Debbie G. Asbury1711 Lone Oak Rd. New Braunfels, TX 78132

(830) 708-0756debbieasbury@msn.com

The Honorable Nathan Hecht Texas, Supreme Court Chief Justice c/o Mr. Blake Hawthorne The Texas Supreme Court Clerk PO Box 12248, Austin, TX 78711 By Priority Mail May 4th, 2016

RE: (1) Repeal of State Bar’s Grievance Complainant-Adverse Changes (eff. 1/1/2004). (2) Immediate Suspension of Current Dysfunctional Attorney-Discipline System Until Transfer of Investigatory and Adjudicatory Function Can Be Made to an Entirely New Discipline System.

Your Honor Chief Justice Nathan Hecht: The State Bar’s Grievance Complainant-Adverse Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), are counterproductive to the Attorney-discipline System’s purpose: to provide discipline whenever Complainants’ Grievances demonstrate Professional Misconduct as defined by Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC). Purportedly established to reduce processing time, the Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]) serve only to underpin the dishonesty within the Dysfunctional State Bar Grievance System. Per their humiliating misconstruction of the intent of Texas Gov’t Code §81, the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) and the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BODA) lamely declare that The Supreme Court of Texas authorizes injustice in the State Bar Grievance System:

CDC investigations are conducted for the sole purpose of concealing evidence of attorney misconduct. Complainant-Adverse Decisions, deemed “secret” by CDC and District Grievance Committee Summary

Disposition Panels, are made without the presence and the testimony under oath of the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney.

Valid Complaints describing Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are DENIED and DISMISSED by CDC and BODA with no explanation to the Complainant, nor discipline to Attorney.

Both BODA’s and Summary Disposition Panels’ Improper Notices insinuate that The Supreme Court authorizes secret, adverse decisions against Complainants, depriving them of their Right to Amend and/or Appeal loss of money, property, and eliminating Constitutional Rights accorded to Americans. Since the Complainant-Adverse Changes (eff. 1/1/2004), grossly negligent officials of the State Bar and appointees to State Bar agencies by The Court have been confused that their duty in the State Bar Grievance System is - not to assure ethical conduct among TX attorneys in the Legal Profession, - but to eliminate time delays in the Grievance process. Repeal of the Complainant-Adverse Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004) and restoration of “POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR FILING AN APPEAL FROM A ‘CLASSIFICATION,” by Order of the Supreme Court of Texas, eff . 10/30/1992 , would abolish Summary Disposition Panels and secret, unexplained, adverse decisions; provide for return of Complainants’ and Respondent Attys’ Rights to appear, testify and present evidences in an Evidentiary Hearing; and a Complainant’s Right to Appeal an Evidentiary Hearing decision. I have written volumes of Criticisms to a multitude; for example, but not limited to: Linda Acevedo, CDC’s long-time State Bar staff attorney (1985) and CDC’s Chief Counsel; Laura Popps, CDC’s Deputy Counsel; Christine E. McKeeman, BODA’s Executive Director and General Counsel; Marvin W. Jones, BODA’s Chair for 2014-2015; Stan Serwatka, Grievance Oversight Committee’s (GOC’s) previous Chair; Catherine N. Wylie, GOC’s current chair; Ronald Bunch, the Commission on Lawyer Discipline’s (CLD’s) previous Chair; Guy Harrison, CLD’s current Chair; Spokeswoman Claire Mock; The Honorable Jeffrey V. Brown, Texas State Supreme Court Liaison; Nina Hess Hsu, General Counsel, The Supreme Court of Texas; Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel of The State Bar; and many others. I have received not a single, solitary reply

1 | P a g e

except an absurd two paragraph letter from Counselor Maureen Ray who, subsequently, mysteriously abandoned her State Bar membership on April 10th, 2015. Ray’s abrupt absence has left the Bar with NO ONE TO EXPLAIN to the tens of thousands of DENIED and DISMISSED Complainants (deprived of Appeal) what the “grounds” were for failing to DISCIPLINE Respondents that conducted barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation as defined in TDRPC!

In 2015, GOC Chair Catherine M. Wylie allowed me only 25 minutes with GOC in which I was degraded and harassed for my “lack of understanding that attorneys are well-versed in the Law and not subject to my documented claims of Professional Misconduct.” My many Criticisms that I sent to Supreme Court General Counsel Nina Hess Hsu have been completely ignored and unanswered. Recently, I have gleaned from Googling that General Counsel Nina Hess Hsu has admired GOC Chair Wylie’s “oversight committee skills” so much in the State Bar’s Dysfunctional Grievance System that Counselor Hess Hsu had GOC Chair Wylie appointed to another Supreme Court Commission (on Judicial Conduct), too!

The State Bar of Texas’ justice-obstructing Attorney-Discipline System has destroyed faith and trust in The Court’s administration of justice to such a point that Texans are fleeing the unethical, self-serving Texas attorneys in droves to, instead, conduct pro se lawsuits. In fact, Justice Debra Lehrmann has been required to write a Dissent Statement to The Texas Supreme Court’s approval of “Pro Se Forms.” Justice Debra Lehrmann expressed her concern of the Court’s endorsement of the forms because “it will increase pro se litigation by people who can afford lawyers.” I must ask: why would any of the Justices suppose that any Texan would agree to pay for “justice” as defined by a cotillion of incompetent and corrupt State Bar officials and appointees of The Supreme Court who are left to their own crude devices to formulate their own unconstitutional, Complainant-adverse Grievance System that overtly favors “specially selected” Attorneys, finding only 1,410 Respondents (from 2011-2015), less than 5% all Grievances filed by Complainants, to require Discipline by the State Bar? (See Chart “Unmitigated Incompetence…”, page 48)

Why would Texans need a Grievance System as “protection” from Professional Misconduct, when CDC’s, BODA’s, CLD’s and GOC’s own accounts in Reports to The Supreme Court can be deciphered to reveal that 95 % of 28,827 “received” Grievances from 2011-2015 have been unfairly DENIED & DISMISSED due to the incompetence, corruption and a “(secret) confidential code” of the Dysfunctional Grievance System? Absurdly, State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees stoutly maintain that they have a “mandate” from The Supreme Court to hide all documents and evidences from 27,417 Grievances in “CLOSED FILES” and EXPUNGE RECORDS OF ATTY MISCONDUCT! The Court, in Its’ duty to provide oversight of the State Bar, (a “quasi-state agency,”) must make full Public Disclosure that the entire membership (96,912 active members) of the State Bar has a huge vested, financial interest in maintaining the current Dysfunctional Grievance System. Membership Privileges currently include: DENIALS and DISMISSALS and EXPUNGEMENTS of Complainants’ valid Grievances with no records kept, nor disciplinary consequences to Attorneys. Prompt removal of the Grievance System from the control of the State Bar, a public corporation that functions as trade association for attorneys, and disbarments of officials and Supreme Court appointees, so blatantly in noncompliance with The Court’s Rules, is urgently required. Tens of thousands of Grievance Complainants have been DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances with NO explanation and NO investigation, while Texas State Bar members’ premiums for professional liability insurance are discounted due to the Dysfunctional Grievance System’s dishonesty. Insurance underwriters compute low premium rates using an artificially deflated number of professional liability lawsuits. Attorneys who pay insurance premiums through Texas State Bar Member-owned companies, like the Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange (TLIE), benefit financially from each and every improperly DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance. For example, TLIE has returned over $41,550,000 in profits to its members insureds over the past 19 years. The Supreme Court of Texas’ must acknowledge the humiliating failure: the justice-obstructing Attorney-Discipline System; for there are millions of dollars that must be repaid to Complainants and nightmarish Constitutional Rights Violations to rectify since, at least, 1/1/2004.

2 |

To achieve “Processing Time Goals,” the State Bar of Texas purposely misconstrued Legislation (Eff. 1/1/2004) to routinely DEPRIVE Grievance Complainants & Respondent Attys of Due Process of Law.

By their persistent Noncompliance and Professional Misconduct (as defined in TDRPC), State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees have entirely obliterated a Complainant’s and a Respondent Attorney’s Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law in the Dysfunctional Grievance System.

3 |

“New Procedure” (eff. 1/1/2004) unconstitutionally DEPRIVES Complainants’ & Respondents’ presence at Hearings. Respondents never get a copy of 75-79 % of DENIED & DISMISSED “writings” which are only read and not investigated by OCDC and/or BODA. Those “writings” are DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION or proper Appeal Notice! No matter how blatant the Misconduct of remaining Grievance Complaints, most are DENIED & DISMISSED by “(secret), anonymous OCDC Panels!” Complainants are DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION, SUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION, or PROPER APPEAL NOTICE & NO DISCIPLINE TO RESPONDENT! Records are EXPUNGED! Due to Complainant-adverse Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, those few Complainants whose Grievances were judged by “(secret) Panels” to rate an Evidentiary Hearing are DEPRIVED of a Right to Appeal an Evidentiary Hearing Decision, in a blatantly, unconstitutional disregard of loss of money, property or Rights !

Per State Bar Procedural Instructions, PROCESSING A GRIEVANCE presents BOTH a “first and a second opportunity for a favorable outcome” --- DISMISSAL WITH NO DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCE TO ATTY!

PROCESSING A GRIEVANCE,i a “first opportunity” for a favorable outcome for the Respondent Attorney ------------------------------------“DISMISSAL AS AN INQUIRY with NO Disciplinary Consequence.”

→ →

↓

← ← ← ←

PROCESSING A GRIEVANCE,ii a “second opportunity” for a favorable outcome for a Respondent Attorney, ----------------- “DISMISSAL as a Complaint” by a Summary Disposition Panel” with NO Disciplinary Consequence.

4 |

5,576 (or, 79%*) of (7,071) Complainants’ Grievance “Writings” rec’d 5/31/2014-6/1/2015 alleging Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are DENIED & DISMISSED with No Further Investigation by CDC – AT “INTAKE,” as “Inquiries” with No Explanation to the Complainant, Nor Discipline to Attorney. Omitted from CDC’s Grievances (7,071) are 441 CLD’s “REJECTED” Grievances describing blatant Misconduct, but which have been sent back contemptuously to Complainants, unclassified, WITH NO RECORD OF ATTY MISCONDUCT!

(Only 35%) (1,958 of 5,576 Appeal CDC’S DENIALS & DISMISSALS to BODA within 30 Day Limit (or lose Appeal Rights entirely ).__ ↙ (65%) 3,618 of 5,576 were DENIED & DISMISSED with NO explanation, investigation, & provided Appeal Notices depicting CDC’s blatant opposition to Rules.

441 (>7071) “writings” were REJECTED & unrecorded. Complainants were misled to use CAAP, a VOLUNTARY “MEDIATION” which has NO DISCIPLINARY purpose. Attys need only attend CAAP if they “want” to. 441 REJECTED Complainants’ “writings” were NEVER RECORDED. CDC deceitfully forced unwitting Complainants to abandon their Right to classification by REJECTING valid Grievances.

BODA reversed 11% (228) of Inquiry Classifications & sent “Writings” back for CDC “investigation” of BODA’s citing of perceived Prof. Misconduct / TDRPC .

ALL (5,348) of 7,071 Grievances of DENIED & DISMISSED Inquiry Classifications ( 3,618 + 1,730 = 5,348) were DENIED DUE PROCESS: adequate notice, fair hearing, & neutral judge. 5,348 CDC & BODA’s discarded “Inquiries” describing Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, (etc.) are NEVER provided to Respondent! If there is no appeal in 30 days, Respondent can thereafter deny that a Grievance was pursued! Any RECORD OF Grievance & Misconduct IS EXPUNGED.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (eff. 10/30/1992), required CDC to conduct investigatory hearings (aka, “just cause” hearings), wherein Complainants & Respondents were invited to appear & testify under oath before an investigatory panel of a State Bar Grievance Committee. Per Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), Respondent is presumed to be guilty of Professional Misconduct per TDRPC (& DEPRIVED OF RIGHT TO APPEAL TO BODA) if CDC “determines guilt” AT CDC’s “INTAKE” just by reading Complainants’ (mostly non-atty’s) “writings” & (before evidence or investigation). ↓

1, 495 (or, 21 %) of (7,071) Complainants’ “Writings” are Classified as a “Complaints” at CDC’s “Intake”- indicating that Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, can be recognized by CDC - just by reading the Complainant’s Grievance “writing” (with no investigation).

Remaining 89% of Complainants, (1,730) were DENIED & DISMISSED Appeal of “Inquiry” Classification to BODA (with NO explanation NOR investigation). Contempt for Complainants compels BODA to DEPRIVE RIGHTS to file Amendments to “writings” within 20 days of BODA’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notice & Amendment Appeals per TRDP 2.10. ↓

Eff. 1/1/2004, Atty’s Rebuttal to “writing” must be provided within 30 days. Complainant is then given only 10 days to provide evidences. Because neither Complainant nor Respondent are permitted to appear in person at a HEARING, content & quality of their respective written submissions (e.g. Grievances, responses, supporting documents, etc.) is “determined” by CDC to result in a “favorable outcome for Respondent Atty – DISMISSAL!” ↓

POLICIES & PROCEDURES (in effect since 10/30/1992), had required CDC’s investigatory panel to present Formal Notice of factual allegations & perceived rule violations to Respondent prior to election of the forum (evidentiary hearing or trial in a district court) for further Grievance Proceedings. Regrettably, eff. 1/1/2004, a Formal Factual Notice specifying Rule Violations is given to Respondent only AFTER CDC’s biased “investigation of just cause” which requires (usually non-attorney, laymen) Complainants to provide “sufficient evidence of violations of TDRPC,” as subjectively defined by biased CDC investigators. NO longer is there an investigatory panel where Complainants & Respondents are permitted to appear in person at a HEARING. CDC is a FACILITATOR to unethical attys by concealing

←5,348 of 7071 (75%) were summarily DENIED & DISMISSED (discarded) by CDC/BODA.

Claire Mock, spokeswoman, conceals the startling disposition of 7,071 Grievances: ONLY 318 - Disciplinary Sanctions; 5,536 “Writings” & 1,217 “Complaints”(including 184 dispersed by CAAP without Discipline )- DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION, NO UNBIASED INVESTIGATION, NO PROPER APPEAL NOTICE, & NO DISCIPLINE. Official “response” to Media is a mockery of “confidentiality:” Mock “cannot even confirm that a Grievance was filed” among 7,071 Grievances, unless it resulted in a Public Reprimand.Per BODA Chair Marvin W. Jones, 1,723 (+ 44) of 7,071 (25%) Grievances were determined “Complaints,” signifying Professional Misconduct per TDRPC can be recognized just by reading a “writing” & without any Respondent input.

Respondents were DEPRIVED of Due Process in “Classification Appeals,” eff. 1/1/2004. Since Changes, however, CDC & BODA “favor” Respondents in “outcome,” by DENYING & DISMISSING 75% without ever sending Respondent a copy of Complainant’s “writing!” Respondent to read!

→ ← →

←

→

→ ←

In

5 |

POLICIES & PROCEDURES (in effect since 10/30/1992), had required CDC’s investigatory panel to present Formal Notice of factual allegations & perceived rule violations to Respondent prior to election of the forum (evidentiary hearing or trial in a district court) for further Grievance Proceedings. Regrettably, eff. 1/1/2004, a Formal Factual Notice specifying Rule Violations is given to Respondent only AFTER CDC’s biased “investigation of just cause” which requires (usually non-attorney, laymen) Complainants to provide “sufficient evidence of violations of TDRPC,” as subjectively defined by biased CDC investigators. NO longer is there an investigatory panel where Complainants & Respondents are permitted to appear in person at a HEARING. CDC is a FACILITATOR to unethical attys by concealing

25 % of “writings” (7,071) are classified as “Complaints” BEFORE any Respondent reads a Complainant’s “writing.” CDC “finds” Professional Misconduct in 1,495 “writings” & BODA reverses initial CDC DENIAL & DISMISSAL in 272, indicating that Complaints (as written) describe Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit & Misrepresentation per TDRPC. ↓

228 (+ 44) (2014/BODA) (4%) of “writings” are returned for CDC’s atty biased “just cause investigation.” BODA’s Notice to Complainant, reversing CDC’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL, cites reference to TDRPC of Prof. Misconduct.

