Case 4 and Case 5 — What may happen on appeal

Posted On Mar 17 2017 by

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 …


Case 5, Reply filed

Posted On Dec 23 2016 by

Case 5 is a US District Court, Eastern District, Washington.  The primary issue in the case is whether the WSBA Washington Lawyer Discipline System violates Eugster’s right to procedural due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yesterday Eugster filed his Reply Brief. All of the necessary pleadings in the trial court and the 9th Circuit may be found at the Case 5 page of this site.      


Case VI – WSBA v. Eugster, an update

Posted On Jul 10 2016 by

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 …


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

Posted On Jun 4 2016 by

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.