Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
superintendingcontrol[1]

superintendingcontrol[1]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 332|Likes:
Published by JOEMAFLAGE

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: JOEMAFLAGE on May 21, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE SUPREME COURTFOR THE STATE OF MICHIGANROBERT R. PARKER, JR.,))Supreme Court Case No.Plaintiff,))v))MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE)COMMISSION,))Defendant.)COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF SUPERINTENDING CONTROLJURISDICTION: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 foregoingwas 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 andincorporated herein by reference as Exhibits “B” and “C” respectively).
COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL
1
 
3.
This Complaint is filed within 28 days of the final determination of the AttorneyGrievance Commission.
FACTS:ALLEGATIONS AGAINT THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION:4.
Plaintiff presented a properly notarized “request for investigation” to the AttorneyGrievance Commission, requesting an investigation into the misconduct of AttorneyGeneral Michael Cox, Assistant Attorney General Jessica Weiler and Jennie Barkey, whohad 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 multipleviolations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct against the aforementionedmembers 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 felonyoffense (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 Supportexpired in July, 1994) and (5) a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michiganand United States Constitution; and (6) Several violations of MRPC 3.1; 3.3; 3.4 and 3.5.
COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL
2
 
6.
That Plaintiff received a letter from Associate Counsel Nancy Albers, requestingadditional information relative to the allegations, even though the letter indicated thatPlaintiff had complied with their rules for submitting a Request For Investigation (seeExhibit “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 aboutSeptember 11, 2007 by providing additional documentation and evidence which further demonstrated the misconduct of the aforementioned attorneys (See Exhibit “F” attachedhereto and incorporated herein by reference).
8.
That the Attorney Grievance Commission failed, upon information and belief, to conducta 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 requirethe attorneys complained of to submit responses to the allegations contained in therequest for investigation as contemplated by MCR 9.113(A).
COMPLAINT FOR SUPERINTENDING CONTROL
3

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->