1, 495 (21 %) of (7,071) Complainants’ “writings” are classified as “Complaints” at CDC “Intake.” Per Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), Respondents are DEPRIVED of Right to Appeal to BODA & presumed to be guilty of Professional Misconduct per TDRPC in ALL of 1,495 + 272 “writings” returned by BODA for “CDC Investigations.” Without Proper Notice, fair hearing & neutral judge, on Civil & Criminal Issues of “writings,” Respondent is bizarrely sent “writing” describing Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit & etc. in “layman’s terms” with CDC’s & BODA’s citing of TDRPC. CDC demands Respondent’s “rebuttal” within 30 days. ↓

A Complainant-adverse CDC “investigation” is made solely for the purpose of DENYING & DISMISSING valid Grievances against Respondents to preclude Sanctions or Compulsory Discipline. CDC’s “investigatory determination” DENIES & DISMISSES Complainants’ Grievances describing Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit & Misrepresentation, no matter how much evidence or how many documents Complainant submits. ↓

75% of “writings” are DENIED & DISMISSED with NO explanation why CDC & BODA ignore TDRPC definitions. NO fair investigations NOR proper Notices of Appeal Rights of CDC & BODA’s Complainant-adverse determinations are given.

Per Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), Complainant is DEPRIVED of Proper Investigation, a “just cause HEARING” & a neutral judge in ALL of 272 CDC “investigations.” CDC contemptibly places burden of proof on Complainant (usually a layman/non-attorney) to prove “just cause.” ↓

Eff. 1/1/2004, (98%) of Respondents, altho DEPRIVED of a Right to Appeal “Complaint classification” to BODA, can be absolved of any Disciplinary Action in regard to ALL Professional Misconduct, if Respondent will file Written Rebuttal to a laymen’s “writing,” for use by a biased CDC “investigator” to defend a Respondent to anonymous members of a Summary Disposition Panel IN A CLANDESTINE CONFERENCE. ↓

CLANDESTINELY, CDC presented (1,495 + 228 – 507 = ) 1,217 Grievances for DENIAL & DISMISSAL to Summary Disposition Panels. 1,189 of 1,217 (98%) of CDC’s biased findings of “NO Just Cause” are discarded with NO DISCIPLINE & EXPUNGED. CDC sends DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notices with NO explanation & DEPRIVING Complainant’s Right to Appeal adverse “determination.” Complainant’s Writings, atty rebuttals, all docs, evidences, etc. & ARE CONTEMPTIBLY CONCEALED IN A SUMMARY DISPOSITION PANEL FILE. CDC insinuates that THE COURT provides for NO Amendments & NO APPEALS to BODA of “secret determinations” which CDC conceals in a Summary Disposition Panel File until destroyed.

Complainants who have already lost large sums, property & Important Rights due to Respondent’s Prof. Misconduct, are then DISGRACEFULLY EXPLOITED AGAIN by a Complainant-adverse CDC “investigator” & a “(secret)” anonymous Summary Disp. Panel. ↓

28 of 1,217 (2%) CDC’s biased presentations of “NO just cause” to Summary Disp. Panels were reversed & placed on a Evidentiary Hearing (or District Court Hearing) Docket. A Notice specifying Rule Violations is given to Respondent; but Complainant, who has sustained loss of large sums, property & Rights due to Misconduct, becomes a “voiceless layman” Co-Plaintiff with CLD. ↓

Only five (5) of 272 “NO Just Cause” presentations to Summary Disp. Panels were reversed. Formal Notices specifying Rule violations were given to Respondents who cannot Appeal to BODA due to Changes eff. 1/1/2004. →

In CLD Report (6/1/2014-5/31/2015), Chair Guy Harrison blatantly lies that “Grievances are dismissed because cases do not specify violations of ethics rules.” CLD Chair Harrison cannot conceal that Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, etc. that caused Complainants monetary damages, &/or pain & suffering from Respondent’s violation of Laws (which are aimed at protecting Civil &/or Criminal Rights of Texans) were described in 1,260 of 1,767 Complaints BEFORE a Complainant-adverse CDC hid evidence so that valid Complaints would be DENIED & DISMISSED by a Summary Disposition Panel!

↓ ↓ → →

←

In 2014, The Supreme Court’s revision to Rules (TRDP 15.06(c) and Rule 13 of CLD’s Internal Operating Rules) revealed the State Bar’s dogged observance to an unlawful procedure of obstructing justice in which evidence of Misconduct is CONCEALED in “(SECRET), CLOSED, DENIED & DISMISSED FILES UNTIL EXPUNGEMENT.” The Bar reacted by ignoring the new Rules, as though Rules do not apply to the Bar.

6 |

507 of 1,767 (29%) were set on BODA, Evidentiary Panel or District Court Hearing Docket by Summary Disp. Panel with a possibility of DISCIPLINE TO RESPONDENT & monetary compensation for a Complainant who has endured physical &/or emotional stress due to Respondent’s Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit & Misrepresentation. Remainder of Complainants, 1260 of 1767 (71%) with summarily DENIED & DISMISSED Complaints but with NO explanation NOR “sufficient” investigation were also DEPRIVED of an Appeal to BODA of CDC’s Complainant-adverse DENIAL & DISMISSAL of a Grievance Complaint against Respondent for financial damages &/or pain & suffering). Contempt for Complainants compels CDC to DEPRIVE COMPLAINANTS’ RIGHTS to file Grievance Amendments in order to provide “sufficient evidence.” CDC despicably contends THE COURT gives CDC subjective discretion to define “sufficient evidence.” Complainants are DEPRIVED of Right to file an Amendment to CDC within 20 days of CDC’s “insufficient evidence determination.” DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notices are sent without any explanation. Complainants are DEPRIVED of Notice of an Appeal that can be made on CDC’s adverse “determination” on an Amendment per TRDP 2.10. ↓

5 of 272 Complaints revealed “just cause” in CDC’s “investigation.” Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, DEPRIVED Complainants of a Right to Appeal loss of money, property & Important Rights to BODA in remaining 267 Complaints: 161 - DENIED & DISMISSED by a Summary Disp. Panel; 106 – referred to Grievance Ref. Prog., pending just cause, litigation, or disposition; or “dismissed due to prior disbarment or resignation.”

507 of 1,767 (29%) Respondents were DEPRIVED of Appeal of CDC’s & Summary Disp. Panel’s CLANDESTINE “determinations of just cause” to BODA due to Changes, eff. 1/1/2004. A Hearing inclusive of presence of Complainant & Respondent, all docs., evidences, & a neutral judge, & Appeal to BODA were DEPRIVED 507 Respondents BEFORE case is set on BODA, Evidentiary Panel or District Court Hearing Docket. ↓

← CDC sent a Formal Factual Notice specifying Rule Violations to 502 Respondents, falsely insinuating that THE SUPREME COURT provides for NO APPEALS to BODA of CDC’s & Summary Disp. Panel’s “secret determinations” of Misconduct.

Sole objective of CDC is to DENY & DISMISS & EXPUNGE records of valid Grievances in “41-days or less!” thru obstructing justice; e.g. concealing ALL documents & evidence in a “(secret) confidential” Summary Disp. Panel File.

(71%) 1,260 of 1,767 DENIED, DISMISSED (993) & PENDING (267) Complaints WERE CONCEALED IN SUMMARY DISP. PANEL FILE. Any & all record of Grievance Complaint & Professional Misconduct is summarily EXPUNGED. Respondent’s record is unmarred by Misconduct. Texans are left completely UNPROTECTED.

(29%) 507 of 1,767 Complaints took up time in a BODA, Evidentiary or District Court but resulted in only 323 (318+5) Disciplinary Sanctions. ↓

(36%) 184 of 507 Complaints were REJECTED with No explanation, Appeal Notice or compensation from Respondent for financial damages &/or pain & suffering. Prof. Misconduct pardoned and Respondents’ record EXPUNGED! Complainants were misled by CAAP, a VOLUNTARY “MEDIATION” which has NO DISCIPLINARY purpose & Complaints abjectly dispersed; not “resolved.” Respondents need NOT attend CAAP to “resolve MISCONDUCT” from which atty prospered.

Eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants were → DEPRIVED of the Right to Appeal an Evidentiary Decision. Unfairly, Respondent Atty can Appeal Evidentiary Panel adverse Decision to BODA & to The Supreme Court.

323 (318+5) of 507 (64%) of Complaints resulted in Discipline, leaving 1,260 DENIED/DISMISSED/PENDING Complaints & Complainants with NO explanation, NO compensation & DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. DENIED & DISMISSED files are DISCARDED; never-to-be-revealed to future Clients/victims or professional liability insurance underwriters.

TCLA Executive Director Julie Oliver’s Grievance against Respondent James Farren stands out; but is only one inexcusable tragedy among 1,260 improperly DENIED & DISMISSED Complaints. Oliver’s Grievance made valid claims that Farren concealed evidence, coerced testimony & threatened key prosecution witnesses in the Brittany Holberg capital murder case. But Oliver’s Grievance was DENIED and DISMISSED with NO explanation & NO APPEAL RIGHTS. Amarillo Globe News contacted Spokeswoman Claire Mock for comment as the accused & convicted Brittany Holberg sits on DEATH ROW. Mock, sharing CLD Chair Harrison’s absurd perspective that “their job” is to conceal Misconduct, only replied: “TX State Bar cannot even confirm that a Grievance was filed” unless it resulted in a Public Reprimand!

During my seven (7) long years of uncovering the incongruous and odious Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, I have discovered that State Bar Officials, Supreme Court appointees, and long-time staff of agencies, such as CDC, BODA, CLD and GOC, tediously protect the revelation of incompetence and corruption within the State Bar and among appointees of The Supreme Court, by failing to answer any demands for information while assuming an absurd posture that the State Bar’s much superior knowledge of Rules is unquestionable. GOC Chair Catherine M. Wylie has allowed me only 25 minutes in 7 years; I was degraded and harassed by GOC for my “lack of understanding that attorneys are well-versed in the Law and not subject to my documented claims of Professional Misconduct.”

The antagonizing Grievance System, undeserving of its aura of decretory influence, originated in 2004, by ill-counsel of proponents; e.g., Linda Acevedo, CDC’s State Bar staff attorney (1985) and Chief Disciplinary Counsel; Christine E. McKeeman, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel; Gayle Riley Vickers, BODA’s Deputy Director; Jackie Truitt, BODA’s (non-attorney) Executive Assistant; Jen McCarthy, a former Supreme Court General Counsel; and Jennifer A. Hasley, a former CDC Assistant Disciplinary Counsel.

In 2006, Counselor Hasley left the State Bar to form her own firm to defend Texas Respondents. Jen McCarthy left The Supreme Court to go to the law firm, Vinson & Elkins in Houston and, abruptly, Nina Hess Hsu (employed by Vinson & Elkins) took Jen McCarty’s place as Supreme Court General Counsel in 2011. Today, Nina Hess Hsu is instrumental in pushing favored appointees to special positions; e.g., Catherine N. Wylie was re-appointed to Chair of GOC and also appointed to the Commission for Judicial Conduct in 2015! (Yet, in my one meeting with GOC Chair Wylie in 2015, she had only 25 minutes for my presentation of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, never had “time” for me to come back, and never bothered to provide a single, solitary response!)

While tens of thousands of Grievance Complainants are being DENIED & DISMISSED with NO explanation, nor proper Appeal Rights, the Complainant-adverse proponents only act to conceal the fact that all lawyer in Texas are compensated by reductions in professional liability insurance due to the artificially reported low incidence of Professional Misconduct among Texas Respondents. The incompetent and corrupt officials and appointees disregard the protests of a multitude of ethical attorneys, public-minded non-attorneys and advocates who repeatedly proclaim (to deaf ears) that the depth to which the legal profession is sinking under the maladministration of CDC’s General Counsel Acevedo and Supreme Court General Counsel Hess Hsu is seemingly bottomless; for example, but certainly NOT limited to:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who admitted in writing that he violated state securities law (potentially a third-degree felony), yet the state bar refused to even investigate. Only after strenuous, dedicated efforts of Texas Coalition Lawyer Accountability (TCLA’s) Julie Oliver was Paxton brought up for criminal charges that the State Bar had deemed unworthy of an investigation.

Randall County District Attorney James Farren, whose unfairly DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance (filed by Julie Oliver of TCLA) described and evidenced that Farren had threatened several witnesses during and after Brittany Holberg’s trial to obtain false testimony, has left Holberg sitting on DEATH ROW even though her conviction is based on evidence CONCEALED BY THE STATE BAR’S DYSFUNCTIONAL GRIEVANCE SYSTEM in a “SECRET, CLOSED, DENIED & DISMISSED GRIEVANCE FILE.” Ignoring The Supreme Court’s Rules revision, circa 2014, Spokeswoman Claire Mock (3/31/15) stated to concerned Media (Amarillo Globe News, Jim McBride), she can divulge NO “confidential” information on a DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance NOR the Bar’s failure to discipline James Farren. Mock had no comment (now or then) on the DEATH ROW victim!

Farren has actually had the audacity to threaten to sue for any revelation of the DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance which has been SEALED. Farren bragged to the Media that his record is EXPUNGED of Misconduct. Absurdly, he is provided protection while the State Bar is certainly guilty of obstructing justice by purposely and knowingly withholding valid information about Professional Misconduct in “SECRET, CLOSED, DENIED & DISMISSED GRIEVANCE FILES UNTIL RESPONDENT ATTORNEY’S RECORD WAS EXPUNGED!”

“Protecting the Public” edicts and photos of grinning Bar Members cannot obscure the Bar’s intentional falsification of data: it is NOT POSSIBLE (barring Divine Intervention) for active members to increase by 30% (2004-2015) AND for an accurate, corresponding count of number of Disciplines to decrease by 31%!

7 |

Conspicuous misrepresentation of data and facts are reflected in State Bar Reports; e.g., a Texas attorney population increase over the last 24 years (by at least 41,024 new lawyers during that period), reveal the Bar’s data as false and misleading, when compared to information that can be gleaned from such sources as James M. McCormack’s letter (dated May 14th, 2010) and BODA, CLD and GOC Reports, 2009-2010 and thereafter, which indicate:

From 1991-2003, Grievances reported as received annually increased by 5% overall; Discipline recorded for those years increased by 1%.

From 2004-2015, Grievances reported as received annually decreased by 16% overall; Discipline recorded for those years decreased by 31%!Much of the Information presented on Page RED, entitled “Catherine N. Wylie, Chair of GOC,

Conceals Readily Available Statistical Information” was gathered from a letter, from James M. McCormack, dated May 14th, 2010 which was contained in a GOC Report for 2010.iii Mr. McCormack, who served as Chief Disciplinary Counsel in the early 1990’s, expressed his concern that the drop in Complaints and Disciplines derived, not from a true DECLINE in MISCONDUCT, but from reduced CDC funding and the “reform” of the grievance system (eff. 1/1/2004) that eliminated investigatory panel hearings – in which the Complainant and the Respondent were invited to attend, present testimony and evidence under oath to a neutral judge. In Mr. McCormack’s own words, the reform which eliminated investigatory panel hearings was “largely, in (his) viewpoint for the convenience of lawyers and to the detriment of complainants.”

