IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ROBERT R. PARKER, JR.

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

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 IVD 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful