bill Scheidler voted Gold Bar Reporters citizen for 2015!

award_of_excellence

 

Republished with permission of http://www.snocountyreporter.com

Ms Kamb is one of those rare lawyers that in spite of the fear of attack, destruction and retribution still chose to try to do what was right for her clients in spite of the costs.

She has fought an almost 20 yr battle in taking on the wife of one of the WSBA board of Governor’s spouses. She has paid for it dearly, but I am going to let her tell her story in her own words with no edits. If you have an elderly relative, or are involved with any type of Guardianship or Trustee issues I would ask that you pay very close attention to the following letter.

She is currently in jail as far as I know, and I would ask that anyone who has been defended or protected by her over the last 2 decades please speak up for her. She is all alone now.

To the Editor of the Skagit Valley Herald and to the good people of Skagit County:

This is the letter that will never be printed in the Skagit Valley Herald.  The Herald has written its story.  It was not the story that I would have written of course.  It is not even close to the story I would have written, but it is the story you, the citizens of Skagit County read on its pages.

Here is my letter to the Editor of the Skagit Valley Herald:

Not at any time have I been personally contacted before you published any of your stories regarding me and no one from your paper was in the courtroom the only time I have spoken.  I gave my story in an allocution statement.  It is on the record.  Reporting partial accounts or only what is handed to you as the full story gives the public a false impression.  Investigating matters appears to be no one’s strong suit.  Not the Skagit Valley Herald, not the Mount Vernon Police and not the WSBA.  All of which have a duty to investigate before acting.  By far a more compelling story would be why your newspaper was given this particular story and why you & I were given no exculpatory information that was clearly available to all of the investigating parties yet went unreported.

I KNOW that I may hold my head high because I know that unlike some I have always dealt squarely and forthrightly in my dealings with other lawyers as well as members of the bench and of the public.  In doing so I stepped on toes.  I called it like I saw it and when I heard untruths I called a few liars, the was especially prevalent in Skagit County’s Ex-Parte Court.  When I saw repeatedly, guardianships being filed by the same people, lawyers who are & were tenant’s of the hospital lawyer, and as a creditor the hospital filing guardianships that gave preferential treatment to the hospital lawyer’s tenants and specifically requesting that his wife be appointed by the Court as the Guardian ad Litem, I spoke out.

When that same Court appointed GAL did an extremely poor job, I spoke to her privately requesting that she specifically contact a health provider about the cancellation   of a much needed wheelchair for the alleged incapacitated person.  This GAL very flippantly told me not to tell her how to do her job and that her investigation was complete.  Even though I had just informed her that the woman’s care center had contacted me and needed this device to care for her properly.  At the time the only oversight was the Court.  Because of the GAL’s refusal to make this single telephone call a woman was left without support of a much needed medical device until her death.

The GAL’s job is to investigate and make recommendations to the Court.  In refusing to investigate this necessary medical device’s cancellation she failed in her duty.

In zealously representing my client as well as being a mandatory reporter, I was required by law to point out this GAL’s errors and the only place to report it to was the Skagit Valley Probate Court.  After which I was threatened by the GAL’s husband, the  hospital lawyer, a now sitting member of the WSBA Board of Governors, who between clenched teeth told me “You’ll be sorry for this Rosemary”  after I did what was required of me by law to do.  Report the abuse of an elder in jeopardy.  By pointing out the gross failure of duty by the Court appointed GAL in her inept investigation the full abuse of the power and authority of the Washington State Bar Association disciplinary system was focused upon me for nearly ten years.

To this day I stand by my assessment.  Now that very same GAL/wife, who did the worse report I read in over twenty years of practice, is in charge of overseeing complaints against GAL’s in three counties.  THREE COUNTIES!  Her own reports were questionable, yet now she is in charge of overseeing all GALs.  How does that happen?  Connections?  They know who they are.  They know what they have done.

I’ve never filed a phony bar complaint.

I’ve never gone behind anyone’s back by claiming to give NOTICE when I hadn’t.  I’ve never began a lawsuit against someone and failed to serve them to get a default judgment against them.  I’ve never had a default judgment entered when I knew the person was nearby and obviously could be served easily if service was attempted.  I’ve always gone straight to the person and I’ve always given others the opportunity to be heard.

I’ve never given false testimony or had illegal Ex-Parte Orders entered.

Twice I’ve had issues with an order.  The first time I had a problem with an order it came concurrent with a racially inspired conflict over an incident involving one of the co-director’s pushing and slapping my then ten year old son at play practice.  My son was acting in a local theatre company’s version of Peter Pan.  When my son who very much enjoyed acting and being chosen for a part told me he did not want to return to practice I discovered what had happened and personally went to the Director to specifically find out what led to the incident witnessed by a number of actors.  At the time this person apologized profusely and responded with all the politically correct sentiments but my son and I never felt welcomed again by that particular theatre group and for good reason, from then on we were hazed repeatedly by members of the cast and crew, invited and uninvited to cast parties, and I was 86’ed from backstage even though the job I had signed up to do from the beginning was to be the back stage gofer.  Not all of the cast but a good deal of you jumped on that band wagon.  You know who you are and you know what you did, and we know it too.

This Director and been appointed fairly recently as a Court Commission and it was his clerk who caused the problem with the order.  I clearly heard this man’s clerk tell me he had signed the order I had left earlier when ex-parte was overflowing.  I came back in the early afternoon, at which time I was told that the Commissioner had signed the oder .  When I asked for the original the clerk told me she had filed it in the Probate box at the Court Clerk’s office.  I conformed my copies and sent out the order to a local bank for action to be taken.  Late afternoon my office received a call from the Court Clerk indicating we had an order to be picked up.  This is when I discovered the order had not been signed and I immediately called and notified all parties.   At the time I was told it was an honest mistake.  Instead it became courthouse gossip.  Gossip over whether I had properly apologized to this Commissioner’s Clerk (who had told me that he had signed an order that had not in fact been signed.)  It amazed me because of the obvious distortions of the story to cover the backside of the person at the court.  They didn’t think I’d hear what was being said, and what was being said was far from the truth.  Instead she chose to lie and repeat that lie to anyone who would listen to her tale.  A lie that placed my reputation for honesty in question.

The second incident came when this same Commissioner who had abused my son, and who had either instructed his clerk to say he had signed an order or whose clerk didn’t bother to ask him and then assumed he would sign it and told me he did so she did not have to say she hadn’t presented it to him, who knows; but this same Commissioner in another guardianship matter failed to ask what a “qualified plan” was when I presented to him that this guardianship was only necessary to distribute a single qualified plan.  Instead this decision maker pretended to know what one was when I specifically asked if he understood the taxing consequences of withdrawing funds from a qualified planned.  Had he simply admitted to not knowing the consequences of taxing qualified plans much of my later ordeal would have been avoided, but if there is one thing that most lawyers will never do – is admit that they are ignorant.

Courthouse gossip, like any untrue statements spread distrust of people and situations.

We all are human so we all make mistakes.  Lawyers don’t like to be wrong.  Neither do Judges or those with the authority of Judges, like Commissioners.

I have found that honestly pointing out these things to some in authority causes you great harm.  This I do not believe should be happening in our courts.  Honest, hardworking people should be able to get to the truth without our elected officials egos getting involved.  Without their perceptions, rather than the facts, being the reason for their actions or inaction.  As officers of the Court we are to rise above the pettiness, but when big egos get bruised they tend to retaliate in ways that they find available.  Often that is at another’s expense.  Retaliation at my expense has been very far reaching.  Thinking that by bringing someone else down they will regain what they perceive they have lost, or at least puff them up again has no place in our Courts and needs to be rooted out by voters.  It is my hope that the voters of Skagit County heed the call.

Gossip is one of the tools bruised egos use to get their revenge and gossip is rampant in the Skagit County Court, and likely with many other courts as well.  However, when the powers that be allow courthouse gossip to flourish then everyone should be very aware that what they are doing can harm good honest hard working people.  Lying to cover up your own mistakes is just wrong, but doing it and then talking about people knowingly to put them in their place is maliciously passive aggressive, to knowingly harm another just  isn’t decent.  You know who you are.  You know what you have said and done.

Notice is a necessity under the law.  It is not at anyone’s discretion.  Entering default orders to force criminal proceedings where you know there was no criminal act is not only disgraceful but unconscionable by the bench.  Giving Notice to the Pioneer Board but not to me was an abuse of the power of your position and it is morally reprehensible that you would use your position to harm me because your ego got bruised when you butted into a guardianship matter that had never come before you.  Together you and the Commissioner conspired, assuming wrongdoing.  You were proven wrong in your perception.  You were given an opportunity to be heard and instead you conspired together to get me and you did.  It wasn’t enough to ruin my reputation, no that wasn’t enough for some of you.   So I’m gone.  I’m in jail.  You’ve made me appear to be what you are protecting.  There will be others to come after me who will not break under your bullying.  Others who are stronger than I am but like me will not compromise their principles or integrity just to avoid the wrath of a two-faced back stabbing witch.  There are other’s who won’t play the status quo ball either.  They are coming.  The good people of Skagit County need to know that there are honest, hardworking lawyers zealously representing them and making decisions, but that there are unconscionable, cold hearted, public employee parasites like you who should not be re-elected ever again due to your unethical use of the law and your blatant disregard for notice before you strike.  You cannot pretend to uphold the integrity of the legal system if you are one of the main problems.  You know who you are and you know what you have done.  Where is that story?

Signing arrest warrants without probable cause after being asked for nearly twenty years to recuse yourself from all matters regarding me is obviously bias. Then ordering search warrants after the plea just proves the police had nothing, there was no probable cause for any criminal complaint, just a regurgitation of WSBA’s partial investigation, (because all exculpatory information was withheld by the very same WSBA that refuses subpoenas while asking for me to waive my confidentiality instead; then when I do so they claim their own confidentiality in my file.  Tell me, does the WSBA have confidentiality when it is a self governing body?  I know that the bar’s Executive Director Paula Littlewood never once used the word “transparency” when answering one of UW’s first year law student’s question as to what exactly does self governing mean.

Obviously, self governing means never having to be accountable for the WSBA’s own errors, investigations, misrepresentations and Statements of Concern.)

But, getting back to the point raised above, You sir, the Judge who signed my arrest warrant, you are a liar and always have been since I first dealt with you on a 1994 Estate. You know who you are and it does not surprise me that while sitting on the bench you think everyone before you is a liar, because you were a liar before the bench.  It is unfortunate that the people of Skagit County who vote have not seen your real side as I have.  Let’s hope you never run unopposed again for re-election.

But then, you lied about my brother too, didn’t you.  You recanted your statement but only after he had been disbarred.

Then there is another ex-parte liar who used your same allocations against my brother almost word for word against me in that previously mentioned matter where the Commissioner’s clerk told me an order had been signed.  First this Sheriff’s daughter admitted that it was an honest mistake, in writing.  Yet then she takes my brother’s complaint almost word for word and has her client file a phony bar complaint against me believing no doubt that I would be disbarred too.   Did your client tell you that he was investigated by APS, I wonder?  You think that because I called you out in ex-parte for lying to the Court that you should harm me?  You were the liar.  Not me.  You and your client who I reported because I am a mandatory reporter of abuse to elders in jeopardy.  You who the court appoints as guardian yet you barely do your job, but always proactively collect your fee.  You aren’t fooling me.  There’s no doubt you can fool the WSBA , you have friends in high places.

