WSBA Members Need Email Lists and Other Information

RE: WSBA Member Address and Email Records

Dear Ms. Littlewood:
As you know, I am a member of the Washington State Bar Association. Indeed, presently I am a member in good standing with the WSBA. As a member of the WSBA, I am tied to the Fifth Congressional District. I am considering the possibility of running for a position on the WSBA Board of Governors.
The requests I make herein are made as a member of the WSBA. I am not writing to you as a member of the public. The public record laws do not apply to my request. As a member, I am entitled to your fulfillment of my request. See, e.g., McClintock v. Young Republicans of Philadelphia, 210 Pa. 115, 59 A. 691 (1904).
As Executive Director of the WSBA you have (under the WSBA Bylaws, Article III C 2 the following duties:
The Executive Director will keep records of all members of the Washington State Bar Association, including, but not limited to:
a. physical residence address furnished by the member;
b. principal office address, telephone number, and email address furnished by the member;
c. physical street address of any resident agent for the member;
d. date of admittance;
e. type and status of membership;
f. date of transfer(s) from one status to another, if any;
g. date and period(s) of administrative suspensions, if any;
h. date and period of disciplinary actions or sanctions, if any including suspension and disbarment;
i. such other data as the BOG or Washington Supreme Court may from time to time require of each member.

From you, in your capacity as Executive Director, I request in electronic format, the following information regarding my fellow bar association members – names, addresses, email addresses, and Congressional Districts.
Among the purposes for which I seek the records are the following:
(a) To communicate with my fellow members concerning the affairs of the WSBA Board of Governors, and especially those who members who seek to be elected to the WSBA Board of Governors from the Fifth District;
(b) To institute measures and advocate policies which may tend to promote the objects for which the corporation was organized;
(c) To prevent the affairs and property of the corporation from being used to further the private political ambitions of any member or group of members;
(d) To oppose the election or re-election of incompetent officials; and
(e) To aid in the election of officers who will be faithful to the best interests of the members, and who will administer the affairs of the association and control its property in accordance with the purposes for which the association was created. RCW 2.48.010.
The WSBA has a database which includes information about my fellow bar association members. It would be simple and non-time consuming for you to have the proper WSBA employee prepare an electronic data file of the information I can use on my Windows computer and in conjunction with WordPerfect Quattro or Microsoft Excel or some other Windows-based program.
I will pay the reasonable costs of the creation of the data file I ask you to have created and provided to me.
The records will only be used for the purposes above. I will not allow the records to be used for any commercial purposes. I will also make it possible for a member to opt out of any email mailings I might make to the member.
I look forward to the information in the format requested.

Sincerely,
s/ Stephen Kerr Eugster
Stephen Kerr Eugster
WSBA # 2003

 

 

2017_11_12_let_littlewood_email addresses

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on WSBA Members Need Email Lists and Other Information

Petition for Writs of Mandamus to Justices of Supreme Court of Washington

Steve Eugster has filed a case in the Washinton Supreme Court seeking writs of mandamus to each of the justices of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in writs of mandamus against state officers. Wash. Const. Art. IV, Section 4.  The Court will have to create a temporary Supreme Court pursuant to Wash. Const. Art. IV, Section 2(a):

Article IV Section 2(a) SECTION 2(a) TEMPORARY PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL DUTIES.

When necessary for the prompt and orderly administration of justice a majority of the Supreme Court is empowered to authorize judges or retired judges of courts of record of this state, to perform, temporarily, judicial duties in the Supreme Court, and to authorize any superior court judge to perform judicial duties in any superior court of this state.

The issue is whether the Supreme Court is acting in violation of Wash. Const. Art. IV, 2017_11_06_McCleary_Docket_linked Section 4.  The court is exercising jurisdiction in excess of its “appellate jurisdiction.”

  1. Summons
  2. Petition Against State Officer
  3. McCleary_Docket_Supreme Court_Linked
Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on Petition for Writs of Mandamus to Justices of Supreme Court of Washington

Opening Brief in Eugster v. WSBA (9th Cir.)

The Opening Brief in the appeal of Pro se Steve Eugster growing out of the Caruso v. WSBA was filed this morning.  Get the brief.  2017_10_31_Opening_Brief_ 

See more about this and the two appeals growing out of Caruso v.WSBA.  Go here.

 

 

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on Opening Brief in Eugster v. WSBA (9th Cir.)

Pro se Eugster v. WSBA

Pro se Eugster v. WSBA, is a separate appeal coming from Caruso et al. v. WSBA et al.  It has to do with an order of the court awarding the WSBA some $28,000 plus from Pro se Eugster.  The Opening Brief will be filed on or before November 1, 2017.  The brief will focus, significantly, on the two points — fraud on the Court by the lawyers for the WSBA and lawyers leading the WSBA, and participation in the fraud by the Trial Judge including making the case his own case.

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on Pro se Eugster v. WSBA

Case 9 — Appeal of Orders Against Attorney Eugster, Opening Brief

The District Court judge ordered me to pay some $28,000 to the WSBA. I appealed. The appeal is a separate appeal in Caruso v. WSBA (Case 9). I am working my opening brief. It is due about the 1st of November, but I will need to check. In these matters, one becomes aware the court might decide to fine me, or impose sanctions against me were I to have violated a Local Court Rule.

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred | Comments Off on Case 9 — Appeal of Orders Against Attorney Eugster, Opening Brief

Case 3 9th Circuit Affirms Trial Court Decision

The 9th Circuit has affirmed the trial court.  Doc_18_1_Memorandum

Posted in Eugster Case History | Comments Off on Case 3 9th Circuit Affirms Trial Court Decision

Case 4 and Case 5 — What may happen on appeal

Case 4 and Case 5

The issue in each case (Case 4 is in Superior Court, Spokane; Case 5 is in US District Court WAED) is whether the WSBA Washington Discipline System is constitutional, does it accord with requirements of procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The superior court judge, Judge Sam Cozza (now deceased), held after exercising some jurisdiction said the court did not have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court has power over the discipline system and that one must raise his constitutional concerns in the discipline process.  But, under the state constitution, the superior court does have jurisdiction.  The case is on appeal and has been on appeal for about a year.  The case was “heard” without argument.  The three judge Court of Appeals panel has yet to decide.

Case 5 was decided by Judge Tom Rice.  He dismissed the case on res judicata grounds.  His decision was wrong because he used the Judge Cozza order of dismissal on jurisdiction grounds as an order on the merits.  The case has been appealed to the 9th Circuit.  Briefs are in but the case has yet to be scheduled for argument.

Both cases should be overturned on appeal.

Posted in Case V, Federal Court | Comments Off on Case 4 and Case 5 — What may happen on appeal

Receivership for the Washington State Bar Association

The Washington State Bar Association must be placed into a receivership. The Association known as the WSBA or state bar is a legal entity which was created by the Washington state legislature under the State Bar Act of 1933.

The Association is an “integrated Bar Association.” It is a legal entity with the power to sue and be sued and to purchase and sell assets and to pursue the objects of the Association. The objects are the regulation of the legal profession and the improvement of the quality of legal services. The members of the Association are, at any given time, lawyers who have been admitted to the bar of the Washington state Supreme Court. The members are the owners of the assets of the Bar Association.

The Bar Association is no longer able to pursue its objectives. The Association has been taken over by a new Association created by the members of the Board of Governors of the Bar Association. It has also been assumed by the Supreme Court.

The new Association and the Supreme Court are using the assets of the Bar Association. The Association has assets more than $12 million. The Bar Association, its assets, and the property rights of its members must be protected. A receivership is thus called for under the provisions of the Washington receivership laws, RCW Chapter 7.60.

Posted in Receivership of WSBA | Comments Off on Receivership for the Washington State Bar Association

Legal Zoom and “Real Advice”

Legal Zoom is advertising “real advice.”  That sounds like it is “practicing law.”  What is the Washington Supreme Court going to do?  Maybe it will create a special license which allows Legal Zoom to provide limited practice services. I wonder whether there can be corporate members of the New Washington State Bar Association of 2017.  APR 29 Legal Zoom.

Posted in Unauthorized Practice of Law | Comments Off on Legal Zoom and “Real Advice”

WSBA 1933 / WSBA 2017 — My letter to AG Bob Ferguson

I wrote to Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson on the 15th of February about the two associations, one a bar association, the other an association of legal service providers.  Go here .

That was on the 15th, I repeat.  Today I received a response; a letter from Jeffrey T. Even, Deputy Solicitor General.

My request was rejected.  I have to say, I am surprised.  Here is the letter from Mr. Even, go here.

Posted in Lawyers Disbarred, WSBA 2017 (New WSBA) | Tagged , | Comments Off on WSBA 1933 / WSBA 2017 — My letter to AG Bob Ferguson