It looks like Janus v. AFSCME may have direct application to the issue of whether the Washington Supreme Court/ WSBA  (see General Rule 12.2) meets exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment. See also, Arnold Fleck v. North Dakota Bar Association (Wetch) petition for writ of certiorari.  Go here.    

This afternoon I received word that the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez has imposed a pre-filing order on me.  Doc_68_Order re Pre-filing.

I have a hearing before Judge Ray Clary of the Spokane Superior Court.  It is on my motion the WSBA and Executive Director Littlewood be ordered to give me (a member of the WSBA) a data file of email addresses of WSBA members.  The basis for the motion is common law and the right of members of an association to obtain information of other members for association purposes. The WSBA resists saying such records fall under GR 12.4 WSBA Access to Records, the “public records” section of the General Rules.  I have tried that before.  Here is what I say: 2018_01_22_Motion_Summary_Judgment …

Case 9:  Robert Caruso and Sandra Ferguson v. WSBA, WAWD #2:17-cv-0003-RSM Issues:  Whether New WSBA 2017 violates freedom of non-association and expression (First Amendment) and right to procedural due process (Fifth Amendment) and the New WSBA has the power to discipline lawyers under the current Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC). The trial judge dismissed the case (all of Plaintiffs’ claims) and ordered Steve Eugster to pay the WSBA over $28,000.00 in attorneys fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). There are two Appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Caruso v. WSBA   No. 17-55410 and Eugster v. WSBA …

Washington Lawyer Defense is now Washington Lawyer Defense Project. Efforts called “Washington Lawyer Defense” begun early on, are still on-going in one way or another.  Today, however, the efforts have expanded into a broader effort, a larger project. So, the name change.   Washington Lawyer Defense Project.  For example, as the work progressed, other seemingly matters would arise.  E.g., Appellate judges who “retain” jurisdiction of the case before them.  The only jurisdiction had was appellate.  The efforts of the court of appeal had been completed.  When this happens, the Clerk of the Court issues a mandate to the trial court.  When the …

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, …

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 …

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.    

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.

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.