I complained because a GAL wasn’t doing her job, but she was never investigated by the WSBA, I was.  Why, because she encouraged the complaint and I relied upon the WSBA to do their job investigating the matter.  Often I was told by the bar investigator that if  anything, ANYTHING BY ANYONE,  was found to be an action for disciplinary proceedings it would be thoroughly investigated and the party would be disciplined, yet this derelict wife of a WSBA crony was never investigated.  So how is the bar protecting the integrity of the judicial system?  I informed them and gave them the information which is in the Skagit Court files, but the WSBA never got the files.  Instead, the WSBA let one of the people I specifically told my investigator about be a bar custodian of papers and complaints.  Yes, someone specifically pointed out as conspiring to harm another lawyer by making false statements and by withholding information was put in charge of disciplinary files as custodian in the years my case was being heard.  Was that because the WSBA ignores some complaints that should be investigated while dismissing others who provide favors or is it because the WSBA also fails to adequately investigate and is therefore derelict in its duty to us all?  It certainly isn’t protecting the integrity of the system as it’s mission statement implies.

On another note, the attorney witness for the prosecution testifying to excessive fees certainly is the pot calling the kettle black when one of you knowingly testified my fees were excessive after you charged over sixty thousand dollars in less than six months on a referral I gave to your old firm.  When I called to discuss it with you I was told you were no longer with the firm but had opened your own firm which I called and was told you were on vacation in Italy.  Bearing false witness is a sin.  Being a graduate of a number of Catholic Schools* you know that too.  You know you are the true crook and you testified against me out of spite.  Shame, shame on you, here’s to Dante’s Inferno not being fiction.

Just because lengthy probates with exorbitant fees is the way Skagit County has always done it doesn’t mean it is the way it should be done.  I taught people they could do living trusts and avoid probate.  This empowered the people and took their private family matters out of a mandatory court setting.  That is what the Trust, once executed, says to do and is the law everywhere but apparently Skagit County.

Here instead of following what is written in the four corners of the trust document being the law, we have one ridiculous Judge who instead of using mediation as it is intended, goes around the trust to hire every beneficiary a mediator who is also a lawyer which defeats the purpose of the trust, stole from multiple charitable beneficiaries and is a violation and an abuse of the system.

Judges who make these type of decisions instead of honoring the four corners of the document are taking away the avoidance of probate designed in the revocable living trust and leaving the parties in the probate court where they never intended to be.  People beware.  This is happening here in Skagit County and it is only making some lawyers more wealthy and stealing from your estates.

I was the messenger, I tried to warn the powers that be and discovered that some of the powers that be like the way things have always been done.  The people they socialize with reap the benefits. Under TEDRA this Judge appoints a mediator to replace every lawyer and takes these trusts through probate.  That is wrong.  They know it is wrong and they are doing it anyway.

Know that if you have a revocable living trust that upon your death it becomes irrevocable and anyone who wants to go to court IS CONTESTING the basic nature and  autonomy of that trust.  Don’t fall for anyone telling you that they are just clarifying the document or language and talk you into taking your trust to Court under TEDRA; you are being deceived by your lawyer and by anyone sitting on the bench who signs such an order.

You know who you are.  I named you in my allocution.  Its only time before you will be seen for what you are and people will see what you have done.  You haven’t won, this is to be continued for the sake of all the residents of Skagit County and all the creators of trust documents.

I know what you have done, and are doing.  It is time the people of Skagit County know who you are and what you are doing.

Anyone else may think what they like, however, I would ask the people who have met me and dealt with me personally as well as those who worked with me and who used my services if what they have read in the newspapers, what was given to the newspapers by the WSBA and certain other sources about  what has transpired involving me with & in the courts; – Does this at all go with your idea of the person that YOU know me to be?  The person who once had a stellar reputation, the one who sat across from you, spoke with you, counseled you, went to school with or picked strawberries or dug bulbs or waited tables with?

If it doesn’t then ask yourself,  WHY?.   There is a story here and it isn’t me.

Respectfully,
Rosemary Kamb
Always a lawyer just formally licensed.

More RICO allegations against the WA State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel

UPDATE:  Washington State Bar attorney Linda Eide EXPOSED for gross civil rights violations of persons over 40 and disabled.

