Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Plaintiff filed his request for investigation, pursuant to the Rules of the AGC
Professional Conduct and (2) the perpetration of a “fraud upon the court”
Further, Plaintiff’s Request for Investigation set forth specific portions of the
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION:
The AGC Administrator, in its response to this Court, seemed to limit its
WEILER, were aware that the statute of limitations had expired prior to the
note 1).
It should be noted here, that Plaintiff provided “proof” that the AG and his
2000 by way of the transcript from a hearing before Judge Duncan Beagle
where the FOC Attorney referenced the issue in “open court” (See Exhibit
by reference).
for a failure to pay child support had already expired before the October 20,
MCL 767.24(5) is the statute that imposes a six year limitations period for
of the minor child. People v. Monaco, 474 Mich. 48, 710 NW2d 46 (2006).
defend within a specified period of time and that the right to be free of stale
claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.” U.S.
flawed. In reality, this Court’s decision did not alter the Court of Appeals
rather, overruled the holding of People v. Westman, 262 Mich. App. 184
offenses”. Additionally, this Court held that carrying an arrearage did not
As such, for the AGC Administrator to assert that his discretion was not
specific facts relative to the manner in which the “fraud upon the court” was
attorneys perpetrated a “fraud upon the court” by alleging in the initial and
to pay support for his child (who was then fully emancipated) during the
period of 05/03 thru 01/05 . . . In reality, no such Court Order existed and
attorneys WEILER, COX and BARKEY were fully aware of this fact prior
Plaintiff’s Request for Investigation, Set forth in full at Exhibit “C” of the
No such Court Order existed and all three (3) of the attorneys complained of
herein, knew that when they lied to the Court and perjured themselves to
v. Monaco, id.
Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not “free” to walk away from the authority that the
The misconduct of the offending attorneys complained of herein also had the
causing additional violations of MCL 37.2302, et seq. And, they also denied
Plaintiff the full and equal utilization of public services in further violation
of MCL 37.2302. All of the foregoing was premised on Plaintiff’s race and
because these attorneys (1) made materially false statements of fact to the
tribunal, they also (2) failed to disclose a material fact to the tribunal when it
also offered evidence which they knew to be false and further failed to take
The failure of the AGC Administrator to fully and fairly investigate that
Headers, 419 Mich. 219 (1999); and “resulted in a clearly untenable ruling
Burke v. Harman, 6 Neb.App. 309, 574 N.W.2d 156 (1998). The AGC
The only “Order” actually admitted into evidence in the underlying criminal
case was the 1978 Order, which, by its own terms, expired in July, 1994.
The Statute under which Plaintiff was prosecuted was amended by the
Michigan Legislature and those changes took effect in November, 1999, see
MCLA 750.165.
to Plaintiff. The 1978 Court Order regarding support for his minor child
expired, by its own terms in July, 1994. This was a full five (5) years prior
to the enactment of the legislative changes. No part of the 1978 Order was
alleged conduct (1) was committed prior to the effective date of the statute’s
amendments and (2) his conduct was innocent when committed. People v.
Callon, 256 Mich.App. 312, 662 NW2d 501 (2003), People v. Haynes, 256
The version of the MCL 600.5809 that would have been applicable to the
Mich. App. 405, 603 N.W.2d 646 (1999). Under that provision, the ten year
period of limitations begins to run against each payment when that payment
became due, see MCL 600.5809(3). Chase v. Sabin, 445 Mich. 190, 516
NW2d 60 (1994).
2004, contained the appropriate standard for the trial Court to review
However, utilization of judicial decisions, that are entered after the conduct
had long since happened, constitutes a due process violation which prohibits
This misconduct violates MRPC 3.3(1) because they knowingly made false
statements of material fact to the Court; and (2) they failed to disclose a
fraudulent act; they also (4) offered evidence that the lawyer knew to be
false. Further, this misconduct violates MRPC 3.2 as these lawyers knew
The failure of the AGC Administrator to fully and fairly investigate those
The failure of the AGC Administrator to fully and fairly investigate all
untenable ruling that unfairly deprived this litigant of a substantial right and
a just result, Burke v. Harman, 6 Neb.App. 309, 574 N.W.2d 156 (1998).
considering all the circumstances’. Yeap v. Leake, 60 Cal. App. 4th 591, 70
Cal.Rptr 2d 680 (1997). The end result of the AGC Administrator’s actions
in this instance, based on the reasons given by the Administrator to justify its
justice; a ruling that reaches an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly
against, reason and evidence.” State v. Garza, 192 Ariz 171, 962 P.2d 898
(1998).
discretion” as the refusal to fully and fairly investigate the well documented
logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the
exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but
FACTS:
Administrator and the AGC Administrator filed his Answer and Brief in
nature of the relief demanded, are admitted, if not denied in the responsive
CONCLUSION:
Supreme Court enter its ORDER requiring, directing and/or compelling, the
AGC Administrator to conduct a full, fair and impartial investigation into all
WEILER and to proceed against them according to law and the Rules of
thereby. Leitman v. State Bar Greivance Bd., 387 Mich. 596 (1972).
Further, Plaintiff prays this Court appoint a Special Master to investigate the
Control, which the Administrator has admitted by its failure to offer any
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Robert R. Parker, Jr., LL.B.