On another Subject: Wildfire!

I put the picture in the heading above while the Mariners and Milwaukee were still battling it out (there is nothing quite a pleasing to my 72-year-old  body than to watch pitchers play a game of baseball).  Mil 7, Sea 6.  And then later in the day I listened to the news and found, sure enough on this dry, fairly hot, windy day I a year when the native plants on the prairie, and the low lands are three times their normal size, about 5 pm there were three fires in and about Spokane.  Later, as I drove out to the yet to be used airport technology park, a significant, amount of smoke was coming from yet another fire today.  The smoke told that the fire was burning north of Deep Creek on US 2.
Such events put into perspective other events.

 

Posted in On Another Subject, Wildfire | Tagged , | Comments Off on On another Subject: Wildfire!

ABA Law School Accreditation Authority Questioned

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity  of the Department of Education.  See this discription of the NACIQI

The Post in Findlaw NACIQI: ABA Is out of Touch and Should Lose Accreditation Power  says that the ABA accredition power is being questioned.  Some say the ABA is out of touch with the times.

The transcript can be found at this link

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred, Uncategorized | Comments Off on ABA Law School Accreditation Authority Questioned

Are Bar Association Lawyer Discipline Systems Rigged?

A article in appearing on August 3, 2016, in the Find Law Blog raises the question in Peeping Tom Lawyer Faces Disbarment. Is the System Rigged? The author Jonathan Tung, a lawyer, writes

It’s a matter of perspective, of course, but lawyers facing ethics issues have frequently observed that the ethics process is extremely one sided. At risk of sounding like Donald Trump, we have to ask, is this system rigged?

The bar report can be found at this link.

One of the ways to rig the discipline system is to have the bar association fill all of the positions in the system.  See this Motion to Dismiss Disciplinary Proceedings.

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on Are Bar Association Lawyer Discipline Systems Rigged?

WSBA v. Eugster VI — Motion to Dismiss

Today I filed a motion to dismiss the action against me.  I assert that the proceedings are void because they violate my rights to procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Wash. Const. Art I, Section 3.  A proceeding which violates fundamental procedural due process rights is void under Washington law.

Motion to Dismiss

The motion to dismiss is also a response to the WSBA’s Motion to Strike.  More on this later.

 

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on WSBA v. Eugster VI — Motion to Dismiss

Future of the WSBA: A Voluntary Washington Bar Association

The future WSBA will become, will have to become, an entity which can no longer compel Washington Lawyers to be members and pay dues.  It will become voluntary.  One of its activities will be the continuation the WSBA’s Continuing Education Function.

As it confronts this possibility, this necessity, one needs only look at how much costs privately for a lawyer to gain CLE credit in certain areas of the law.  Today, I received a advertisement of a private CLE entity regarding the Columbia River.

I cannot imagine a lawyer who would not like to know about the law and the Columbia River.  A private continuing education entity charges $525.00 for a CLE on the Columbia River for one day.  See http://www.theseminargroup.net/seminardetl.aspx?id=16.rivWA.  One would estimate more than one/half of the today’s  compelled members of the WSBA cannot afford such an expense.

The future WSBA could do so, could provide a Columbia River CLE,  and at much cheaper cost and with much more legal and practical teaching.  Imagine, a bar association energetically putting on a major legal and publicly important Continuing Education Course.  A Columbia River (Washington State Bar (a new bar association) for Washington’s lawyers).

Washington lawyers need only have the courage to establish a free Washington Bar Association.

 

Posted in The Washington Bar Association | Comments Off on Future of the WSBA: A Voluntary Washington Bar Association

Case VI – WSBA v. Eugster, an update

Much has happened regarding Case VI.  The WSBA has filed charges against Eugster; this is the “Formal Complaint.”

Eugster has responded with his Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter and Third-Party Claims together with an appendix which includes the Counter and Third-Party Claims.

Why the Counter Claims?  Recall that in Case IV, Eugster v. WSBA et al., the Superior Court trial judge, Sam Cozza, dismissed the case (a Civil Rights section 1983 case) on the basis that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction.  Well, “who does.” You might ask.  You might say the Superior Court has original jurisdiction in all cases, in equity and in law.  Wash. Const. Art. IV, Section 6. Judge Cozza did not see it that way.  His conclusion was that the WSBA Lawyer Discipline System has original jurisdiction in all cases where a lawyer is suing the WSBA.

Needless to say, this came as quite a surprise.  Maybe my briefing was not clear.

In any event, the case has been appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division III.  The Opening Brief has been filed.  It can be found here –  016_06_17_Brief_of_Appellant.

 

Posted in Case V, Eugster Case History, WSBA v. Eugster | Comments Off on Case VI – WSBA v. Eugster, an update

Case V, Eugster v. Littlewood (WAED), dismissed

District Court Judge Thomas Rice dismissed Eugster’s case based on res judicata.  The judge said that Case IV which is the state court case regarding claims that the WSBA Discipline System violates constitutional rights was dismissed with prejudice and the District Court Case (Case V) is bound by the court’s decision.  Judge Rice said the state court decision was a decision on the merits.  It was not.  It was a decision not to take jurisdiction of the case, that is not a merits decision, why because the case was not decided.  (It was punted on jurisdictional grounds.)  Judge Rice is in error.  The case has been appealed to the 9th Circuit.  Dismissal – doc_19_order_dismissing case with prejudice. Notice of appeal –  doc_21_notice of appeal.

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on Case V, Eugster v. Littlewood (WAED), dismissed

Case V: Eugster v. Littlewood, — Defense Motion to Dismiss FRCP 12(b)

Defendants have made the first step in the case.  They have filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) (subject jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to make a claim).  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case under FRCP 12(b).  Defense Motion to Dismiss; Eugster Response to Motion to Dismiss, Reply of Defendants.

Posted in Case V, Eugster Case History | Comments Off on Case V: Eugster v. Littlewood, — Defense Motion to Dismiss FRCP 12(b)

Judge Stanley Bastian signed an Order of Recusal today.  The case went back into the regular rotation of judges to cases.  Judge Tom Rice is the judge now assigned to the case.  Order of Recusal, April 11, 2016.

Posted on by skeugster | Comments Off on Case V, Eugster v. Littlewood, et al., WAED – New Judge

Case IV — Superior Court, Case Dismissed: Court does not have jurisdiction

Superior Court judge Salvatore “Sam” Cozza dismissed the Spokane Superior Court action Eugster brought against the WSBA. On April 1, 2016 the court held that Eugster’s Civil Rights action contesting constitutionality of the WSBA Washington Lawyer Discipline System had to be brought in any discipline action the WSBA seeks to bring against Eugster.

Simply stated – the rule, for the time being, is that if a lawyer seeks to contest the constitutionality of the WSBA Discipline System in state court, he must be bring it a WSBA Discipline System action. The order and the Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals Division Three.  Appeal of Order of Dismissal to Court of Appeals Division Three.

Posted in Eugster Case History | Comments Off on Case IV — Superior Court, Case Dismissed: Court does not have jurisdiction