Linda Eide sued under RICO, 1983 and Anti Trust violations

See http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=240270&sid=55E6&ext=PDF&lcl=block-v-WSBA-RICO.pdf&usr=SkyValleyNews&doc=294503385&key=key-GqDGvN4pGjxOWy5LnziT


COMES NOW Appellant ALAN F. HALL, by and through ALAN F. HALL, Pro Se and submits this Pro Se brief pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Sui Generis Jurisdiction.

My name is Alan F. Hall. I am the Petitioner in the captioned matter. I am also a lawyer who has been practicing law in Washington State since 1974. I am 70 years old.

The first 25 years of my practice centered in litigation. As a litigator I have approximately 40 trials to my credit. Most of those trials occurred in King County Superior Court and Snohomish County Superior Court. The cases in those courts of general jurisdiction were before juries. I also have four reported cases at the appellate level the most notable of which established the current ruling on landlord/tenant law in Washington State. (Muci v. Graoch)

As a litigator in Washington State’s Superior Courts I experienced the importance of court rules, how they apply to both sides of a case and the consequences of when a participant does not follow those rules. A litigator can do damage to himself, his client and our system of jurisprudence without strict compliance.

I respected this system very much and found I could successfully operate within it.

Then, around 2002, I was confronted with a grievance against me   and I became intimate with the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules relating to lawyer discipline. That is not to say I was not familiar with them before this event. It is that a grievance makes you want to reexamine them. I also reviewed the oath I took upon being admitted to the practice of law.

I did a little more digging on these issues and found that the Washington State Supreme Court is the branch of our State government that is responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules of Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct and indirectly our oath as attorneys. Those rules were created by the Supreme Court pursuant to legislative authority from another branch of our government, the Washington State Legislature.

I also learned that the scheme of jurisdictional procedure that the Supreme Court imposes on the discipline of lawyers is called Sui Generis. Black’s Law Dictionary (1968 edition) defines Sui Generis: “Of its own kind or class, i.e., the only one of its own kind, peculiar.”

At this stage of my quest to learn more about the process of disciplining lawyers in Washington state, I felt comfortable with the system. After all, doctors are regulated; dentists are regulated, as are the police.

But then an interesting thing happened. I learned how the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the enforcement arm of the Supreme Court, defines sui generis and I did not like it. If fact I found it frightening as a threat to our democracy, disingenuous, unfair and likely to promote a cadre of minions capable of staffing potential governmental enforcement agencies capable of doing great harm to our democracy.

Respectfully, the history of enforcement agencies is replete with similar phenomenon of Sui Generis at various stages of development that compare with the stage of development that our Sui Generis system is now in. One has to look no further than pre WW II Germany. If you want to see how a fifth stage Sui Generis system operates watch the Movie Sophie Scholl one of the most famous members of the German World War II anti Nazi resistance movement, The White Rose. Pay close attention to how the lawyers behave in that movie.

Very harsh words, but they are carefully chosen particularly after my substantial observations stemming from two Washington State Bar Association ODC hearings on grievances filed against me. In fact I would say the referenced post 1933 Weimar Republic Germany model only differs from the Washington State’s Supreme Court’s Sui Generis system in that the Washington State’s Sui Generis system does not allow for torture and execution. Yet.

I make these bold statements on observed verifiable and well documented facts.

The first hearing in which I was involved the Grievant was represented by her personal attorney Elizabeth Turner Smith. The problem was that Ms. Smith was either applying for employment with the ODC or working for the ODC at the same time she was representing the Grievant. I learned about this half way through the hearing and did not know what to make of it at the time. Then I thought about it after the fact and believed it to be a clear violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine and the RPCs relating to conflict of interest and candor to the Court. If Ms. Smith was applying for a job with the ODC, then how could she possibly make impartial decisions relating to her client?

It occurred to me she was using her representation of the grievant as part of her job application with the ODC. And the ODC was condoning her violation of rules relating to conflict of interest. She should have told the hearing officer of her status with the ODC.

