IN THE SUPREME COURT

FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

ROBERT R. PARKER, JR., )

) Supreme Court Case No.
Plaintiff, )
)
v )
)
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE )
COMMISSION, )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

JURISDICTION:

1.

This Petition is presented as an Original Action in the Supreme Court pursuant to MCR

7.304 as provided for by MCR 9.122(A) (2), to request this Court to exercise its Power of

Superintending Control over the Attorney Grievance Commission for its failure and/or

refusal to conduct an investigation pursuant to the properly filed Request For

Investigation by Plaintiff.

2.

That the final decision of the Attorney Grievance Commission, dated December 7, 2007,

is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A”. The foregoing

was in response to Plaintiff’s response of October 8, 2007 to the October 3, 2007 letter

from Associate Counsel Nancy Albers (both of which are attached hereto and

incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits “B” and “C” respectively).

1 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

 3.

This Complaint is filed within 28 days of the final determination of the Attorney

Grievance Commission.

FACTS:

ALLEGATIONS AGAINT THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION:

4.

Plaintiff presented a properly notarized “request for investigation” to the Attorney

Grievance Commission, requesting an investigation into the misconduct of Attorney

General Michael Cox, Assistant Attorney General Jessica Weiler and Jennie Barkey, who

had previously served as the Friend of the Court in Genesee County (see Exhibit “D”

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

5.

The request for investigation made several allegations of misconduct and multiple

violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct against the aforementioned

members of the State Bar of Michigan including, but not limited to (1) the perpetration of

a “fraud upon the court” by filing an indictment alleging the existence of a Court Order

when no such Court Order existed (2) in order to facilitate filing of a criminal felony

offense (3) against a person whose conduct did not violate the law and (4) was time

barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (the official Court Order of Support

expired in July, 1994) and (5) a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan

and United States Constitution; and (6) Several violations of MRPC 3.1; 3.3; 3.4 and 3.5.

2 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

 6.

That Plaintiff received a letter from Associate Counsel Nancy Albers, requesting

additional information relative to the allegations, even though the letter indicated that

Plaintiff had complied with their rules for submitting a Request For Investigation (see

Exhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

7.

That even though Plaintiff had complied with the rules of the Administrator, he still,

nonetheless, responded to the foregoing request for additional information on or about

September 11, 2007 by providing additional documentation and evidence which further

demonstrated the misconduct of the aforementioned attorneys (See Exhibit “F” attached

hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

8.

That the Attorney Grievance Commission failed, upon information and belief, to conduct

a fair and impartial preliminary investigation into the allegations of misconduct and/or

failed to serve a copy of same on the respondent attorneys, outlined in the request for

investigation and supporting documentation adduced in support of the request for

investigation in contravention of MCR 9.112(C), and MCR 9.112(C)(1)(b).

9.

That the Attorney Grievance Commission, upon information and belief, did not require

the attorneys complained of to submit responses to the allegations contained in the

request for investigation as contemplated by MCR 9.113(A).

3 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

 10.

That the Attorney Grievance Commission held Plaintiff to a higher standard of proof in

its multiple requests for additional information and documentation from Plaintiff while

failing to request any responses from the attorneys complained of in the request for

investigation and/or the Administrator failed to provide any responses from respondent

attorneys with the Plaintiff as contemplated by MCR 9.113(A), or, in the alternative, the

Administrator wholly failed to apprise Plaintiff that he was withholding respondent’s

responses and/or documentation that may have been submitted by the respondent

attorneys as contemplated by MCR 9.113(A).

11.

That the Attorney Grievance Commission has demonstrated an institutional reluctance to

investigate complaints, against members of the bar who occupy positions of political

power or elective office that are white, as against complaints by people of color, such as

Plaintiff nor does the Attorney Grievance Commission accord the same degree of

seriousness to allegations from complainants of color against members of the bar who

occupy positions of power, influence or elective office who are white.

12.

That the allegations made against the aforementioned members of the State Bar of

Michigan are worthy of a full, fair and impartial investigation of the facts, circumstances

and evidence without institutional obstructions by the Attorney Grievance Commission.

This institutional reticence is evidenced by the refusal to conduct a full, fair and impartial

investigation of the allegations of misconduct asserted herein while compelling

information and documentation far in excess of what was contemplated to justify

4 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

initiation of an investigation by the Attorney Grievance Commission. Additionally, in

the letters of October 3, 2007 and December 7, 2007, both of the Associate Counsel for

the Commission appears to have overlooked the documentation relative to the statute of

limitations issue in an attempt to cover up the obvious fact that the statute of limitations

issue was known to the Respondent Attorneys as early as October 23, 2000. This was

clearly pointed out in the Transcript of the Hearing before Judge Duncan Beagle (See

Exhibit “G” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). It should be pointed

out here, that the six (6) year statute of limitations for a prosecution under MCL 750.165

had expired in July, 2000 which would have been the 6th year from the 1994 expiration of

the Court Order for support entered in 1978.

13.

That the conduct complained of the attorneys named in the request for investigation

violate MRC 9.104(1) thru (6). Nothing short of a full, fair and impartial investigation

into the facts, circumstances and evidence of their misconduct will purge the taint of bias

by the Attorney Grievance Commission in favor of the Respondent Attorneys evidenced

by the cursory review of the documentation provided by Plaintiff and the failure of the

Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate a request that complied with their rules.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL COX,

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JESSICA WEILER

ATTORNEY JENNIE M. BARKEY:

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation made to the

Attorney Grievance Commission in the initial Request for Investigation and all

other communication, documentation and/or evidence submitted in support of same,

5 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

inclusive, but not exhaustive of Exhibits (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) and (G), attached to

this Complaint herein; and further complains of the failure of the Attorney

Grievance Commission to investigate the Respondent Attorneys, Cox, Weiler and

Barkey, as follows:

14.

That Jessica Weiler, with the full consent, approval and ratification of Michael Cox, in

conjunction with, and the active participation of, Jennie Barkey conspired together to

bring the underlying criminal case against the Plaintiff pursuant to MCL 750.165 as

amended in 1999 even though the 1978 Court Order expired in1994, a full five (5) years

before the enactment of the amended measure. A clear Ex Post Facto violation that was

ignored, on purpose, by the Respondent Attorneys in this matter. This conduct violates

MCR 9.104(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6).

15.

That despite the fact that the 1978 Court Order had expired in 1994 and no current order

of support was in effect, Attorneys Weiler (with the consent and authorization of AG

Cox) and Barkey concocted a series of lies and misrepresentations of fact culminating in

the perpetration of a fraud upon the Court by swearing, under oath, that a crime had been

committed by Plaintiff and that 2004 Court of Appeals Case Law precedent governed the

criminal case against the Plaintiff even though judicial ex post facto decisions are

unconstitutional in this state as violating due process. The foregoing conduct violates

MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6).

6 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

 16.

That the issuance of a felony indictment and warrant issued by the 68th District Court

charging Plaintiff with a felony constituted an intentionally malicious abuse of

prosecutorial discretion where there was no Court Order in existence compelling Plaintiff

to pay any amount, at any time, on behalf of any minor child and said attorney

respondents, Cox, Weiler and Barkey, knew this at the time that they implemented their

nefarious scheme to intentionally violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional and Civil Rights See

Exhibit “H” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). This conduct violates

MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6).

17.

That Respondents COX, WEILER and BARKEY caused the interdiction of Plaintiff’s

Pass Port even though Plaintiff was not over the threshold amount for passport

interdiction, took $15,000 ostensibly for back support, the collection of which was barred

by (1) the applicable statute of limitations and (2) equitable exoneration due to the 18

years of wrongful deprivation of visitation by the custodial parent. The taking of

Plaintiff’s money, which Respondent Attorneys were not authorized by law to take,

constitutes an unlawful taking also known as theft under Michigan law. While the

criminal conviction has been reversed since November, 2006, the Respondent Attorneys

have failed to return the $15,000 wrongfully taken and they have not removed Plaintiff’s

name from the Pass Port Interdiction list submitted to the U.S. Secretary of State. This

conduct violates MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) and (6).

7 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

 18.

The threat of taking money prior to and during the pre-trial phases of the case, constitute

extortion as the threat of criminal prosecution, was then ongoing, during which numerous

efforts were made by Respondent COX, through Respondent WEILER to have Plaintiff’s

bond revoked and/or restricted in a further effort to extort money from Plaintiff under the

guise of a criminal case that was premised on Respondent Attorneys WEILER, BARKEY

and COX defrauding the court. This conduct violates MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5)

and (6).

19.

That Respondent, Michael Cox, has total and complete supervisory oversight of

Respondent Jessica Weiler. However, upon information and belief, Respondent Cox

intentionally abdicated his role to properly supervise Jessica Weiler and/or consented to,

authorized and otherwise ratified her actions and those of her superiors in the Child

Support Enforcement Division of the Attorney General’s office because of his desire to

compile an impressive record for political purposes and acquisition of additional Title IV-

D money from Congress. This conduct violates MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3) and (4).

20.

That the manner in which the Confession of Error was handled by Attorney General

Michael Cox suggests that there was an interminable delay in the outcome that, upon

information and belief, was intentionally orchestrated, by or on behalf of, Respondent

COX, in order to provide an undue advantage to Respondent Cox during his re-election

campaign for the office of Attorney General, to Plaintiff’s detriment occasioned by the

8 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

delay (See Exhibit “I” (1) thru (5) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference).

This conduct violates MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2) and (3).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court:

(1) To exercise its Power of Superintending Control; and

(2) To compel the Attorney Grievance Commission to conduct a full, fair and impartial

investigation of the facts, circumstances and evidence in support of the allegations of

misconduct asserted against the afore-named members of the State Bar of Michigan; and

(3) That it do so without respect to the political office that the respondents may hold or

the race of the complainant and/or the race of the attorneys complained of; and

(4) Order the attorneys complained of herein to file their response, under oath, to the

allegations contained in the Request for Investigation; and

(5) That the investigatory and hearings process take place according to law and the

recommendation for any discipline be properly recorded; and

(6) That this Court appoint a Special Master to investigate the allegations against the

Attorney Grievance Commission relative to paragraph 11 herein; and

(7) Order the Attorney Grievance Commission to SHOW CAUSE why the relief

requested herein should not be granted.

DATED this 27th Day of December, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.
Plaintiff, Pro Per
195 Morton Walk Drive
Alpharetta, Georgia 30022
213-798-8095
Robertparker777@yahoo.com

9 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL

 AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Robert R. Parker, Jr., do hereby swear and certify, under oath, that I served a copy of
the foregoing Complaint for Superintending Control, Affidavit for Waiver of Fees and
Costs and Notice of Hearing, upon the following persons so entitled to same; to wit:

Attorney Grievance Commission

Marquette Building
243 W. Congress, Suite 256
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Michael Cox, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General
G. Mennen Williams Bldg.
7th Floor
525 W. Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48909

Jessica Weiler, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General
G. Mennen Williams Bldg.
5th Floor
Lansing, Michigan 48909

The Honorable Jennie Barkey

Genesee County Probate Court
Genesee County Courthouse
900 S. Saginaw Street
Flint, Michigan 48502

By placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted herein, having adequate

postage prepaid and affixed thereto and depositing same in the United States Post Office
located in Alpharetta, Georgia on this the 27th day of December, 2007.

______________________
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this 27th day of December, 2007.

______________________
Notary Public for Georgia
My Commission Expires: _______

10 COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL