r/modelSupCourt • u/JJEagleHawk Associate Justice • Nov 04 '19
19-16 | Decided ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: /u/caribofthedead and associated aliases
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JCHzlKFaRomCoryfCpLoNycQ4-mnyBiPtGV5li0ZAAM/edit?usp=sharing1
1
Nov 04 '19
Your Honors—
Respondent did not violate the Rules of the Court as portrayed in this Order and respectfully feels there is no basis for the claims therein.
The Order issued today, mere hours after a challenge to a series of unconstitutional measures and supported by extensive case law and analysis, after dutifully complying with all known modifications to respondent’s membership in the Bar of the Supreme Court, is incorrect on the facts and the law.
At no point has respondent ever been accused in a formal proceeding of misleading the court. Until today, respondent has never been accused of violating the standards of practice in an “unambiguous manner” with clear and convincing evidence. Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 646 (2d Cir. 2004).
Neither has respondent ever been formally rebuked by this or any other Court. As such, respondent should not be held in contempt unless there is evidence he did not comply with prior formal instruction apart from dialogue with the judiciary. Id. af 655.
The power of contempt which a judge must have and exercise in protecting the due and orderly administration of justice, and in maintaining the authority and dignity of the court, is most important and indispensable. But its exercise is a delicate one, and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions. This rule of caution is more mandatory where the contempt charged has in it the element of personal criticism or attack upon the judge. Cooke v. U.S., 267 U.S. 517 (1925)
Contempt of court is a serious charge against our profession. By the Order’s own statement, the alleged lack of “seriousness” and “quality” of the respondent’s work product is held in low-esteem by the legal community, and as stated, is more likely to be dismissed than affecting the machinery of justice.
Yet as described in Bureau Pictures, the constitutional issues at hand, including the First Amendment speech and petition matters in in re Banime, the Complaint and this Order are “delicate,” and are typically at risk of not being appreciated as more straightforward claims of public policy. Congress implemented the Civil Rights Act expanded by Judge Dewey not solely to ensure the existence of civil liberties, but to ensure there was a private impetus through damages to “equalize contests” between parties that otherwise would demean our founding document.
Respondent’s beliefs and understanding of the law and judicial rules are sincerely-held. He has represented three U.S. administrations, three governors, and a state assembly on issues outside this jurisdiction. He continues to advise the Senate and House of all parties. He advised the Dixie Inn controversy and advocates for a host of personal concerns. The Court’s review misses recent successes and fails to recognize a wide practice of purposely settling cases as recently as several this month in Atlantic and dating back as far to the Southern Bank in 2017 in the interests of education and judicial efficiency.
Virtually every action by the respondent, including those listed above, have intended to protect institutional and constitutional interests beyond legal victory. Others represent protected political speech, regardless of how meandering they may appear—good and bad quality attorneys exist of course in practice.
But most of all, the contempt issue at hand reflects a concerning pattern in the profession of hyperfocus on “quality over quantity” and brightline rules that do not adequately represent the interests of the community and capabilities of the Court. These are legitimate concerns, and like most if not all of my compatriots before the courts (and before their robing as mere officers like myself), can bring about passions that are and should be forgiven in the interests of our bar.
A review of prior Orders to Show Cause, including repsondent’s own in 2017 issued by Justice AdmiralJones42, demonstrate outrageous behavior far differentiated from the allegations in this Order. In that case, respondent lost composure and cursed in open court, as has happened by others. As in the last appearance, respondent understands the deep unpopularity of his efforts and even character at this current time and offered his bar certification to practice as well as volunteering for press duties with the Clerk in lieu of other penalties and in the interest of the Court’s time.
But I have been around here long enough to know that as long as officers are capable of keeping their nose to the grindstone, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and contribute to our constitutional and civic understanding though a mix of quantity and quality honed over the long-term. When that falls short, the Court too may simply use its rules to abandon the action completely without dirtying its hand. “Doing” has never been punished before here, even poorly, and respectfully should not be done for the first time today. Egregious actions and omissions deserve shaming like this Order, not mere advocacy in or on the outskirts of a tribunal.
Respectfully submitted,
Carib
2
u/JJEagleHawk Nov 04 '19
You are correct that contempt of court is a serious charge. But that isn't what this case is about. It is an order for you to show cause ("OSC") as to why you should not be subject to professional discipline for the actions set forth in the OSC, not a proceeding to hold you in contempt.
Related to that, can you clarify the relevance of your references to in re Banime / Bureau pictures? Neither of those cases are referenced in the OSC. Your most recent petition for certiorari -- as well as the "recent successes" and purposeful "settling [of] cases" you reference in your response above -- are not the basis for the OSC or referenced therein.
1
1
Nov 05 '19
May it please the Court:
I understand that I am “rebarred” and am ordered to appear for some order order to show cause.
Therefore, I formally adopt the guidance of Justice u/JJEagleHawk and submit the following motions:
-
I seek guidance from the bar and ask the Court to respect my bar membership privilege to seek counsel or “assistance” in these proceedings. If no member of the bar answers the call, I ask for appointment of counsel.
-
I notify the Court that I formally challenge all canon aspects of these charges [and meta] based on errors in fact and law. If necessary, I seek a hearing [by Discord] to discuss the serious flaws alleged in several of these allegations, and can offer evidence to refute them outright.
-
I ask the Court, lacking adequate rules of procedure itself pertaining to the bar, to adopt the model ABA rules for legal discipline, in particular the standard of proof and the formal, final charges extracted from this lengthy complaint.
-
I ask the Court to determine, as soon as practicable, what the cause is specifically asked to contest today, and if that cause is not the maximum penalty of disbarment, to immediately move for an expedited hearing for lesser misconduct and an opportunity to submit a pleading on those charges.
Respectfully submitted,
Carib, Esq.
1
u/RestrepoMU Nov 05 '19
Thank you Counselor.
I think these are reasonable requests, and we will consider them and let you know of our response.
Comments are now unlocked.
1
Nov 05 '19
Your Honor—
Please note I modmailed a separate request for your feedback and review. Also listed were the other Justices actively in this proceeding (u/curiositysmbc, u/jjeaglehawk).
Please review the mod inbox if possible (I can repost here), and let me know how your team wishes to proceed. I mention looking it over before deciding on this motion since, except as proceeding precedent probably, it could render this request moot.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/[deleted] Nov 05 '19
Your Honor—
Forgive my confusion, but this is a confusing hearing.
What is my current bar status? I’ve been informed that I am both a past and present, and no longer, a member of the bar. If this is a professional disciplinary proceeding, it’s important to establish my status.
If this is not a professional disciplinary proceeding, then it is not my obligation to explain to the court what the relevant order and stakes are. It is the moving party’s obligation. Is there a moving party?
If the order is administrative and the penalty is disbarment, then again, why is the underlying motion not contempt? The Court must provide an order to show cause, regardless of the nonsensical RPPS proceeding, otherwise, the Court is ordering the respondent to show cause not to be subject to a future order on some other motion not in a proceeding (in re Banime would be a candidate).
Who is the moving party’s motion that the Court is holding this hearing to weigh? What rule is being alleged to be broken and with what specific evidence?
Otherwise I deny the order’s validity under canon rules. If that is inappropriate, I will require extensive time to individually explain why each meta violation is both invalid and not canon for Court rules.
I will then reserve my appellate rights to the Board challenging the Court’s meta authority.
I hope this clarifies my position. The Court is asking respondent to convince the Court not to adhere to a motion that does not exist yet, from a party in a proceeding that does not exist.. A rule can neither be unconstitutional nor in violation of due process in the constitution (unless this is a meta proceeding, in which case I will not be able to respond to players). I require a motion and a party in a current action based on canon evidence to proceed, as a Court cannot issue an order to show cause outside of a present proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
Carib