I also learned that my insurance company would mediate the claim the grievant had but that if I pled guilty to the grievance I would lose coverage. So the Bar Association offered to mediate this case but Ms. Smith refused. Was she acting in the best interest of her client or was she continuing her job application?

I was found to have violated the rule relating to diligence. And in fact my diligence had cost my client $10,000. An honest mistake that I would have admitted to if I would not lose coverage. I was paying approximately $500 per month for coverage. I maintained coverage for my entire career. So, instead of settling this case, Ms. Smith choose to go thru three days of hearing with her client, use the resources of the Bar Association and waste my time.

My response to this was to file a complaint against Ms. Smith. She replied on Bar Association letter head. You can guess how that turned out.

I claimed she had violated the RPC rule requiring ODC lawyers to act in good faith. At one time there was a rule that stated ODC lawyers had to act in good faith. I learned that the ODC had that language removed from the rule without any hearing.

That event caused me great stress to think that a State Supreme Court authorized agency could violate their own rules like that and get away with it. Further it appears they can modify the RPC rules to suit their own behavior without a hearing.

One positive was that I began to learn what the Office of Defense Counsel’s definition of Sui Generis was.

But there was more.

A grievance was filed against me in 2010. The ODC sat on the issues for about 5 months. I called and asked for my files back. They had asked for the original documents when the grievance was filed and, in writing, promised to return them upon request.

I called up and asked for the files back and was told by Francesca D’Angelo, an attorney with the ODC, that I would be lucky if I got a copy of them back. At this point I had been paying dues into this organization for approximately 38 years. I expected more professionalism.

And so the definition of Sui Generis starts to flesh out.

The grievance that was filed against me is the subject of the captioned petition. By that point both of my clients had passed away and, interestingly, the ODC never statementized them.

During the first hearing I began to get an in depth observation of the ODC Sui Generis.

  1. The ODC has access to volunteer lawyers. I did not.
  2. The ODC has access to volunteer experts. I did not.
  3. I requested the hearing officer to allow me access to the volunteer experts so that I could find an expert. Denied.
  4. The Hearing Officer on oral spontaneous motion grated ODC’s motion to prevent any of my testimony of my relationship with the grievant based on the dead man’s statute. This was overturned in the second hearing.
  5. I tried to hire counsel. They all wanted $350 per hour. I could not afford that.
  6. Randolph Petgrave was the Hearing Officer. He should have recused himself because his father and I were friends from college. I asked him to do this in the first trial. He refused.            In fact, Mr. Petgrave the elder coincidently was nominated to be the hearing officer in my first grievance. He recused himself.

Whatever Petgrave the younger is, he is not a jurist.

  1. The ODC has institutional knowledge as to the proclivity of the hearing officers. Are they plaintiff oriented or defense oriented? This is vitally important information. Lawyers do not have access to that information.

The whole sui generis thing was turning into a farce.

I learned that I could have a lawyer appointed for me if I could not represent myself. As that point what choice did I have?

Even then Sui Generis gets more farcical.

At the second hearing I had counsel. He was intimately tied to the Bar Association. In fact as far as I know the Bar Association is his only source of income

  1. My lawyer tells me that the volunteer expert for the state is lawyer Barbara Isenhower. He further tells me that her husband is John Strait an ethics professor at one of the local law schools. I also learn that Barbara and her ethics professor husband want to use my case, assuming I am found guilty, in Mr. Strait’s ethics class.
  2. The Will and the Trust agreement admitted into evidence name Nancy Caputo, the grievant’s niece as contingent beneficiary of an estate worth about $400,000. It also comes out that the client’s ex-wife, Linda Orf, the one who files the grievance, through the help of Jamie Clausen ends up with every penny of the estate pursuant to Jamie Clausen’s legal work. Ms. Clausen names herself as Trust Protector which is exactly what she claims I did in my documents.
  3. Jamie Clausen testifies. But there is no testimony from Lind Orf, or any affidavits from the clients. In fact the grievance is not even entered into evidence. That is because it was filed by Linda Orf.
  4. The Hearing Officer finds that my testimony is not credible even though the ODC never put my credibility in issue.
  5. ER Rule 608 governs the procedure for attacking credibility. It was not followed by the ODC or the Hearing Officer. In fact the highly respected research tool BING responds vary favorably to the query: “How to impeach witness’s credibility before an administrative agency?” The internet tome on impeaching credibility is found in

E-How and the article is “How to Challenge Witness Credibility before MSPB.” Therein lies the step by step process for impeaching credibility before any agency including the ODC. Again Mr. Petgrave’s reasoning is unsupported by any legally recognized rule relating to this issue.

In a word what I observed was a genetic mutation in the fabric of our democracy, our judicial system and our constitution. The Washington State Supreme Court’s Sui Generis system has the potential to spread into a very destructive cancer and apoptosis is in order.

Conclusion:

There is a very compelling saying: “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” Sui Generis as it is practiced by the Washington State Bar Association should be removed. But that is not enough.

Lawyers must organize. The police have a guild, why can’t lawyers? Right now they have the highest rate of suicides amongst any profession. They are easy targets for any malcontent client and of course sole practitioners are the low hanging fruit of choice for the ODC. Further, lawyers are losing ground in the fields that they can practice in.

As I mentioned I am 70 years old. I do not want to get suspended or disbarred. Yet at my age what the hell difference does it make?

What I am most concerned about is our democracy. I am equally concerned about the younger lawyers. In fact I think they have a good cause of action against their so called ethics professors for not teaching Sui Generis in law schools. I suspect if potential law students were told about Sui Generis they would not want to even go to law school.

I wouldn’t.

I request that you think about it. Imagine yourself as a beginning lawyer, you are married and maybe have a child or two. Then you are confronted by Sui Generis. If you are reprimanded your reputation is ruined forever. It is just too easy for the ODC to win and bully you into submission.

Finally, it is noted I am on non-disciplinary suspension and have been for approximately three years even though the ODC stipulated I could continue to practice during the course of this Sui Generis process.

As soon as I went on non-disciplinary suspension the Bar Association stripped me of my Bar membership without any hearing. I no longer had access to the Bar News or research facilities that I had paid dues for 38 years to support. This greatly hindered my effort to do research and keep up on lawyer news that might have been helpful to my case.

Because of all this I believe that there should be an innocence project. I suggest that any lawyer either living or dead who as ever been admonished, reprimanded of disbarred have their case reviewed. If they were not afforded adequate representation or were subject to abuses spelled out herein, then the decision should be reversed.

One final observation: The ODC lawyer handling the opposition to my appeal, Scott Busby, continues to mislead the tribunal. He claims I was being paid to $2,000 per quarter to administer a Trust with only $49.00 dollars in it. This is totally false and misleading. All one has to do is read the Trust to find out what my very substantial duties were.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS        day of _______ 2014.
By_______________________________________

Alan F. Hall JD

cc. Individual Members of the Board of Governors, WSBA


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ___ day of February, 2015, I caused to be served a true copy of the foregoing petitioner’s pro se brief by the method indicated below, and addressed to each of the following:

Allison Sato Clerk of the Disciplinary Board Washington State Bar Association 1325 Fourth Avenue – Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98101-2539 £ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail £ Telecopy
Francesca D’Angelo

Disciplinary Counsel

Washington State Bar Association

1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 90101-2539

£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail £ Telecopy
Scott G. Busby ( another piece of shit from WSBA ODC)

Washington State Bar Association

1325 4th Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 98101-2539

£ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail:   £ Telecopy:   206-682-2305
Randolph O. Petgrave Petgrave & Petgrave PLLC P.O. Box 4142 100 S King St Ste 405 Seattle, WA 98104-2817 £ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid £ Hand Delivered £ Overnight Mail £ E-mail:   randgrave@msn.com £ Telecopy:   206-583-0422

                                                                        Stephen C. Smith

%d bloggers like this: