Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
JURISDICTION:
1.
This Petition is presented as an Original Action in the Supreme Court pursuant to MCR
7.304 as provided for by MCR 9.122(A) (2), to request this Court to exercise its Power of
Superintending Control over the Attorney Grievance Commission for its failure and/or
Investigation by Plaintiff.
2.
That the final decision of the Attorney Grievance Commission, dated December 7, 2007,
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit “A”. The foregoing
was in response to Plaintiff’s response of October 8, 2007 to the October 3, 2007 letter
from Associate Counsel Nancy Albers (both of which are attached hereto and
This Complaint is filed within 28 days of the final determination of the Attorney
Grievance Commission.
FACTS:
4.
General Michael Cox, Assistant Attorney General Jessica Weiler and Jennie Barkey, who
had previously served as the Friend of the Court in Genesee County (see Exhibit “D”
5.
The request for investigation made several allegations of misconduct and multiple
members of the State Bar of Michigan including, but not limited to (1) the perpetration of
a “fraud upon the court” by filing an indictment alleging the existence of a Court Order
when no such Court Order existed (2) in order to facilitate filing of a criminal felony
offense (3) against a person whose conduct did not violate the law and (4) was time
barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (the official Court Order of Support
expired in July, 1994) and (5) a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Michigan
and United States Constitution; and (6) Several violations of MRPC 3.1; 3.3; 3.4 and 3.5.
That Plaintiff received a letter from Associate Counsel Nancy Albers, requesting
additional information relative to the allegations, even though the letter indicated that
Plaintiff had complied with their rules for submitting a Request For Investigation (see
7.
That even though Plaintiff had complied with the rules of the Administrator, he still,
September 11, 2007 by providing additional documentation and evidence which further
demonstrated the misconduct of the aforementioned attorneys (See Exhibit “F” attached
8.
That the Attorney Grievance Commission failed, upon information and belief, to conduct
a fair and impartial preliminary investigation into the allegations of misconduct and/or
failed to serve a copy of same on the respondent attorneys, outlined in the request for
9.
That the Attorney Grievance Commission, upon information and belief, did not require
That the Attorney Grievance Commission held Plaintiff to a higher standard of proof in
its multiple requests for additional information and documentation from Plaintiff while
failing to request any responses from the attorneys complained of in the request for
investigation and/or the Administrator failed to provide any responses from respondent
attorneys with the Plaintiff as contemplated by MCR 9.113(A), or, in the alternative, the
responses and/or documentation that may have been submitted by the respondent
11.
investigate complaints, against members of the bar who occupy positions of political
power or elective office that are white, as against complaints by people of color, such as
Plaintiff nor does the Attorney Grievance Commission accord the same degree of
seriousness to allegations from complainants of color against members of the bar who
12.
That the allegations made against the aforementioned members of the State Bar of
Michigan are worthy of a full, fair and impartial investigation of the facts, circumstances
This institutional reticence is evidenced by the refusal to conduct a full, fair and impartial
the letters of October 3, 2007 and December 7, 2007, both of the Associate Counsel for
the Commission appears to have overlooked the documentation relative to the statute of
limitations issue in an attempt to cover up the obvious fact that the statute of limitations
issue was known to the Respondent Attorneys as early as October 23, 2000. This was
clearly pointed out in the Transcript of the Hearing before Judge Duncan Beagle (See
Exhibit “G” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). It should be pointed
out here, that the six (6) year statute of limitations for a prosecution under MCL 750.165
had expired in July, 2000 which would have been the 6th year from the 1994 expiration of
13.
That the conduct complained of the attorneys named in the request for investigation
violate MRC 9.104(1) thru (6). Nothing short of a full, fair and impartial investigation
into the facts, circumstances and evidence of their misconduct will purge the taint of bias
by the cursory review of the documentation provided by Plaintiff and the failure of the
Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate a request that complied with their rules.
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation made to the
Attorney Grievance Commission in the initial Request for Investigation and all
this Complaint herein; and further complains of the failure of the Attorney
Barkey, as follows:
14.
That Jessica Weiler, with the full consent, approval and ratification of Michael Cox, in
conjunction with, and the active participation of, Jennie Barkey conspired together to
bring the underlying criminal case against the Plaintiff pursuant to MCL 750.165 as
amended in 1999 even though the 1978 Court Order expired in1994, a full five (5) years
before the enactment of the amended measure. A clear Ex Post Facto violation that was
ignored, on purpose, by the Respondent Attorneys in this matter. This conduct violates
15.
That despite the fact that the 1978 Court Order had expired in 1994 and no current order
of support was in effect, Attorneys Weiler (with the consent and authorization of AG
Cox) and Barkey concocted a series of lies and misrepresentations of fact culminating in
the perpetration of a fraud upon the Court by swearing, under oath, that a crime had been
committed by Plaintiff and that 2004 Court of Appeals Case Law precedent governed the
criminal case against the Plaintiff even though judicial ex post facto decisions are
unconstitutional in this state as violating due process. The foregoing conduct violates
That the issuance of a felony indictment and warrant issued by the 68th District Court
prosecutorial discretion where there was no Court Order in existence compelling Plaintiff
to pay any amount, at any time, on behalf of any minor child and said attorney
respondents, Cox, Weiler and Barkey, knew this at the time that they implemented their
nefarious scheme to intentionally violate Plaintiff’s Constitutional and Civil Rights See
Exhibit “H” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). This conduct violates
17.
That Respondents COX, WEILER and BARKEY caused the interdiction of Plaintiff’s
Pass Port even though Plaintiff was not over the threshold amount for passport
interdiction, took $15,000 ostensibly for back support, the collection of which was barred
by (1) the applicable statute of limitations and (2) equitable exoneration due to the 18
Plaintiff’s money, which Respondent Attorneys were not authorized by law to take,
constitutes an unlawful taking also known as theft under Michigan law. While the
criminal conviction has been reversed since November, 2006, the Respondent Attorneys
have failed to return the $15,000 wrongfully taken and they have not removed Plaintiff’s
name from the Pass Port Interdiction list submitted to the U.S. Secretary of State. This
The threat of taking money prior to and during the pre-trial phases of the case, constitute
extortion as the threat of criminal prosecution, was then ongoing, during which numerous
efforts were made by Respondent COX, through Respondent WEILER to have Plaintiff’s
bond revoked and/or restricted in a further effort to extort money from Plaintiff under the
guise of a criminal case that was premised on Respondent Attorneys WEILER, BARKEY
and COX defrauding the court. This conduct violates MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3),(4),(5)
and (6).
19.
That Respondent, Michael Cox, has total and complete supervisory oversight of
Respondent Jessica Weiler. However, upon information and belief, Respondent Cox
intentionally abdicated his role to properly supervise Jessica Weiler and/or consented to,
authorized and otherwise ratified her actions and those of her superiors in the Child
Support Enforcement Division of the Attorney General’s office because of his desire to
compile an impressive record for political purposes and acquisition of additional Title IV-
D money from Congress. This conduct violates MCR 9.104(A)(1),(2),(3) and (4).
20.
That the manner in which the Confession of Error was handled by Attorney General
Michael Cox suggests that there was an interminable delay in the outcome that, upon
COX, in order to provide an undue advantage to Respondent Cox during his re-election
campaign for the office of Attorney General, to Plaintiff’s detriment occasioned by the
(2) To compel the Attorney Grievance Commission to conduct a full, fair and impartial
misconduct asserted against the afore-named members of the State Bar of Michigan; and
(3) That it do so without respect to the political office that the respondents may hold or
the race of the complainant and/or the race of the attorneys complained of; and
(4) Order the attorneys complained of herein to file their response, under oath, to the
(5) That the investigatory and hearings process take place according to law and the
(6) That this Court appoint a Special Master to investigate the allegations against the
(7) Order the Attorney Grievance Commission to SHOW CAUSE why the relief
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.
Plaintiff, Pro Per
195 Morton Walk Drive
Alpharetta, Georgia 30022
213-798-8095
Robertparker777@yahoo.com
I, Robert R. Parker, Jr., do hereby swear and certify, under oath, that I served a copy of
the foregoing Complaint for Superintending Control, Affidavit for Waiver of Fees and
Costs and Notice of Hearing, upon the following persons so entitled to same; to wit:
______________________
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.
______________________
Notary Public for Georgia
My Commission Expires: _______