BODA & CLD Report analysts, apparently, presumed incorrectly that DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants would never be able to take one quick look at BODA & CLD Reports and know immediately that the Bar was purposely falsifying information to mislead The Supreme Court of Texas! Yet, the State Bar’s Reports, conflicting and chaotic, succinctly point out that the Dysfunctional Grievance System serves NO useful purpose. The Supreme Court of Texas must act to remove all disciplinary authority from the State Bar and disbar State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees responsible for the inane system which actually encourages Misconduct – BEFORE the Media forces a humiliating manual shutdown.

Officials of the State Bar and appointees of The Supreme Court of Texas are still congratulating themselves for hoodwinking Complainants in their quest to eliminate as many valid Disciplinary Sanctions to their favored Respondents, as possible, no matter how overt the Professional Misconduct. But, Complainants have suffered excessively due to Complainant-adverse Changes, eff 1/1/2004; DEPRIVED of:

any explanation of why valid Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED – by CDC and/or BODA, a right to file an Amendment & Appeal of adverse decision on an Amendment, a sufficient CDC investigation of each valid Complaint, an investigatory panel hearing with Respondent under oath, a proper DENIAL Notice but, instead, Complainants are insulted with inane notices that all

information and evidence used by secret, anonymous BODA and Grievance Panels to make FINAL DECISIONS are placed in “CLOSED FILES” and UNFAIR FINAL DECISIONS cannot be appealed!

money, and/or the rights of property or person, while Respondents prospered without any remorse, free to deceive more victims at will, with all records of Grievances summarily EXPUNGED.The truth is: the CDC has been overwhelmed by the enormity of its mandate from The Supreme

Court to discipline the ever increasing number of active attorneys . I contend the blame for the Complainant-adverse Grievance system falls firmly on the incompetent shoulders of Chief Counselor Acevedo, as well as GOC Chair Wylie. Rather than becoming enraged by the obviously false data in State Bar Reports, Counselor Acevedo and GOC Chair Wylie are soothed by it, as though it is their assignment to DENY & DISMISS Grievances by perpetrating Rules violations; and to protect Respondents by expunging records of Misconduct, in order to keep attorney professional liability insurance premiums artificially low!

WHY would the State Bar need an Attorney Discipline System, when by CDC’s, BODA’s, CLD’s and GOC’s own publicly made accounts in their own Reports to The Supreme Court: only 1,410 of more than 87,881 active attorneys required Discipline during four (4) years from 2011 to 2015 (at a cost of $36,049,724)?

8 |

The Dysfunctional Grievance System is inefficient and ineffective; costing $36,049,724 for CDC’s, BODA’s, CLD’s and GOC’s “services” to determine that only 1,410 of more than 87,881 active attorneys required Discipline during four (4) years from 2011 to 2015!

By misrepresenting the truthful number of Grievances and concealing Incompetence & Corruption by False Claims of “Confidentiality,” State Bar officials and appointees of The Supreme Court have aided & abetted tens of thousands of Respondent attorneys who have violated TDRPC repeatedly for years. The Charts and Graphs on pages 47-50 of this Report display startling data from BODA and CLD Reports from 2011 to 2015 pertaining to the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.▄ Less than 5%; (Only 1,410 of Total 28,827) received in those four (4) years were found to require discipline. 1,082 of those 1,410 Respondent attorneys obtained “non-private discipline,” allowing for Spokeswoman Mock to be able to lift the oppressively cumbersome veil of “(secret) confidentiality,” i.e. Mock could detail the Professional Misconduct to the Media because it was not Private Discipline. For a “very special” 328 Respondents, the State Bar gave “Private Discipline,” so that the State Bar could protect their much favored Respondents’ Professional Misconduct from discovery!

Despotically, the State Bar collaborators have used condescension and harassment as the mode of operation in maladministration while handing out summary DENIALS & DISMISSALS of Grievances without explanation, sufficient investigation, or provision of a Complainant’s Right to Appeal! From 2011-2015:▄ More than 75% (21,730 of 28,827 acknowledged Grievances of Total Grievances) have been DENIED & DISMISSED without any explanation to Complainant or proper Notice of Right to Appeal; and without a Respondent attorney even receiving the Grievance “writing” to read! ▄ More than 17% (5,016 of 28,827 acknowledged Grievances have been determined to describe Professional Misconduct as defined in TDRPC – just by CDC’s and BODA’s reading; but, subsequently, DENIED & DISMISSED – without explanation to Complainant, sufficient investigation, or proper Notice of Right to Appeal – by means of a “(secret) confidential (ex parte) CDC meeting - without the presence of Complainant or Respondent, without a Fair Hearing or a neutral judge and WITH NO DISCIPLINARY COUNSEQUENCE TO THE RESPONDENT! ▄ Nearly 2.5% (671 of 28,827) were “dispersed and/or unresolved” even though a CDC Summary Disposition Panel set them on an Evidentiary Panel or District Court Roster after a “just cause decision” was rendered.

In summary, nearly 95 % of 28,827 “received” Grievances from 2011-2015 have been unfairly DENIED & DISMISSED, dispersed and unresolved, due to the incompetence, corruption and “(secret) confidential code” of the State Bar Grievance System. Absurdly, State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees stoutly maintain a “mandate” from The Supreme Court to hide evidence in “CLOSED FILES” and EXPUNGE RECORDS OF ATTY MISCONDUCT! In nearly 95% of Grievances which are judged by the proponents of the Dysfunctional Grievance System as entirely inconsequential to the Respondent and NOT requiring an Evidentiary or District Court Hearing, Complainants are DEPRIVED of Due Process of Law; CDC, BODA, CLD and GOC hide documents and evidences of Misconduct (gathered during a Respondent biased CDC “investigation) in SEALED “(secret)”confidential CLOSED FILES, purposely concealed from Media!

Eff. 1/1/2004, the Dysfunctional Grievance System proponents DEPRIVED the important right of each Complainant to appeal an unjust Evidentiary Hearing decision. Complainants whose Grievances describe and document such heinous Professional Misconduct, as to make the final cut to warrant placement on a roster for an Evidentiary Hearing, approximately 8% (1,410 + 671) of 28,827 “acknowledged as received” Grievances from 2011-2015, are fully prevented from receiving justice, i.e., no matter how much money, or property has been lost or what kind of odious infringement on Civil Rights a Complainant has suffered due to the Respondent; or the fact that CLD has inadequately represented the Misconduct case against a Respondent in an Evidentiary Hearing, allowing the Respondent a “win,” Complainants are CONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVED of their Right to Appeal! Unfairly, unlike Complainants, Respondents are allowed to appeal adverse Evidentiary Decisions to BODA and to The Supreme Court of Texas.

Untruths to Media: e.g., “The state bar and commission declined comment on the ruling Tues, saying it is policy not to comment on pending litigation. Spokeswoman Claire Mock said she can recall only ‘maybe one other situation’ where a complainant requested a copy of the commission’s recommendation.”

9 |

Jess Davis in Law 360 (Oct. 27th, 2015), http://www.law360.com/articles/719495/texas-court-keeps-attorney-complaint-records-private, understandably, had an expectation that, a Complainant in a Grievance against an attorney would be entitled to a copy of the adverse decision made after disciplinary counsel reviewed information from both him and the attorney. When the court agreed that, per Rule 2.16 of TRDP, the Complainant could be barred from accessing those records, Law 360’s Jess Davis was taken aback at the very idea that, the person who started the complaint process, would be unable to get the CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL to help understand the adverse decision! Spokeswoman Mock and the Adverse-Complainant Dysfunctional Grievance System proponents have lied while professing an “authority” for their Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, since at least 1/1/2004, and not yet been booted from “duty” by The Supreme Court: the “seasoned” judge in the case did not even consider how preposterous it is that a Grievance Complainant was DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW and could not get a copy of a blatantly unfair adverse decision made by a “disciplinary” counsel! Spokeswoman Claire Mock fields all questions from Media by insipidly implying that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with DENYING and DISMISSING Complainant’s Grievances without explanation or sufficient investigation, DEPRIVING Complainants of money, property and important Rights, and DUE PROCESS OF LAW; while concealing all docs and evidences pertaining to Respondent’s Misconduct until EXPUNGEMENT. What Claire Mock most assuredly knows (but does not dare tell) is that per the State Bar’s misinterpretation of Complainant-adverse Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81]), the Dysfunctional Grievance System “allows by an unwritten exception” concealment of all docs and evidence in “(secret)”confidential CLOSED FILES,” purposely hiding them from the Media! Complainants are given improper Notice that they can be permitted NO Amendment Nor Appeal Rights from clandestine BODA or CDC Summary Disposition Panel DENIALS & DISMISSALS when, in fact, just the opposite is true! With a view toward appealing the court’s ruling, the Complainant’s Attorney, Gaines West of West Webb Allbritton & Gentry PC said. “To have our system of disciplining lawyers cloaked in secrecy should be unacceptable, even to lawyers.” While Claire Mock’s usual dull response is that the organization “cannot confirm even that a grievance was filed in the case unless it is filed in a state district court;” due to Gaines West’s speculation that an appeal of the court’s decision may occur, this time, Spokeswoman Mock’s rote response was that the State Bar’s “policy not to comment on pending litigation.”

Because there were 5,016 “situations involving Summary Disposition Panels” from 2011-2015 in which Complainants were DENIED & DISMISSED with No Amendment Nor Appeal Rights, leaving the Respondent attorney with NO Discipline and his record EXPUNGED of the very existence of the Grievance, it is a “good bet” that Claire Mock was telling a bold-faced lie when she said she could recall only “maybe one other situation” that a Complainant requested docs and evidence in “(secret)” confidential CLOSED FILES.”

Claire Mock’s worthless retorts litter similar articlesiv that can be googled on the Internet, e.g.:Attorney James Newton Walker’s record over the past 25 years includes charges of drug possession in 2004, DWI in 1996 and theft by check in 1993, according to court documents. He was convicted of the DWI charge but received probation and a reduced sentence, and he received deferred adjudication for the theft by check conviction. The outcome of the drug possession charge was unclear.

“DWI and drug possession do not rise to the level of a crime that triggers an automatic disciplinary process for attorneys,” said Claire Mock, a spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas. Mock could not immediately explain why Walker has no disciplinary history for his theft by check charge, as the bar’s website indicates.”

Claire Mock, public affairs counsel for the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, said the commission declined to comment on the Fourteenth Court's opinion because the litigation is pending. When asked if the opinion paves the way for Bennett to immediately return to the practice of law, Mock said the commission is reviewing the opinion and "determining their options."

10 |

27,417 of the Total Grievances “received” from 2011-2015 were DENIED & DISMISSED (or dispersed) WITHOUT EXPLANATION, SUFFICENT INVESTIGATION or APPEAL; just 1,082 Respondents required “Non-Private” Discipline. Illuminating the Corruption of the Dysfunctional Grievance System: Robert S. Bennet, a strong voice of concern for restoration of justice in the Discipline System, was one of 1,082 Respondents who received a Public Disciplinary Sanction; PUBLICLY DISBARRED on 3/21/2014 ! With a penchant for obstruction of justice by concealing evidence of Professional Misconduct in “(secret), confidential CLOSED FILES,” State Bar elitists specialize in organized crime and are well-known for intimidation of and unashamedly seeking retribution against ethical attorneys who seek to reveal the Bar’s blatant injustice! Is it not the aim of the Texas Grievance System to protect Texans from just those kinds of disreputable and unscrupulous attorneys? Robert S. Bennet, a TX attorney with an excellent reputation as an advocate for a just Grievance System, communicates among those attorneys who are forced to belong (and pay dues to) the general State Bar Membership. He finds that average solo practitioners, and small firms do not believe the Bar or the self-regulated system is in their best interest. Mr. Bennett has been vocal in opposition to the Dysfunctional Grievance System; e.g., his website: http://www.ocdc-revealed.com / spells out on the Home Page:

“This site is for the sole purpose of improving how the State Bar of Texas handles grievance matters. The old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has no better application than to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas (“OCDC”) that serves as the Prosecutor for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.”

Another non-elitist, Julie Oliver, Executive Director of the Texas Coalition on Lawyer Accountability (TCLA) is a courageous leader against the incompetence and corruption of the “superior” Bar officials and appointees of The Supreme Court. Along with others, e.g., Mark Godsey, Director of the Ohio Innocence Project, attracted much Media attention to be focused on the 25 year long wrongful imprisonment of Michael Morton. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals officially exonerated Morton after DNA evidence showed that another man was likely responsible for the 1986 killing of his wife, Christine Morton. Subsequently discovered was former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson’s, despicable concealment of exculpatory evidence in CLOSED FILES AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC, withholding:

of a transcript in which Christine Morton’s mother told Wood that the couple’s 3-year-old son, Eric, saw a “monster” who was not his father brutally attack his mother,

evidence about Christine Morton’s credit card being used, and a forged check cashed days after her death & evidence that a man in a green van had been casing the neighborhood before the murder.

In 2011, TCLA’s Julie Oliver filed Grievances against District Attorney Ken Anderson, his former assistant Mike Davis and current District Attorney ,John Bradley, alleging that the prosecutors violated state laws and professional ethics in the case against Michael Morton. The State Bar would not confirm receipt of the grievances, but the agency said (in 2011) that it had launched its own investigation of prosecutorial misconduct in the case. Think that such violations of TDRPC as “obstruction of justice” would be met with sincere regret and expressions of the Bar’s intentions to rectify concealment of any docs and evidences on which Grievance Determinations are made and to make amends! Think again! To the contrary, the State Bar strenuously asserted that its “duty” was to protect Ken Anderson from DISCIPLINE, maintaining that The Statute of Limitations prevented the Dysfunctional Grievance System proponents from pursing Ken Anderson for “obstruction of justice by concealing “(secret) and confidential CLOSED FILE!” The State Bar elitists, such as Linda Acevedo, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and Guy Harrison, CLD’s Chair purported that Ken Anderson’s, (who by 2011 had risen in ranks to District Judge) violation of TDRPC had happened so far into the past as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL! To prod the Bar to discipline Anderson, Davis and Bradley, the state legislature required The Supreme Court’s revision to Rules (TRDP 15.06 (c) and Rule 13 of CLD’s Internal Operating Rules), and, thereby, alerted the Media and the Texas public to the obvious fact that the Texas Legislature and The Supreme Court are aware that “agencies” of the State Bar, (e.g., CDC and CLD) are routinely obstructing justice by hiding evidences of Grievances in CLOSED FILES which the Bar protects as “(secret), and confidential.” Mr. Bennett, well acquainted with the plight of Anthony C. Graves since 2007 and equipped by new Rules and the highly acclaimed DOCUMENTARY, An Unreal Dream (2013), approached the Michael Morton

11 |

exoneration brawl which had left the Bar’s Dysfunctional Grievance System in an uncustomary state of vulnerability. On January 29th, 2014, Mr. Bennett helped Anthony C. Graves, who was wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and twice faced execution as a result of the unethical actions of Charles J. Sebesta, Jr., to file a grievance against the prosecuting attorney and former Burleson County DA. The Dysfunctional Grievance System elitists, fearing yet another trouncing by the public and the Media, were intimidated by Mr. Bennett’s knowledge and expertise; so, in an imprudent act of tyrannical distemper, the State Bar used a specially assigned judge, (Bexar County District Judge Carmen Kelsay) in a rare three-day trial in Harris County Courtroom (in a case unrelated to Graves) to disbar Bennett on March 21 st , 2014, stating Bennett violated two rules of professional conduct! In an obvious retaliatory effort to denounce Mr. Bennett’s second Grievance on behalf of Anthony C. Graves, the State Bar chose Mr. Bennett as one of only 1,082 Respondents who received a Public Disciplinary Sanction out of 28,827 Grievances from 2011-2015! In dishonor, the State Bar of Texas did not deny a fervent Sebesta’s claims that past grievances into his actions during the Graves’ case, which were submitted by “other concerned citizens to the State Bar,” (in fact, it was Mr. Bennett who had filed a Grievance against Sebesta on behalf of Graves in 2007!) were closed or dismissed by its disciplinary committee. After intense scrutiny of the Media and Texas public, on June 15th, 2015, the State Bar of Texas stripped Sebesta of his law license and formally disbarred him; but despicably encouraged Sebesta to Appeal. Sebesta did so; asserting that it was the “duty” of the Bar to shield him from Disbarment. Dishonorably, the State Bar diligently tried to dispel Sebesta’s Disbarment which was not final until February 8th, 2016, when Sebesta lost his Appeal.

Mr. Bennett appealed his own 2014 disbarment, calling it an unjust sanction for his first disciplinary violation. The case had been poorly presented by CLD (no witnesses called by CLD in liability phase or the trial or sanctions phase!), judicial rulings unsupportable, and the complete lack of evidence was inappropriate. The State Bar admitted that CLD had only sought that Mr. Bennett be suspended from practicing law for two years but that Kelsey (purportedly of her own volition) had made the decision to disbar Mr. Bennett on March 21st, 2014. More than 1,000 lawyers signed a letter in support of Bennett and decrying Kelsey's ruling. In July, 2014, the 14th Court of Appeals ordered mediation .

On September 15th, 2014, Mr. Bennett argued his unfair disbarment. Awaiting a decision, he helped Anthony Graves (in consultation with licensed attorneys) by filing a Case (No. 56406) before BODA on January 18th, 2015, “Charles J. Sebesta, Jr., Appellant v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Appellee, “BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ANTHONY CHARLES GRAVES. In short, the Case was presented on behalf of Anthony Graves to prevent the State Bar’s despicable intention to DENY and DISMISS the disbarment of Sebesta due to their docs and evidences concealed in “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES from 2007.” An Improper SUMMARY DENIAL & DISMISSAL of a Grievance “allegedly filed” by Anthony C. Graves in 2007 - the State Bar contended - should stand as precedent to allow Sebesta a PASS from any Disciplinary Action FOREVER!

Per STATEMENT OF AMICUS POSITION:“I, Anthony Graves, did not authorize the prior grievance or participate in the proceedings that Sebesta asserts should insulate him from the disciplinary action that led to his disbarment. Sebesta focuses his appeal on the Order of the panel below denying his Motion on Res Judicata and Estoppel…Sebesta’s motion effectively sought dismissal of the instant grievance because the State Bar of Texas had dismissed a grievance, purportedly on similar facts, filed against Sebesta in 2007. Graves wishes to make certain this Board is fully aware…that he did not know of, authorize, or participate in any way in the filing of the 2007 grievance by attorney Robert S. ‘Bob’ Bennett.”

Defeated by Mr. Bennett, in spite of their tyrannical actions to disbar him, in February, 2016, BODA upheld a decision to disbar Sebesta for concealing exculpatory evidence, presenting false testimony, lying and other Misconduct during Graves’ trial! In March, 2016, a Houston appeals court reversed a trial court's sanction that had disbarred Robert S. Bennett of Houston and remanded it for reconsideration of the "appropriate sanction" after finding evidence insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Bennett violated two disciplinary rules.

12 |

The State Bar of Texas (SBOT) “hunts down” and disbars attorneys who do not conform to SBOT’s Crime Organization. The Attorney Ethics Helpline Center aids Chief Counselor Acevedo in categorizingwhich Grievance “writing” will be supported by the Bar BEFORE an Attorney-Complainant files it. Chaos in BODA and CLD Reports from 2011-2015 are obviously presented as a “cover-up” for the Organized Crime of SBOT that can be most aptly termed: "Enemy Hunting.” Considering overt VIOLATION OF RULES in tens of thousands of Grievances since, at least 1/1/2004, and the muddled display of “PROTECTING THE PUBLIC facts” in BODA and CLD Reports, an appropriate question to ask The Supreme Court, which has the inherent power to regulate the practice of law in Texas is: if the officials and appointees did not have a sure-fire Organized Crime scheme of Enemy Hunting, HOW IN THE WORLD would they have been able to badger Texas attorneys, who must earn their livings (supporting families) by knowledge of TDRPC and competency in skills which require ability to follow procedural Rules of The Court, to participate in such an overtly corrupt State Bar Membership Association, which requires each Texas attorney to compromise and abandon Legal Oaths? Contemptibly, the State Bar, unable to garner respect after so many years of incompetence and corruption, have abandoned fundamentals, e.g., DUE PROCESS. The Bar conceals Respondent Attorney Misconduct in (“secret,) confidential CLOSED FILES” UNTIL EXPUNGEMENT (in two years); and, by an oppressive and crude tactic of “Enemy Hunting,” disparages ethical attorneys’ actions in their attempts to reveal the incompetence and corruption to The Supreme Court.

A sequence of Charts, starting on page 16 with “Per BODA & CLD Reports (6/1/2014 – 5/31/2015), 6,753 (95.5%) of 7,071 Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED without explanation, gives Convincing Evidence that the Bar does not comprehend its Duty entails DUE PROCESS.▄ 5,536 of 7,071 Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED without explanation and without correct/proper Notice of a Complainant’s Rights to Amend and Appeal adverse Grievance Decisions. Respondents were not even given a copy of those 5,536 Grievance “writings” in those cases and have no input, although BODA Panels are infrequently assembled to read Complainants’ “writings.” Respondents are explicitly warned NOT TO RESPOND to BODA’s Notice of an anonymous BODA Panel review on Letterhead, asserting “Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas.” (BODA’s Jackie Truitt, a non-attorney Office Manager, presents a “standard” letter which spells the word “disciplinary” incorrectly.)▄ 1,217 of 7,071 Grievances were classified by CDC and BODA as “Complaints,” i.e., just by reading a “writing” without any Respondent input, SBOT determined that the Respondent had, in fact, violated TDRPC. After requiring 1,217 of Respondent’s Written Responses, CDC’s anonymous Summary Disposition Panel, DENIED & DISMISSED all but 28 Complaints without explanation of why Misconduct described and documented in 1,189 Complaints went WITHOUT ATTY’s DISCIPLINE, or Notice of a Complainant’s Rights to Amend and Appeal adverse Grievance Decisions. DENIALS & DISMISSALS are CONCEALED in CLOSED FILES!▄ Only 318 of 502 Cases set on Evidentiary or District Crt. Roster have allegedly been assessed Discipline. Only 253 of those Sanctions can be verified by Media because 65 are “PRIVATE.” Complainants were DEPRIVED of a Right to Appeal an Evidentiary Panel Decision, eff. 1/1/2004; therefore, Complainants have no recourse when CLD bungles the Grievance. I must ask The Supreme Court, if it were something less sinister than “Enemy Hunting” that could be accountable for ethical lawyers to steadfastly dignify (by their failure to object to) the overtly humiliating DENIALS & DISMISSALS (without Discipline but with summary EXPUNGEMENT of the Grievance from Respondents’ records!) of tens of thousands of valid Grievances since, at least 1/1/2004, what could THAT ALBATROSS possibly be? Could it be that officials, Supreme Court appointees, and 96,912 active attorneys in Texas, astute enough to pass the Bar Exam, (all) profoundly misunderstand that Rules cannot lawfully be misinterpreted by the State Bar in a manner that favors “SBOT SELECTED” attorneys no matter how overt the Misconduct and which routinely discriminates against Complainants? The Supreme Court must assume that every Texas attorney knows conclusively that Rules are established by the authority of The Supreme Court; and DISCIPLINE is mandatory NOT TO BE CONCEALED OR EXPUNGED by proponents of a Dysfunctional Discipline System) when Texas Attorneys violate TDRPC!

SBOT’s Organized Crime in the Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC)

13 |

By Its inattentiveness, The Supreme Court has remained silent and detached from OCDC while the professional integrity of all Texas attorneys was completely devastated. An overtly unfair and unjust Attorney disciplinary system, undermining the authority of The Supreme Court, has prevailed since, at least, 1/1/2004 because the State Bar’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Linda Acevedo, employs an active practice of ORGANIZED CRIME, “Enemy Hunting.” Crystal clear to any of tens of thousands of unconstitutionally DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants who have taken well documented Grievances, clearly describing Professional Misconduct and the plethora of bizarre, unexplained and inexplicable, summary DENIAL & DISMISSAL SBOT and BODA Notices to attorneys who might handle such Grievances (but adamantly refuses to do so!) is that: No ethical attorney wants to take on an incompetent, corrupt Bar which holds the atty’s license to practice law in “unclean hands.” SBOT’s ORGANIZED CRIME allows State Bar to offer benefits, e.g., Membership Privileges currently include: DENIALS and DISMISSALS and EXPUNGEMENTS of Complainants’ valid Grievances with no records kept, nor disciplinary consequences to Attorneys. Even considering, however, that unethical Texas attorneys scoff at the very idea that a Grievance might result in Discipline, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to keep 96,912 attorneys (and ever increasing) willing to pay for licensing, taxes, and fees to an irrelevant State Bar Association which has long ago lost the respect of ethical attorneys in practice of law and the public for the legal profession in Texas, if it were not for SBOT’s ORGANIZED CRIME. One need look no further for than CLD’s Reports from 2011 – 2015, the Organized Crime Agent, Linda Acevedo, (aka CDC’s Chief Counsel), and her proxies (employed by CDC in The Attorney Ethics Helpline Center) purport that the Hotline received 23,300 calls (ONLY FROM LAWYERS WHO REPORT MISCONDUCT OF OTHER LAWYERS) directly to the “Helpline.” The Helpline aids OCDC’s Chief Counselor Acevedo to categorize which potential Grievance “writing” will be supported by OCDC BEFORE an Attorney-Complainant formally compiles it. Certain potential Grievance Complainant-Atty “writers” are given stern warning NOT to file a Grievance for TDRPC 8.03 violations because the described Misconduct does not “fit the definition” that the OCDC uses (which means that the proposed Respondent is NOT an Enemy.)

The Dysfunctional Grievance System proponents maintain only a very SHORT LIST of Respondents, ONLY 1,082 in years from 2011-2015 received Non-Private Sanctions with 328 “PRIVATE”--- all other Prior Grievances that have been EXPUNGED. DENIALS & DISMISSALS are earmarked as “(secret)” confidential and concealed in a CLOSED GRIEVANCE FILE until two years AFTER an unconstitutional DENIAL AND DISMISSAL when the Grievance is destroyed by statutory protocol. Contemptibly, no matter how many calls of those 23,300, pertain to “select” OCDC attorney-allies of SBOT, NO “LIST” is kept to “red flag” attorneys who are well known among others to habitually violate TDRPC. The 23,300 calls to the Helpline from 2011-2015 are separated; based on criteria that A FRIEND:

¹ Does not dare file a Grievance (like Marc R. Stanley did) no matter how many TDRPC violations for Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are encountered, without FIRST taking the case against the Respondent to another legal authority, e.g., Civil or Criminal Court.²Never talks to the Media about SBOT’s OCDC, especially about overt incompetence and corruption among the highest of their ranks, Attorney Generals, state district judges, etc. ³Pays Dues promptly - a “Disciplinary Actions Page,” [Index #13] shows a commonality among Disbarred Members-violations of TDRPC AND OFTEN do not pay dues, taxes and fees to SBOT.4 Volunteers time and willingly violates Atty Oaths by lying, cheating and stealing from Complainants which is essential to keeping the incompetent and corrupt CDC, BODA, CLD and GOC as “authoritarians” who sanction mass Grievance DENIALS & DISMISSALS (of valid Complaints) by means of concealing all evidences of Professional Misconduct for submissive attorneys-FRIENDS, i.e., by Obstructing Justice, TDRPC, Rule 8.04 Misconduct (a) (4).

There are MANY ENEMIES of the SBOT’s OCDC Chief Counselor Acevedo. Since 1/1/2004, OCDC has mocked The Supreme Court’s mandate by eliminating Due Process, i.e., Complainants are summarily DENIED & DISMISSED their Grievances no matter that the Complainant has lost money, or the rights of property or person. As a result, SBOT has ruined the lives of tens of thousands of Complainants, without being forced by The Supreme Court, to explain the unfair, unconstitutional, adverse

14 |

“decisions.” OCDC declares an unquestionable “authority” from The Court which is absurd and incorrect; but The Court has not been interested at all in helping Complainants. The 2013 CLD Report describes OCDC Chief Acevedo’s lackluster “Media Outreach.” Because CLD and OCDC have received increased media attention over the past years, OCDC recognizes that the public get most of their information about the State Bar from the Media. Local and national media outlets request information on how the disciplinary system operates. The CLD Report pronounces “In an effort to provide as much information as possible to the public via the media, CDC has tried to be forthcoming about how the system works and why certain information cannot be disclosed.” In big letters, Media are directed to Claire Mock who is ONLY too well-known for “(secret) confidentiality” unless and until a Respondent Attorney is assessed Non-Private Discipline!

“ Media Inquiries Regarding The Disciplinary System Should Be Directed to Claire Mock, Public Affairs Administrator (512 427 1354) cmock@texasbar.com” (pg. 8 2013 CLD Report)

OCDC’s Chief Acevedo’s insincerity is evident; purporting to “protect the public from lawyer misconduct” by “self-help.” A Texas Bar Journal article titled “Grievance Referral Program: How the Texas Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office is helping lawyers help themselves,” details support to attorneys with mental or drug- and alcohol-related impairments, i.e., Complainants are protected from misconduct by social work? Another page (27) of 2013 CLD Report describes CAAP, a voluntary (NOT DISCIPLINARY) program purported to be necessary to assist Texas lawyers and their clients in resolving minor concerns, disputes, or misunderstandings within the attorney-client relationship. CAAP certified mediators educate the public about various “self-help options” and “mediation methodology.” Does The Supreme Court of Texas misunderstand that tens of thousands of attorney and non-attorney Complainants have been unconstitutionally DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances by OCDC and DEPRIVED of Amendment and Appeal Rights and our problems cannot be solved by OCDC’s social work? Valid Complaints have described Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation for which Texas attorneys Misconduct cost millions of dollars and contemptible loss of Civil Rights which have ruined lives; not “minor concerns.”

For example of OCDC Chief Acevedo’s “selection of FRIENDS v. ENEMIES,” there is Marc R. Stanley, who (probably) did not call the Helpline BEFORE he filed a Grievance against Atty J and was provided an absurd DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance “writing.” Mr. Stanley was provoked by the humiliating, condescending DENIAL & DISMISSAL. His own legal ethics compelled him to write a “PETITION for Administrative Relief,” September 29th, 2014, to cast attention on the degradation of the incongruous DENIALS & DISMISSALS. “Atty J,” the Respondent-likely-a-Bar- FRIEND, conducted a gross scheme stealing more than $1,170,654 from Complainants on July 7th, 2014, but the Bar tenaciously holds all docs and evidences of the unexplained (and inexplicable) DENIAL & DISMISSAL of Mr. Stanley’s Grievance in a “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILE.”

The only result from The PETITION that can be verified by Googling is that on April 10th, 2015 CDC’s Counselor Maureen Ray mysteriously abandoned her State Bar membership. Previously, she alone had sufficed as the CDC’s “Ombudsman” and “Special Administrative Counsel” investigating 96 DENIALS & DISMISSALS of valid Grievances, fielding 234 Calls, and 164 Information Requests over years 2011-2015! Unnoticed by CLD’s 2015 Report is that NO ONE replaced “Special Administrative Counsel Ray!”

Bar officials and appointees of Supreme Court have also black-listed (for LIFE), Robert S. Bennett, who violated OCDC’s “directions” by filing Grievances against Charles Sebesta. In fact, Mr. Bennett, himself, was DISBARRED by SBOT’s OCDC! Chief Counsel Acevedo’s maneuvers have been especially frenetic (and would make a sadly hilarious sequel to The Unreal Dream or Emmy-winning broadcast, "Grave Injustice).

There are tens of thousands of Complainants, OCDC’s ENEMIES, since, at least, 1/1/2004, who have been DENIED & DISMISSED their valid Grievances with NO EXPLANATION, NO sufficient investigation, NO Proper Appeal or Amendment Rights and WITHOUT ANY DISCIPLINE TO ATTORNEY! Tens of thousands of Respondents have been EXPUNGED of their Grievances and grow wealthier by their OCDC supported assaults on victims as they violate TDRPC each and every day with NO FEAR of DISCIPLINE!

15 |

Texans have a Right to a fair trial with a neutral judge when accused of speeding. However, OCDC has willfully misconstrued intent of Changes, 1/1/2004, so that tens of thousands of Complainants who wrote formal Grievances, describing and documenting Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation against Respondent attorneys are DEPRIVED of a fair trial, neutral judge, and proper Notice of DENIAL & DISMISSAL with Appeal Rights. In opposition to Statutes, OCDC egregiously conceals all evidences and documents of valid Grievances in “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES” until In a blunt and scathing ruling on 4/19/2013, District Judge Louis Sturns said Ken Anderson acted to defraud the trial court and Michael Morton’s defense lawyers, resulting in an innocent man serving 25 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit:

“This court cannot think of a more intentionally harmful act than a prosecutor’s conscious choice to hide mitigating evidence so as to create an uneven playing field for a defendant facing a murder charge and a life sentence,” Sturns said.

In defiance of Judge Sturns on his website reprehensively bemoaning the fact that OCDC’s Chief Acevedo was unable to do “her job” to conceal his Misconduct in “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES” until EXPUNGED, Charles Sebesta derisively quips:

“The ‘Scales of Justice’ symbolize a ‘Level Playing Field.’ And this playing field isn’t level.” Ironically, Sebesta is NOT referring to the “Grave Injustice” of his obstruction of justice, i.e., concealment of exculpatory evidence in “(secret),” confidential CLOSED FILES which led Anthony Graves to spend 18 years in prison (12 years on DEATH ROW!). Sebesta’s quibbling protest is OCDC’s Chief Acevedo, who told incessant lies to the Media about a 2007 Grievance filed by Robert S. Bennett on Grave’s behalf but was thwarted by Mr. Bennett, (an OCDC ENEMY) of her overt intentions to keep Charles Sebesta’s Professional Misconduct concealed in “(secret),” confidential, EXPUNGED FILES CLOSED. Sebesta lamented:

“It is not the responsibility of the State Bar of Texas or its employees to ‘sanction’ its members just to satisfy the demands of the media or various special interest groups. The Bar’s mission is to provide equality, and protect the interest of both the public and its member attorneys.”

Charles Sebesta, a Grievance Respondent in a Professional Misconduct case paralleling Ken Anderson’s disbarment case, has the audacity to bluntly point out that the playing field that OCDC uses is exclusive (for State Bar of Texas Members ONLY!). Since Complainant-adverse Changes, 1/1/2004, jaundiced State Bar officials and appointees to The Supreme Court have led the charge to devastate the integrity of attorneys and the respect of the public for the Law Profession in TX. Sebesta is so jaded that he purports that 96,912 attorneys in TX will have sympathy for him that Chief Acevedo has not used her “obstruction of justice authority” by concealing his ethical violations of TDRPC which caused an innocent man to be imprisoned on DEATH ROW! “Scales of Justice” are irrelevant on OCDC’s playing field. Sebesta’s website http://charlessebesta.net; describes an eroded field of nightmares; a hellish place where justice is routinely thwarted by OCDC’s “obstruction of justice authority.” Since 1/1/2004, OCDC has absurdly contended it is in the “best interest” to Discipline Texas attorneys that leads OCDC conceal all docs and evidence of Misconduct in “(secret), confidential CLOSED FILES until EXPUNGED, unless a Respondent is an Enemy.

Chief Acevedo’s tactical maneuvers have been revealing, and especially frenetic (and would make a sadly hilarious trilogy to “The Unreal Dream” and “Grave Injustice” documentaries) beginning with the day that Robert S. Bennett took on the State Bar in the Anthony Graves case, filing a Grievance against Charles Sebesta, who served as District Attorney for the 21st Judicial District of Texas from 1975-2000. Sebesta derisively discounts the “ineffective way” that Acevedo broke statutory laws provided by The Court, claiming Acevedo betrayed him and all Members who count on Acevedo to arrange for EXPUNGEMENTS, even in cases so egregious as Michael Morton and Anthony Graves! A bitter Sebesta indignantly denounced Acevedo’s bungling of his Disbarment Case. By their own acknowledgment, OCDC has been bombarded with, at least, 28,827 Grievances just since 2011 (when I started my review of BODA & CLD Reports). (Please note, however, that OCDC emerged in 1/1/2004 and was brandishing DENIALS & DISMISSAL with NO EXPLANATION to Complainants in 2007 when Mr. Bennett filed a Grievance against Charles Sebesta on Grave’s behalf. The Sebesta Grievance was summarily DENIED & DISMISSED under OCDC’s unconstitutional, odious Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.) BODA has humiliated The Supreme Court by always pointing the blame at

16 |

the OCDC in the false and unauthorized standard Grievance Rejection and Denial Notice form letter with NO FURTHER EXPLANATION OR APPEAL RIGHTS:

“After reviewing the grievance as filed with the State Bar Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas and no other information, the Board has determined that your appeal should not be granted as the conduct described does not allege a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the Board affirms the dismissal of the grievance by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. The appeal is complete, and the Board’s file for this matter is closed. The Board’s decision not to grant the appeal is final, and there is no appeal from the Board’s decision.”

OCDC ruined the lives of 27,417 Texas Citizens and families from 2011-2015 (many more since 1/1/2004) by DEPRIVATION of DUE PROCESS! 21,730 of 28,817 Grievance Complainants from 2011-2015 were DENIED & DISMISSED just by reading a “writing” at “intake,” or by BODA if the Complainant appealed to BODA within a 30 day time limit. 21,730 of 28,817 “writings” were DENIED & DISMISSED without Appeal Rights and without a Respondent attorney even receiving the Grievance “writing” to read! 21,730 DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants received “standardized Notices” with a few brief paragraphs as the one just above. 5,016 of 28,817 Grievance Complainants received “standardized Notices” (containing cruel paragraphs in quote below) after OCDC’s Summary Disposition Panel DENIED & DISMISSED their valid Grievances with no sufficient investigation by fervently siding with the Respondent attorney’s “written account of what really happened” no matter how overtly and abhorrently the Respondent violated TDRPC, causing huge financial losses to Complainants and DEPRIVATION of Civil Rights which leading to loss of (e.g.) child custody, employment, freedom!

“..there is no just cause to believe that the above named lawyer has committed professional misconduct. In accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, following this determination by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel your complaint was presented to a Summary Disposition Panel of District 8 Grievance Committee. The Panel has voted to dismiss the complaint. Please know that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel maintains confidentiality in the grievance process as directed by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Although there is no appeal of the Panel’s decision to dismiss your grievance, the State Bar of Texas maintains the Client-Attorney Assistance Program (CAAP),…. CAAP is not a continuation of the attorney disciplinary process, and participation by both you and your attorney is voluntary.”

671 Complainants’ cases were bungled by OCDC or dispersed without Discipline. Contemptibly, OCDC has maladministered the Complainant-adverse Grievance System by embracing an unconstitutional tenet whereby OCDC contends that due to Statutory Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants have been DEPRIVED of a Right to Appeal an adverse decision of an Evidentiary Panel. Disgracefully, OCDC “determined” in each of 671 Grievances that Professional Misconduct had occurred and placed the Case on a Roster for an Evidentiary Panel. But, in each of 671 cases, there was NO DISCIPLINE effectuated and/or the case was dispersed for lack of interest. Each Complainant was told that The Supreme Court Rules allowed NO APPEAL to Complainants. Unfairly, any Respondent retains a Right to Appeal through The Supreme Court.

Per CLD’s 2015 Report, it cost $1,640 per EACH of 7,071 Grievances to abuse 6,753 Complainants with OCDC’s unconstitutional Denial Notices!

OCDC operates the “discipline system” with 91 full-time employees; 363 volunteer grievance committee members serve on 17 committees. To make matters worse, OCDC’s Chief Acevedo, Deputy Laura Popps, CLD’s Chief Guy Harrison, BODA’s Chair Marvin Jones and GOC’s Chair Catherine Wylie do not bother themselves much about the 318 Respondent Attorneys who “deserved discipline for Misconduct and not paying bar fees and taxes” in 2015; more interested in using OCDC’s resources HUNTING OCDC’s ENEMIES! An OCDC Grievance Committee sided with a Respondent whose own docs and evidences that he had suppressed exculpatory proof had been EXPUNGED by a TX Trial Court, just as the Respondent had demanded! The Grievance was DENIED & DISMISSED! Inanely, CLD Chief Harrison required “Mandamus

17 |

Relief” by The Court BEFORE PROCEEDING with the Grievance! OCDC ridiculously purported without “Mandamus Relief,” it could not ascertain that The Court could protect the acquitted Defendant’s Right to Grieve! In CLD’s 2015 Report, it is clear that Chief Harrison is proud of the granting of “Mandamus Relief” on August 24th, 2014: OCDC must NOT HAVE KNOWN THE ANSWER BEFORE ASKING!

“In re State Bar of Texas, 440 S.W.3d621(Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding)‘In barring the Commissions use of any document or other evidence derived from the underlying criminal case, the Court construes the expunction statute at odds with the acquitted defendant’s interest. A process intended to protect acquitted defendants has been used as a shield against charges of prosecutorial misconduct.[.] Given the waiver expressed by the acquitted defendant, the relevance of the expunged record to the disciplinary proceeding, and the Commission’s expressed need for those records, the trial court abused its discretion by extending the expungement order to the Commission and thereby interfering in the disciplinary proceeding.’

Seeking shelter from the torrent of bad publicity resulting from Media attention due to TCLA and the Innocence Project, OCDC must have been severely “disappointed” in the August 24th, 2014 “Mandamus Relief” granted by The Supreme Court. I must ask The Supreme Court of Texas: Could it really have been a surprise to CLD Chief Harrison to “discover” that The Court did NOT seek to protect the Respondent Attorney who concealed exculpatory evidence rather than protecting the acquitted Defendant?

OCDC proclaims to “Protect the Public” by humiliating The Supreme Court: Texas Citizens have repeatedly required abolishment of any disciplinary function from the State Bar, a “trade association” which stoops to lowest levels of degradation in order to keep Texas State Bar members’ premiums for professional liability insurance artificially low. Throughout CLD Reports from 2011 – 2015, the most distressing factor exposed is hypocrisy. OCDC proclaims support for the concerted efforts of special interest groups, e.g., Julie Oliver of TCLA, many members of the Innocence Project, concerned lawyers, e.g., Stanley and Bennett, and Texas House Legislators, aimed at “holding lawyers accountable for actions” while also insisting that “statutes” provide “authority” for OCDC’s odious concealment of Texas Attorneys’ Professional Misconduct in “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES.” OCDC has preposterously contended since 1/1/2004, The Supreme Court of Texas has provided a MANDATE to OCDC giving such “authority” to DENY & DISMISS WITHOUT EXPLANATION and conceal evidences and in (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES BEFORE EXPUNGEMENT!

Overt incompetence and corruption can be read “between the lines” and above the glossy photos of CLD’s Vice Chair John Neal, CDC’s Chief Linda Acevedo, and CLD’s Chair Guy Harrison on pages 5 & 6. In 2014-2015 Highlights, CLD’s Report claims CDC Attorneys Laura Popps and Beth Stevens claimed victory of disbarment of an unnamed attorney (OCDC FRIEND Charles J. Sebesta’s name is not mentioned although it was a PUBLIC DISBARMENT!) of a former elected district attorney for withholding exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case. CLD Report pg. 5:

“[The] disbarment cannot begin to make up for what happened to Anthony Graves, but we hope it can bring him some sense of justice,” said CDC Deputy Counsel Laura Popps. “Whether it is prosecutorial misconduct or other serious allegations of attorney misconduct, our office remains committed to holding lawyers accountable for their actions and obtaining sanctions that protect both the public and the legal profession.”

27,417 of 28,827 (received by OCDC just from my study time period 2011-2015) Grievances have been DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION, insufficient investigation (if any investigation at all), NO PROPER APPEAL RIGHTS and NO DISCIPLINE! OCDC has obstructed justice in EACH of those cases by concealing evidences and docs in (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES, and provided improper Notices to Complainants that, by “statutory rules,” Complainants are provided NO Right to Appeal BODA’s and Summary Disposition Panels’ adverse OCDC decisions! In following pages, I discuss only one ethical attorney’s strenuous efforts to reveal that Charles Sebesta’s Professional Misconduct in the Anthony Graves Grievance Denial in 2007 was NOT set before an Evidentiary Panel, but summarily DENIED & DISMISSED & EXPUNGED without EXPLANATION, a fair hearing with a neutral judge, or Statutory Appeal Rights, as the corrupt and incompetent OCDC has unconstitutionally DENIED & DISMISSED & EXPUNGED (without EXPLANATION or APPEAL) tens of thousands of Complainants since 1/1/2004! Mocking Statutes, OCDC’s sole purpose is to conceal Professional Misconduct of Respondents.

18 |

I must ask The Supreme Court of Texas: will it take more than OCDC’s disbarment of Robert S. Bennett, a courageous advocate for Anthony Graves, and the overtly fraudulent maneuvers of OCDC’s Chief Acevedo to conceal Charles Sebesta’s HUMILIATING Professional Misconduct --- to boot SBOT? In only the study period of my Report (from 2011 – 2015), BODA and CLD Reports can be deciphered to demonstrate that 27,417 Complainants faced exactly the same effrontery as Mr. Bennett as our Civil Rights were DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION or APPEAL by despicable officials of the State Bar and disloyal Supreme Court appointees. Texas lawyers who overtly demonstrate Professional Misconduct are defended by OCDC; fearing NO DISCIPLINE; Respondent Attorneys continue to abuse and exploit, not only Complainants without law degrees, but ethical attorneys with impressive credentials! There must be 50 ways that OCDC Chief Acevedo and her OCDC ensemble have employed to conceal the Professional Misconduct of Respondent Lawyer Friends from Media or various special interest groups: I list just a few in the Sebesta example!Chief Acevedo Maneuver #1 – Lie to the Media insinuating that Mr. Bennett’s disclosures about previous Grievance in 2007 which was DENIED & DISMISSED were, at best, uninformative, and that the 2007 Grievance was either “LOST” by her incompetent staff or “NEVER EXISTED” due solely to the fact that a Statute of Limitations had not required OCDC to assemble a “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILE.” OCDC Chief Acevedo feared that if the “LOST” file instead “EXISTED,” it would prove conclusively that the 2007 Grievance DENIED, DISMISSED and EXPUNGED FILE against Sebesta concealed Sebesta’s Professional Misconduct, i.e., Sebesta withheld evidence and used false testimony to win a capital murder conviction against Anthony Graves but went undisciplined with records EXPUNGED!

OCDC Chief Acevedo should forgone the untruth that OCDC LOST THE SEBESTA FILE! Her own staff were dismayed to hear that they were being blamed for carelessness and exclaimed OCDC’s routine procedure was to completely destroy Grievances two years after DENIAL & DISMISSAL! Sebesta opines:

“Adding to the drama surrounding the 2007 Grievance is the fact that the State Bar’s ‘file’ and all of its contents have disappeared. However, Linda Acevedo has an explanation for that missing file. She says that a file was never opened since State Bar never conducted an investigation into the Grievance…Yet members of her own staff indicated that that’s not true, because the file was deactivated and destroyed two years after the grievance was dismissed, which is keeping the statutory protocol.”

OCDC Chief Acevedo strategy to make misrepresentations to the Media to blame the 2007 DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance on Statute of Limitations so as NOT to reveal the stunning fact that 27,417 of 28,827 (received just from my study time period 2011-2015) have “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES” which, if exposed, would reveal that OCDC routinely conceals evidence and documents proving the guilt of Respondents in order to avoid Discipline, was a tactic destined to fail, due, in part, to legislation enacted in 2013. To prod the State Bar to discipline attorneys in a similar case (Michael Morton), the state legislature required The Supreme Court’s revision to Rules (TRDP 15.06(c) and Rule 13 of CLD’s Internal Operating Rules), and, thereby, alerting the Media and the Texas public to the obvious fact that the Texas Legislature and The Supreme Court are aware that “agencies” of the State Bar, (e.g., CDC and CLD) are consistently obstructing justice by hiding all docs and evidences of Grievances in CLOSED FILES which the Bar zealously protects as “(secret), and confidential.”

OCDC was NOT phased at all and has continued ORGANIZED CRIME; overtly maintaining it is NOT OCDC’s purpose to Discipline Attorneys who violate TDRPC but that OCDC’s DUTY to Texas attorneys is to conceal MISCONDUCT by lying, and subverting issues of PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT among Texas attorneys at the same time pursuing “mandamus relief.” Absurdly, CLD’s 2015 Report proudly displays a discussion of how OCDC secured “permission” through The Supreme Court to obtain evidence of a Respondent’s suppression of exculpatory evidence from a trial court that exposed it to the Media, as though OCDC (WITHOUT SUPREME COURT’S AUTHORITY) did not have the “moxie” to get records from a trial court which shielded a CLD’s ability to Discipline a Respondent for Prosecutorial Misconduct!

19 |

I have attached1 five (5) “standard form letters” from 2007 which prove that OCDC’s Deputy Popps is blatantly lying. OCDC ignores JUSTICE, striving only to conceal a Respondent’s Misconduct, in an overtly Complainant-adverse Grievance System. In 2007, Robert S. Bennett filed a Grievance against Charles J. Sebesta on behalf of Anthony Graves. OCDC DENIED & DISMISSED the 2007 Grievance purposely favoring Sebesta by giving him the names of the Summary Disposition Panel Members so Sebesta could persuade them in ex-parte communications! While Mr. Bennett and Mr. Graves were NEVER allowed those names (or provided a fair trial with a neutral judge with Appeal Rights), the clandestine Summary Disposition Panel DENIED & DISMISSED the 2007 Grievance summarily (WITHOUT PLACING IT ON A ROSTER FOR AN EVIDENTIARY OR DISTRICT COURT HEARING)! OCDC has falsely purported that The Supreme Court of Texas accorded OCDC, an “authority” to make (“secret”) confidential adverse decisions against a Complainant on 1/1/2004 and deprive Complainants of Appeal Rights since OCDC purposely misinterpreted Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, to be Complainant-adverse! Even more disgraceful is the fact that OCDC has purposely disobeyed statutory rules for an indefinite period of time (tracing back to a time period BEFORE 1/1/2004) in which OCDC has “DEPRIVED Complainants of Amendment and Amendment Appeal Rights.” Clearly, The Supreme Court Rules accord Complainants DENIED & DISMISSED either by BODA or by CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel, the Right to Amend their Grievances, i.e., to supply evidences that are missing after OCDC’s investigation and makes an EXPLANATION to Complainant. OCDC and BODA have shamefully DENIED & DISMISSED tens of thousands of Grievances WITHOUT EXPLANATION or SUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION; DEPRIVING COMPLAINANTS of rightful Amendments and Appeals. OCDC and BODA have been in blatant opposition to Statutory Rules, since at least 1/1/2004, failing even in the most egregious cases (for example the Graves/Bennet 2007 Grievance) to determine that Respondent has violated TDRPC, never supplying an EXPLANATION so that the Complainant can amend the Grievance to supply the missing evidence and obstructing justice by concealing Professional Misconduct. OCDC lamely declares it has “authority” from The Supreme Court of Texas to hide evidence and docs in CLOSED FILES until EXPUNGEMENT! The Court, however, requires OCDC to give an EXPLANATION of any DENIED & DISMISSED Amendments and, in addition, notification to the Complainant that an adverse decision on an Amendment can also be APPEALED! Although tens of thousands of Complainants have been adversely effected by the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, The Supreme Court of Texas has turned a blind eye to INJUSTICE; resulting in devastation of Complainants’ respect for the Profession of Law in Texas. The Dysfunctional Grievance System must be aborted ASAP; and the Rights of those tens of thousands of Complainants rectified by a mandatory review by a new Disciplinary Authority.

On February 22, 2007, OCDC sent Charles Sebesta notification that the Bennett/Graves Grievance was DENIED & DISMISSED stating that “no attorney may be disciplined for misconduct occurring more than four (4) years prior to the time when the allegation of Professional Misconduct is brought to the attention of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel…Disgracefully, OCDC rewards FRIEND Sebesta’s Misconduct:

“Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 81.072 (o), if a Grievance is dismissed as an Inquiry and that dismissal has become final, an attorney may deny that the dismissed Grievance was pursued.”

Bennett/Graves APPEALED! Rather than take the risk of the Media exposure that OCDC was denying a right to a Grievance against Sebesta who obstructed justice by withholding evidence in an August 23, 1992 Trial (outside the four (4) year Statute of Limitations) that sent Graves to prison for 18 years in prison where he was twice given an execution date, OCDC provided the Grievance to BODA. On March 19 th , 2007 , BODA granted the Appeal, finding a “possible violation(s)” of TDRPC: Rule(s) 3.03 (a) (5); 3.04 (b), 3.09 (a); 8.04 (a)(3). BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman, signed the BODA letter indicating to Sebesta that OCDC would investigate the case further. Under Rules existing BEFORE 1/1/2004, Sebesta would have been able to appeal to BODA. A fair trial with the presence

1 Attached are: SBOT and BODA “respondent form” letters to Sebesta dated February 22nd, 2007, RE: A9920710876, Robert S. Bennett – Charles J. Sebesta, Jr., dated March 19th, 2007, RE: Disposition of Appeal Notice, Robert S. Bennett v. Charles J. Sebesta Jr., A0020710876; BODA Case No. 39460, dated March 20th, 2007, RE: A0020710876 Robert S. Bennett – Charles J. Sebesta, Jr., dated July 18th, 2007, RE: A0020710876 Robert Bennett – Charles J. Sebesta, Jr., dated August 16th, 2007, RE: A0020710876 Robert S. Bennett – Charles J. Sebesta, Jr.

20 |

of both Complainant and Respondent would have ensued. A decision would have been rendered by a neutral judge. Either the Complainant OR the Respondent could have appealed BODA’s adverse decision. The 1/1/2004 Change, as it is misinterpreted by OCDC is unconstitutional; depriving BOTH Complainants and Respondents of DUE PROCESS! On March 20 th , 2007 , OCDC sent Sebesta a copy of the Bennett/Sebesta Complaint with notice that he must “furnish to this office a written response to the Complaint within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Notice.” Inanely, the burden of proving that Sebesta should be charged with “just cause,” (i.e. TRDP 1.06. Definitions: U. “Just Cause” means such cause as is found to exist upon a reasonable inquiry that would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an attorney has committed an act of Professional Misconduct requiring that a Disciplinary Sanction be imposed….) is placed solely on Sebesta’s and his Defense Attorney’s “written response:”

You must furnish this office a written response to the Complaint within thirty (30) days….The response should address specifically each allegation contained in the Complaint, and should further provide all information and documentation necessary for a determination of Just Cause as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 2.10 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, you are required to provide a copy of your response directly to the Complainant.

Under Rules existing BEFORE 1/1/2004, Sebesta would have had an opportunity to discuss the case with OCDC BEFORE making a “written response.” Subsequently, a fair trial with the presence of both Complainant (who could have retained his/her own attorney) and Respondent would have ensued. A decision would have been rendered by a neutral judge who accepted actual evidences and documents from BOTH Complainant and Respondent (under Oath). Either the Complainant OR the Respondent could have appealed BODA’s adverse decision. The 1/1/2004 Change, as it is misinterpreted by OCDC, unconstitutionally DEPRIVES BOTH Complainants and Respondents of DUE PROCESS! Due to 1/1/2004 Change, a Respondent’s “written response” is reviewed by a Complainant (who is most often a non-attorney). A Complainant-adverse OCDC gives a Complainant only ten (10) days to provide “sufficient evidence of just cause.” There is no definition among Statutory Rules just what “sufficient evidence” is so OCDC makes a decision in 99.5% (such Complaints as Bennett/Graves that Complainant is DENIED & DISMISSED a Grievance with NO APPEAL RIGHTS) of DENIAL & DISMISSAL due to “insufficient evidence!” OCDC’s inane misinterpretation of Statutes is that: a clandestine Summary Disposition Panel’s decision is FINAL; Complainants are contemptibly accorded NO APPEAL! All evidences and docs are HIDDEN in a “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILE UNTIL EXPUNGEMENT! (While it can be assumed that OCDC has FULL ACCESS to Respondent’s files on The Matter – just for the asking, disgracefully, OCDC refuses to investigate Grievances fairly!) OCDC exploits the Complainant by specifying absurd requirements that Complainant would have be necessary to “determine just cause.” For just one example, (a separate case entirely from Bennett/Graves); in spite of the fact that a Respondent Attorney did NOT have a validly signed Legal Contract with the Complainant when the Respondent sold property without Complainant’s permission for much less money than Complainant would accept, OCDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Rebecca (Beth) Stevens verbally told Complainant Don Courtney that he must provide OCDC with actual recordings of telephone conversations with the Respondent in which he explicitly told the Respondent he DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO SELL HIS PROPERTY WHICH HE HAD INHERITED AFTER GENERATIONS IN HIS FAMILY – for much less than Mr. Courtney believed it was worth. Even though Counsel Stevens has DENIED & DISMISSED the Grievance for “insufficient evidence” and DEPRIVED Mr. Courtney of his Rightful Appeal, Mr. Courtney has steadfastly refused to accept the paltry sum offered by the Respondent for his inherited property – sold without Mr. Courtney’s consent! Odiously, it is NO problem to the Respondent because the Grievance was DENIED & DISMISSED and Respondent determined as having done nothing wrong per TDRPC! Respondent attorney continues to charge off fees monthly from the paltry sum, just as though he had a validly signed Legal Contract with Mr. Courtney! Mr. Courtney has appealed for help from TV and newspapers but OCDC has concealed the evidences and docs in a (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILE and will soon EXPUNGE them. OCDC has adversely affected Mr. Courtney’s life and for generations to come!

21 |

On July 18 th , 2007 , OCDC awarded Sebesta with notice that OCDC has “determined” by just receiving Sebesta’s written response to the Bennett/Graves Grievance that “Just Cause does not exist to proceed on the above referenced Complaint.” While OCDC has maintained to Media for years that the Members from a Summary Disposition Panel are “(secret) and confidential” and cannot be divulged under any circumstances to Complainants, OCDC’s letter expresses an opposite rule to Sebesta:

The Complaint has therefore been placed on a Summary Disposition Panel docket. A list of members assigned to the Panel is attached to this Notice. Attachment – List of Panel Member Assigned (– The Attachment was not revealed on Sebesta’s website but names of Panel Members were later revealed in 2016 confirmation of Sebesta’s Disbarment).

Complainants Bennett/Graves were not provided a list of Panel Members that they could contact to discuss the “Just Cause FINAL DISPOSITION BY THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION PANEL.” Eff. 1/1/2004, OCDC has DEPRIVED Complainants of DUE PROCESS and have made tyrannical “determinations” adverse to Complainants and allowing Respondent FRIENDS to violate TDRPC however and whenever it suits them! Due to gross negligence and knowing and willful Misconduct of officials of the State Bar and appointees of The Supreme Court, tens of thousands of Complainants have been unlawfully dispossessed of money, property and Civil Rights. Disgracefully, OCDC absurdly maintains that The Supreme Court gave “permission” on 1/1/2004 to lie, cheat and steal from Complainants while rewarding Respondents for Misconduct. On August 16 th , 2007 , OCDC presented an incentive notice to Sebesta, explaining that those FRIENDLY Members of the Summary Disposition Panel had agreed with OCDC; SEBESTA HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG BY CONCEALING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WHICH RESULTED IN GRAVES IMPRISONMENT FOR 18 YEARS AND, THEREFORE, SEBESTA DESERVED NO DISCIPLINE! Even better for Sebesta, Bennett/Graves could not (in OCDC’s scheme) “cannot appeal.” The Bennett/Graves Grievance was DENIED & DISMISSED and concealed in a (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES. Sebesta can deny that a Grievance was ever pursued!How amused Sebesta must have been that Mr. Bennett and Anthony Graves were referred to CAAP for “voluntary dispute resolution!” Perhaps, Sebesta would volunteer to meet to offer an apology to Anthony Graves for 18 years spend in prison 12 years spent on DEATH ROW due to Sebesta’s obstruction of justice? The OCDC August 16th, 2007 notice expresses a DEFIANCE to statutory law (and human decency).

“Dear Mr. Sebesta:The Summary Disposition Panel for the District Grievance Committee has determined that the above referenced Complaint should be dismissed. The Complainant cannot appeal this determination of the Summary Disposition Panel. Accordingly, our file on this matter has been closed and this office will take no further action.Disciplinary Proceedings, including the investigation and processing of a Complaint, are strictly confidential and not subject to discover. The pendency, subject matter and status of a Disciplinary Proceeding may be disclosed by a Complainant, Respondent, or the Chief Disciplinary Counsel if the Respondent has waived confidentiality or the Disciplinary Proceeding is based upon a conviction for a Serious Crime.Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 81.072 (o), if a Grievance is dismissed as an Inquiry and that dismissal has become final, an attorney may deny that the dismissed Grievance was pursed….…..you may contact CAAP at 1-800-932-1900.”

Tens of thousands of Complainants (since 1/1/2004) have been subjected to tyrannical, clandestine “DENIAL & DISMISSAL determinations” of a Summary Disposition Panel (no explanation, no trial, no neutral judge and NO APPEAL of adverse “determinations”) costing Complainants millions of dollars and fundamental American Civil Rights. DENIALS & DISMISSALS which are based on “insufficient evidence”-while the Respondent’s entire casefile can presumably be opened for inspection to the OCDC!” Only Respondents may know the identity of Summary Disposition Panel Members in the overtly Complainant-adverse Grievance System.

A Chart on Page 49 of this Report shows that the State Bar Discipline System has been devastated by incompetence & corruption depicts that 5,016 Complainants from 2011-2015 had to endure DENIALS &

22 |

DISMISSALS of their valid Grievances for “insufficient evidence!” after OCDC and BODA found (just by reading a Complaint) that there were violations of TDRPC described. Just by “writing a reply,” a Respondent Attorney was given a “PASS” by the Summary Disposition Panel in 98 % of Grievances determined as Complaints by CDC and BODA. In a great majority of cases, no matter what violations of TDRPC were described, a Respondent Attorney was assessed NO DISCIPLINE and remains today with no fear of ever receiving a DISCIPLINARY SANCTION, unless he/she displeases OCDC Chief Acevedo by objecting to the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures or by failing to pay dues and taxes to the State Bar of Texas.

Chief Acevedo Maneuver #2 – Tell the truth to the Media that a first CDC DENIAL & DISMISSAL on February 22, 2007 (due to a Bennett/Graves Grievance against Sebesta’s Obstruction of Justice whereby he withheld evidence and used false testimony to win a capital murder conviction against Anthony Graves occurred in 1992) was “determined” by OCDC as UNIMPORTANT because it was beyond the Statute of Limitations! Disgracefully, OCDC attempted to CONCEAL and DISCARD the Grievance even though it elucidated an inexcusable point – if Sebesta had gotten away with Professional Misconduct in 1992, just how many more times had he and other Prosecuting Attorneys in TX withheld evidence and used false testimony to win convictions? Just when would the travesty stop and accountability begin? The first OCDC DENIAL & DISMISSAL was appealed to BODA by Complainants and BODA agreed that violations of TDRPC were described and had to be “investigated” by OCDC. Thereby, Bennett/Graves enraged the tyrannical OCDC’s Chief Acevedo whose only concern with the Bennett/Graves Grievance was to keep it away from the Media. BODA’s assessment that revealed violations required ONLY a clandestine OCDC “review” (not a hearing with a neutral judge). Before presenting a “just cause/no just cause” decision to a Summary Disposition Panel, Sebesta needed ONLY to make a “written reply” to Bennett/Graves and to OCDC. After receipt of Sebesta’s “written no just cause reply,” Bennett/Graves Complainants had ONLY ten (10) days to refute Sebesta’s assertions that “no just cause” existed. Therefore, a biased OCDC decision was made by OCDC that “Just Cause did not exist.” On July 18th, 2007, notified Sebesta that the Grievance was to be placed on a Summary Disposition Panel with an OCDC recommendation that it be DENIED & DISMISSED. The July 18 th , 2007 letter attached a List of Panel Members Assigned to Sebesta’s Summary Disposition Panel; shocking because for all years since 1/1/2004 when such Panels came into existence, Complainants in the Grievance system have DEMANDED to know who the anonymous Summary Disposition Panel members who made such unfair decisions were but been denied access to them! Clear evidence (in my Report, page 119) points to OCDC’s despicable, unethical tactic to EVADE accountability for the unconstitutional Complainant-adverse Grievance System by shutting out Complainants and the Media from obtaining information The Texas Public Information Act about unfair and unexplained DENIALS & DISMISSALS. It is ironic that the State Bar conceals professional misconduct by lying. An AG’s April 20th, 2004 letter, (a copy is attached at #38) has absurdly been used since 1/1/2004 as a “precedent” for denials of ALL REQUESTS for information through “the Act;” although the letter simply points out that, until after the accused is accorded Due Process, information requested per TRDP 15.10 and TX GVT Code § 81.033(a) is Confidential and cannot be subject to disclosure through “the Act.” OCDC has long reckoned that an AG’s April 20th, 2004 Response “gives a savvy trick” to conceal Misconduct: determine absolutely every request for information can to be denied until and unless there is a Public Sanction applied to an attorney! While the April 20th, 2004 letter applies to only one request for access to a Summary Disposition Panel’s CLOSED FILES, OCDC has inanely asserted that OCDC can conceal tens of thousands of DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances in (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES from Complainants, since 1/1/2004, depriving all Complaints of a statutory right to Amend and Appeal Grievances! The 2007 Bennett/Graves Grievance against Sebesta was considered so INCONSEQUENTIAL by OCDC that it was summarily DENIED & DISMISSED without ever being placed on an Evidentiary Hearing Docket. A DENIAL & DISMISSAL occurred on August 16 th , 2007, when a Summary Disposition Panel of OCDC’s FRIENDS agreed with OCDC that the Bennett/Graves Grievance should be DENIED & DISMISSED with NO CONSEQUENCE to Sebesta in spite of the fact that that a federal appeals court reversed Graves’s conviction

23 |

in 2006, concluding that Sebesta had concealed evidence and used false testimony to win a capital murder conviction against Anthony Graves! At the time of the DENIAL & DISMISSAL of the 2007 Grievance against Sebesta, Graves still in prison where he remained until 2010! Graves spent 18 years in prison total (12 years on DEATH ROW awaiting execution by lethal injection) when Anthony Graves would have been released (most likely) had OCDC publicly DISBARRED Sebesta as a result of the 2007 Bennett/Graves Grievance. In 2007, there was NO EXPLANATION, NO SUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION, NO HEARING IN WHICH the Complainants as well as Respondent Sebesta could be present and give evidences before a neutral judge. The Panel of FRIENDS “disposed” of the Grievance, never setting it on the Roster for an Evidentiary Hearing, and concealed all evidences and docs in a “(secret) confidential SUMMARY DISPOSITION CLOSED FILE” on August 16th, 2007; EXPUNGING it two years later (BEFORE Anthony Graves was even released from DEATH ROW)! Certainly, Sebesta’s bragging to Media that he had been EXPUNGED of any Misconduct by the corrupt OCDC DENIAL & DISMISSAL of the Bennett/Graves Grievance was what HELD Anthony Graves in jail until 2010; and a compelling reason for calling for the DISBARMENT of OCDC’s Chief Acevedo, as well as numerous State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees.

In 2014 after Bennett/Graves filed a second Grievance against Charles Sebesta, OCDC Chief Acevedo feared that if she told the truth to the Media that Changes to Statutory Provisions, eff. 1/1/2004, were being misconstrued in such a way that NO Complainants were accorded DUE PROCESS but were summarily DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances and that Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the GVT Code Requests were routinely DENIED Complainants per a misapplied AG’s April 20th, 2004 Response so that OCDC could conceal Misconduct, that OCDC Chief Acevedo stepped up her ENEMY HUNTING strategy. OCDC clung tightly to that a second Bennett/Graves which would reveal the incompetence and corruption so clearly that it would force The Supreme Court to REMOVE OCDC from any Disciplinary duty. Mr. Bennett commanded a genuine respect from Media and his peers and was self-confident enough to expose the fact that OCDC Chief Acevedo and other officials of the State Bar, and appointees of The Supreme Court of Texas were NOT conducting an Attorney Discipline System but were engaged in ENEMY HUNTING, instead. If Mr. Bennett were not discredited by his own DISBARMENT (no matter how unfair it was); officials of the State Bar and appointees of the Supreme Court might be ALL be disbarred (as they deserve to be). Terrifying to OCDC’s Chief Acevedo was that he Media might uncover the TRUTH that the State Bar, which was self-insuring its huge numbers of active attorneys in Texas; benefitting enormously by the fact that there were only infrequent pay-offs of large malpractice claims. Huge financial pay-offs only occurred to OCDC Chief Acevedo’s ENEMIES (unless the Disciplinary Sanctions were applied in District Courts in which OCDC had NO JURISDICTION). OCDC’s Complainant-adverse Grievance System keeps Texas State Bar members’ premiums for professional liability insurance at low discounted rates due to the Dysfunctional Grievance System’s dishonesty. OCDC Chief Acevedo imagined herself to be the Bar’s next Executive Director by stomping along on the backs of tens of thousands of Complainants with DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances concealed in (“secret”) confidential SUMMARY DISPOSITION CLOSED FILES since 1/1/2004.

Sebesta revealed the reason that OCDC’s Chief Acevedo is unconcerned about a level playing field is that she employs NO SCALES OF JUSTICE

Sebesta was FURIOUS at OCDC Chief Acevedo because he did not know what difference it would make for the Media to understand that the 2007 Bennett/Graves Grievance was DENIED & DISMISSED by a clandestine 3 MEMBER SUMMARY DISPOSITION PANEL and had not even made it to a 3 MEMBER EVIDENTIARY HEARING in which docs and evidences would be presented to a neutral judge with the presence of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Graves. After all, FRIENDS are FRIENDS; Sebesta’s point was that the Bar was obligated to dispel any DISCIPLINARY ACTION against him; no matter that Sebesta violated TDRPC by Obstructing Justice, sending an innocent man to prison for 18 years (12 on DEATH ROW!). Reading Sebesta’s website (which is still online), one gets a sense of how detached that The Supreme Court must be from Its Constituency; otherwise, OCDC Chief Acevedo would already be disbarred. In 2014 after Mr. Bennett filed a second Grievance on behalf of Anthony Graves, Sebesta’s website asks questions to

24 |

State Bar Members in Texas who he perceives to be his peers and OCDC Chief Acevedo and explicitly tells her how they must be answered so that he and all Bar Members can get away with Obstructing Justice:

“So why after seven years has Linda Acevedo suddenly decide that the 2007 case was dismissed because of the Statute of Limitations?”In 2013, the Texas Legislature made significant changes in the laws pertaining to the Statute of Limitations. And Acevedo believes that as a result of this legislation, the case can be revived if the Bar can show that it was dismissed in 2007 because of the Statute of Limitations. But there is something she is overlooking.If a case is decided on its ‘merits,’ as this one was; and dismissed for “No Just Cause” by a Summary Disposition Panel, as this one was; by statute it cannot be re-opened or appealed by the State Bar.”

Incredibly, Sebesta entirely exposes the fact that OCDC Chief Acevedo was so eager to conceal that a SUMMARY DISPOSITION PANEL swiftly disposed of the Sebesta Grievance without a Formal Judgment of an Evidentiary Hearing in which Mr. Bennett and Mr. Graves would have attended and presented evidence, that she threatened one of the SUMMARY DISPOSITION PANEL MEMBERS.

“Even stranger, though, is the fact that the State Bar has blocked efforts to obtain statements from the members of that Summary Disposition Panel. I filed a waiver of ‘confidentially’ associated with that hearing in 2007, but at least one member who served on that panel has been threatened with ‘sanctions’ by Laura Popps, the Deputy Counsel for Administration, if he talks to my attorneys or gives any type of written statement about that 2007 hearing—that the Bar maintains, never occurred….…….The legal community needs to wake up, because the ‘integrity’ of State Bar’s Grievance process and the ‘credibility’ of its employees are under attack from within!”

When reading the CLD Reports from 2011 – 2015, one cannot help but be struck by an aura of incompetency and corruption which is apparently germane to officials of the Bar and appointees who maladminister the Dysfunctional Grievance System, i.e. the elitist Bar Members must go to a “higher power” than their own just to know if and how they can proceed no matter how obvious the answer may be to those of us who have never passed a Bar Exam. For one example; inanely, CLD Chief Harrison required “Mandamus Relief” by The Court BEFORE PROCEEDING with a Grievance against a prosecutor that had been revealed by a trial court judge who acquitted the defendant when it was discovered the Respondent had suppressed exculpatory evidence! OCDC inanely purported without “Mandamus Relief,” it could not ascertain that The Court could protect the acquitted Defendant’s Right to Grieve! In CLD’s 2015 Report, it is clear that Chief Harrison is proud of the granting of “Mandamus Relief” on August 24th, 2014: OCDC must NOT HAVE KNOWN THE ANSWER BEFORE ASKING! Sebesta’s website issues a plea that is concerning: if Sebesta just does NOT know after 25 years as prosecutor in the two counties about 100 miles northwest of Houston that there was “just cause to determine Professional Misconduct as defined by TDRPC” when he withheld evidence and used false testimony to win a capital murder conviction against Anthony Graves but OCDC was Obstructing Justice by concealing the 2007 Sebesta Grievance File, what can it be that OCDC is instructing attorneys about in CLE Classes? Obviously, Sebesta actually believes that the FRIENDLY Summary Disposition Panel Members found evidence to acquit him when ironically what they really did was withhold evidence and used his false “written reply” to the 2007 Bennett/Sebesta Grievance to “win” a DENIAL & DISMISSAL of the Grievance and EXPUNGEMENT OF A SUMMARY DISPOSITION PANEL FILE!

Sebesta’s website rails: “Yet earlier this year, an additional grievance was filed against me alleging that I “lied on my website” when I said that the State Bar had found “No Just Cause” to proceed on that 2007 Complaint. Linda Acevedo, the current Chief Disciplinary Counsel is actually guilty of spreading that fabrication with selected members of the media.Which raises the question: How can I lie about something I’m totally unaware of? The only thing in my possession when my website was updated was a letter from the State Bar saying the case had been dismissed by a Summary Disposition Panel because of ‘No Just Cause!’

Sebesta may be espousing a truth that applies each of the 96,912 active State Bar Members currently. Without being granted “special immunity” from Discipline by the corrupt OCDC which each and every member is dependent on for his/her license to practice law, how in the world would a current State Bar

25 |

Member ever know what kind or degree of Professional Misconduct that the discriminating OCDC would take umbrage about, i.e. how can someone lie about something they are totally unaware of? Think about it; it is such a quandary! Graves spent 18 years in prison and was twice given an execution date but he has remained proudly dignified, respectful and grateful for Mr. Bennett’s long-standing pro bono legal services, standing starkly in contrast to the frenzy of OCDC Chief Acevedo and her Obstruction of Justice ensemble. Knowing that another “round” with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Graves would undo her Destiny to be Executive Director, when the Bennett/Graves Complainants filed another Grievance on January 29 th, 2014, OCDC Chief Acevedo decided she would discredit ENEMY Bennett by DISBARRING him.

Chief Acevedo Maneuver #3 - In an obvious retaliatory effort to denounce Mr. Bennett’s second Grievance on behalf of Anthony C. Graves, OCDC Chief Acevedo panicked and decided she could not keep him from exposing the fact that OCDC has misconstrued statutory changes, eff. 1/1/2004, in such an adversarial manner, that BOTH Complainants and Respondents have been DENIED DUE PROCESS since 1/1/2004! Another insurmountable problem is that the Grievance System is so Dysfunctional that, in order to keep State Bar members paying their dues and taxes, OCDC has to engage in Obstruction of Justice tactics, concealing evidence of rampant and uncontrolled Professional Misconduct among attorneys in Tx in “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES” and by another overt, SERIOUS violation of TDRPC - ENEMY HUNTING! On January 29th, 2014, Mr. Bennett helped Anthony C. Graves, who was wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and twice faced execution as a result of the unethical actions of Charles J. Sebesta, Jr., to file a second grievance against the prosecuting attorney and former Burleson County DA. The Dysfunctional Grievance System elitists, fearing yet another trouncing by the public and the Media, were intimidated by Mr. Bennett’s knowledge and expertise; so, in an imprudent act of tyrannical distemper, the State Bar used a specially assigned judge, (Bexar County District Judge Carmen Kelsay) in a rare three-day trial in Harris County Courtroom (in a case unrelated to Graves) to disbar Bennett on March 21 st , 2014, stating Bennett violated two rules of professional conduct! A Real Nightmare: a widely known, well respected attorney (Bennett) was Disbarred without a fair hearing and a neutral judge on March 21st, 2014, while a January 29th, 2014 Grievance filed by Anthony Graves and (the same) Robert S. Bennett against Charles Sebesta (who withheld evidence and used false testimony to win a capital murder conviction against Graves who spent 18 years in prison (12 on DEATH ROW!) was DENIED & DISMISSED by OCDC’s Chief Acevedo because a “previously filed grievance against Sebesta” was “appropriately concluded.” I must ask: WHERE does The Supreme Court stand on the issue that the 2007 Grievance against Sebesta is JUST AS WRONG and UNFAIR as 27,417 valid Grievances that were DENIED & DISMISSED by OCDC from 2011-2015 without proper Appeal Notices, and with evidences held in (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES and EXPUNGED, while Mr. Bennett (who had NEVER had a Grievance filed against him BEFORE the one that caused his DISBARMENT on March 21st, 2014) is only one of 1,410 Respondent Attorneys “determined” to be deserving of Discipline by OCDC from 2011-2015? Can it be any clearer that OCDC’s Chief Acevedo plucked Bennett out to from among the 28,827 Grievances acknowledged from 2011-2015 because OCDC’s Chief and her ensemble hunted him as an OCDC ENEMY?

Does The Supreme Court Fail to Boot the State Bar as the Disciplinary Authority for fear that there is NO respect of the public, Nor integrity within the law profession; NOTHING LEFT TO SAVE?

Reeling from a mistrust of OCDC – and with premonitions that the Bennett/Graves alliance would result in a DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notice from the January 29th, 2014 Grievance filing against Sebesta - and within a few days of the torment of his own DISBARMENT proceedings on March 21st, 2014, Mr. Bennett sent Anthony Graves (and the Eyewitness News Team) to use a tablet computer to demonstrate how he was able to file a grievance, electronically, against former Burleson County District Attorney Charles Sebesta on March 3rd 2014 at Texas Southern University. In a seven page photo shoot of Graves (Brian Rodgers, March 5th, 2014, Houston Chronicle), he faces the camera in a close-up which surprisingly reveals no animosity in his eyes: "You stole 18 years of my life. Just do the right thing."

26 |

Just a few weeks later on March 27th, 2014, Brian Rodgers pressed Graves for information concerning Bennett’s DISBARMENT on March 21st, 2014. Graves told him he supported Bennett and believed his lawyer would win his appeal: "It's an injustice and I'm confident he'll win the appeal," Graves said simply. In Bennett’s Disbarment Proceedings, Graves had testified that Bennett helped him file a grievance against Charles Sebesta pro bono. However, on April 7th, 2014, Anthony Graves wrote a letter to Gaines West, Atty at Law, West, Webb, Albritton & Gentry, PC, 1515 Emerald Plaza, College Station, TX 77845; detailing the unjust DISBARMENT PROCEEDING.

“….I testified as a witness in Mr. Bennett’s disbarment case. My testimony included how Mr. Bennett stood up and took my case pro-bono because he saw injustice. There are thousands of attorneys in the Houston area, and Mr. Bennett was the one that did what others did not stand up to do. Mr. Bennett represents the correct side of the profession. He is, in my eyes, the epitome of a professional attorney. The Community and profession need more individuals like him. I feel as if Judge Carmen Kelsey had made her mind up at the outset of the trial. Her disposition towards the prosecution side was extremely different from her disposition to Mr. Bennett and his counsel. Just from my courtroom observations and her facial expressions I could tell that she was out for blood, and nothing could change her mind. Maybe that is why the prosecution did not call a single witness at the trial; they probably saw what I saw and used it to their advantage. Prior to this current incident Mr. Bennett never had a public or private reprimand. That’s over forty years in the profession without incident. When I learned of the outcome of Mr. Bennet’s case I was deeply saddened for many reasons. I believe the Judge, with all due respect, overreached. I do not believe the punishment fit the allegations against Mr. Bennett. The Judge ripped his entire livelihood away from him with a stroke of a pen. She literally gave a prominent, well-respected attorney a death sentence in his profession. I see bad things happen to good people; I would like to think I am a walking testament to that statement. I personally know that not only is Mr. Bennett a good man, but he is also a good attorney. His practice assists professionals and individuals all across the spectrum and he truly loves what he does. His disbarment denies me the right to have an attorney who I wanted to make sure justice was done in my case. I hope his license is reinstated as soon as possible. Sincerely, Anthony Graves.”

The outcome that OCDC had expected was that the Media would seize upon the fact of Bennett’s DISBARMENT; thereby, turning the Texas public’s attention away from OCDC’s heinous, avid support of Sebesta in Sebesta’s own Disciplinary Proceeding. What OCDC’s imprudent treatment of the Bennett/Sebesta alliance did in truth was to solidify the Media’s and the Texas publics’ firm judgment that the State Bar is decimated by corruption from within; stemming from incompetence and corruption of officials and appointees of The Court. Although so many ethical attorneys, special interest groups and tens of thousands of disgruntled Texas Complainants have appealed to The Supreme Court to remove the State Bar from the Texas Attorney Disciplinary System, The Court has ignored our pleas as UNIMPORTANT and INCONSEQUENTIAL; leaving the local, State and national Media to document the abject failure of Texas Civil and Criminal Courts on a daily basis. OCDC’s incompetence and corruption has spread throughout Texas Law Firms (large and small), Civil and Criminal Courtrooms and Judges, and among appointees of The Supreme Court who work in opposition to The Court’s Rules, shamefully mocking honorary intentions. On June 11th, 2015, Sebesta’s attorney (Jane Webre) defended him before CLD, arguing that bar rules prevent OCDC from making a different ruling on Graves’ a January 29th, 2014 Grievance filed by Anthony Graves and Robert S. Bennett (the same filers) than the prior Grievance filed in 2007 (on same issues). The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned Graves’ conviction in 2010 and finally let him out of jail. The appeals court had found that Sebesta secured Graves’ conviction through several instances of prosecutorial wrongdoing, including withholding key evidence and suborning false testimony. Sebesta and Webre lamely argued that the bar dismissed the previous complaint, not only because of the Statute of Limitation (changed by legislation in 2013), but also because they found no merit in the accusations against him. Sebesta and Webre lost and immediately appealed Sebesta’s DISBARMENT.

27 |

Chief Acevedo Maneuver #4. In the midst of arguably the most important issue of CIVIL and CRIMINAL JUSTICE to be raised in Texas Courts in OCDC Chief Acevedo’s long tenure at the State Bar, OCDC “determined” that OCDC’s and agencies with appointees of The Supreme Court of Texas “disciplinary authority” were give a “PASS” to ignore STATUTORY RULES which lawmakers were aimed specifically at OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and her incompetent and corrupt ensemble. With the entire nation’s attention riveted on prosecutorial wrongdoing, including withholding key evidence and suborning false testimony and making those charged with upholding ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, OCDC’s Chief Acevedo preposterously aimed OCDC’s resources to the DEFENSE of those like Sebesta who break Laws to “win” convictions against innocent people. While OCDC awkwardly attempted to project an absurd image (to the Media) of “upholding” The Supreme Court’s MANDATE to Discipline attorneys for Misconduct, the OCDC Complainant-adverse proponents clung to the conspicuously unlawful tenets of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Even without a Law Degree in hand, any American could discern that OCDC’s Chief Sebesta was working in OPPOSITION to The Supreme Court Mandate that the State Bar discipline any Texas attorney who is found to violate TDRPC; yet, preposterously, OCDC’s Chief Acevedo pretended in public that she was following Statutory Rules by not making disclosures about the Sebesta DISBARMENT because The Supreme Court had provided OCDC, the “disciplinary authority” in Texas, which purportedly allows publicly DISBARRED attorneys like Sebesta to invoke a right! under State Bar rules to keep those proceedings private.

Can The Court salvage a remnant of public respect for Texas Law; considering OCDC has purposely misinterpreted Statutes (eff. 1/1/2004) to “authorize” Complainant-adverse Grievances?

Since 1/1/2004, a Change to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.] was purposely misconstrued by the brandishing of “unwritten exceptions to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law.” By willful Misconduct of officials of the State Bar and appointees of The Supreme Court to “authorize” OCDC WRONGDOING: OCDC has been routinely DENYING & DISMISSING Grievances without any EXPLANATION or proper Appeal Rights since 1/1/2004. OCDC conducts clandestine conferences, withholding key evidences and suborning false testimony of “favored” Respondents without the presence of either Complainant or Respondent; and makes adverse decisions, claiming that The Supreme Court provides OCDC “an irrefutable authority” to deny Complainants’ Rights to grieve against Respondents who have violated TDRPC to steal Complainants’ Money, Property, Liberty and even Life! Overtly opposing Texan’s Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law, OCDC has tyrannically abused Texans by depriving us of our Statutory Right to Amend or Appeal Grievances: OCDC has concealed all docs and evidences in (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES until EXPUNGEMENT of Complainants’ Grievances. OCDC has only employs one absurd offensive “defensive” tactic against ACCOUNTABILITY: fanatically OCDC proclaims a rule of dealing with the Media, Mr. Bennett, other ethical concerned attorneys and non-attorneys, TCLA, The Innocence Project which is fervently employed by spokeswoman for the State Bar, i.e. “The Claire Mock Rule,” (hereafter; “mockisms”). Asserting an unjust “authority” (claimed by OCDC to be indisputable) to block any and all requests for information about the Grievance System and Atty Discipline Process requested through the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the GVT Code, OCDC’s Counsel Acevedo, BODA’s Counsel McKeeman, GOC Chair Wylie, CLD Chair Harrison, and Claire Mock, spokeswoman for Texas State Bar, and others are immersed in a “(secret) confidential code of unethical conduct” – repeating the same mantra: “only in those circumstances in which there is a public sanction against an attorney can OCDC provide information related to the disciplinary proceeding.” OCDC humiliates The Supreme Court Mandate by indecent treatment of such alliances as that of Bennet/Graves. Since 1/1/2004, tens of thousands of DENIED and DISMISSED Complainants, DEPRIVED of our valid Grievances against Texas’ unethical attorneys who have taken, not only money and property, but our Civil Rights and Liberties, and certainly would have taken Anthony Graves’ life, if it were NOT for strenuous efforts of Mr. Bennett and special interest groups, like TCLA and The Innocence Project! OCDC’s

28 |

Chief Acevedo and her ensemble lied to the Media that Sebesta could require OCDC to keep DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS PRIVATE. Preposterously, OCDC lied that Sebesta had AN “OPTION” for PRIVACY although he had been PUBLICLY DISBARRED for CONCEALING KEY exculpatory evidence and suborning false testimony! Mr. Bennett had been subdued while his Appeal of his unfair DISBARMENT pended but his consultations with Graves’ New Counsel (including Kathryn M. Kase, Neal S. Manne, and Charles R. Eskridge III) continued uninterrupted by his own inability (after forty years!) to earn his living in the profession of law. Neither the Media’s stance nor the Court of Public Opinion changed: Sebesta’s DISBARMENT had been much too long in coming. While The Supreme Court of Texas was nationally humiliated by Sebesta, the public opinion that Sebesta’s Grievance called for DISBARMENT was NOT altered by Mr. Bennett’s’ UNJUST DISBARMENT. Disgracefully OCDC sent “between the lines” chidings to Bennett, Graves, TCLA, The Innocent Project and others that Sebesta would not face any Disciplinary Sanctions at all, let alone DISBARMENT! OCDC spread their pathetic, enthusiastic confidence that, even though a TX Monthly article announced on July 6 th, 2014 “The State Bar of Texas has found “just cause” to pursue disciplinary action against Charles Sebesta, the district attorney who sent Graves to death row,” that any Disciplinary Action against Sebesta for a “just cause finding” that he had broken rules in TDRPC was OVERWHELMINGLY UNLIKELY. The same Texas Monthly article on July 6th, 2014 warned:

“There’s no word yet on when the bar will make its determination about Sebesta. Whether or not the bar will take action at all still remains to be seen. Except for the recent disbarment of Ken Anderson, the ex-Williamson County D.A. who prosecuted Michael Morton, the bar’s track record for disciplining prosecutors has been abysmal. From 2004 to 2012, in 91 criminal cases in which the courts decided that Texas prosecutors had committed misconduct, not a single prosecutor was ever disciplined.”

An unbearably shameful testament to the willful and/or grossly negligent violations by OCDC’s inane misinterpretation of Changes, eff 1/1/2004, is that in 91 Criminal Cases for which Texas Courts determined that Texas prosecutors had committed Misconduct in and freed victims as a result, CLD “determined NO Just Cause,” DENIED & DISMISSED the Cases against the Criminal Prosecutors with NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION, leaving Prosecutors encouraged to CONCEAL KEY exculpatory evidence and suborn false testimony for many years in exactly those same Courts that had uncovered Misconduct! Ethical attorneys (like Bennett) who work diligently to reveal the disgrace and humiliation of The Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Mandate by OCDC have been unable to argue away the incompetency of OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and her consortium who absurdly assert that the Summary Disposition Panel’s (“secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES that are EXPUNGED on those 89 Criminal Cases (Ken Anderson and Charles Sebesta no longer have EXPUNGED FILES) must remain FOREVER EXPUNGED, CONCEALING KEY exculpatory evidence and suborning false testimony FOREVER! I must ask The Supreme Court: Will The Court sit idly by while OCDC circumvents ACCOUNTABILITY, successfully seeking the dismissal of second grievances against those 89 Criminal Cases, and in addition, the 27,417 unconstitutionally DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances from my study period (2011-2015) based on OCDC’s and Respondents’ Motions on Res Judicata and Estoppel. (2 CR 1014.) - just like Sebesta immediately after his DISBARMENT on June 11th, 2015? One day after Sebesta’s DISBARMENT, OCDC was contacted for comment and lied to the Media, falsely insinuating that there were “statutory laws in effect” that provided that a Publicly DISBARRED Attorney “could invoke a right” to keep those proceedings PRIVATE. An article by CBS News Crimestopper Staff, dated June 12th, 2015, entitled “DA disbarred for sending Texas man to DEATH ROW,” reveals OCDC’s Complainant-adverse strategy so that Sebesta will NOT be held ACCOUNTABLE:

“Graves, in January 2014, filed a grievance with the State Bar. A year ago the organization's Office of Disciplinary Counsel found "just cause" to believe Sebesta had violated ethics rules, leading to a four-day disciplinary hearing last month. Sebesta invoked his right under State Bar rules to keep those proceedings private.”

It is EXTREMELY disturbing that The Supreme Court and the Texas House and Senate Committees did not immediately require OCDC’s Chief Acevedo to RETRACT the CBS News article! Texas lawmakers had considered (and later passed) several bills during the 2013 Legislative Session related to the duties of

29 |

prosecutors. One of the bills, Senate Bill 825, introduced by Sen. John Whitmire, amends Section 81.072 of the Government Code in two ways: (1) to prohibit private reprimands for prosecutors who violate disciplinary rules by failing to disclose potentially exculpatory information to the defense; and (2) to allow for the filing of grievances against prosecutors for alleged violation of the disclosure rules four years from the date on which a wrongfully imprisoned person is released from penal institution. An identical bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Senfronia Thompson. It is astonishing that OCDC was not even mildly concerned that the DISBARMENT of Sebesta would, in FACT, HOLD! OCDC’s plan was that the DISBARMENT would be summarily DENIED & DISMISSED on Appeal based on OCDC’s and Respondents’ Motions on Res Judicata and Estoppel. (2 CR 1014.) OCDC was so confident that it would be able to simply disregard Texas House and Senate Committee Rules requiring public reprimands for prosecutors who violate disciplinary rules by failing to disclose exculpatory information to the defense that OCDC had already told CBS News that Sebesta had – the day after his PUBLIC DISBARMENT, “invoked his right under State Bar rules to keep those proceedings private . ” Chief Acevedo Maneuver #5 – lie to the Media that a previous Grievance, filed by Mr. Bennett on behalf of Anthony Graves in 2007, fully addressed the merits of the claims of Misconduct and that those same claims (prosecutorial wrongdoing, including withholding key evidence and suborning false testimony) were merely repeated in the Grievance filed against Sebesta by Mr. Bennett and Anthony Graves on January 29 th, 2014. Chief Acevedo’s seriously misdirected alliance was certainly NOT with the acquitted VICTIM, Mr. Graves, but was so biased toward Sebesta that she and her consortium implied that 3 Members of a Summary Disposition Panel had DENIED & DISMISSED the 2007 Bennett/Graves Grievance against Sebesta in accordance with The Supreme Court’s Rules governing Grievances against attorneys. OCDC’s Chief Acevedo was apparently in concurrence with Sebesta that the 2007 Bennett/Graves Grievance alleging that Sebesta withheld evidence and used false testimony to win a capital murder conviction against Anthony Graves, which had been DENIED & DISMISSED with NO DISCIPLINE to Charles Sebesta but which kept Graves IMPRISONED until he was exonerated on 10/27/2010 was justly adjudicated in 2007. By January 29th, 2014, OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and her consortium asserted that the DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance decision would hold steady; PERMANENTLY EXPUNGED from Sebesta’s record.

OCDC’s Chief Acevedo hinted to the Media and others that, by filing the new Grievance on January 29th, 2014, Mr. Bennett was remiss in his duty to support other Texas attorneys and Members of the Bar, when, in fact, the opposite was true. Absurdly, Chief Acevedo contended that Mr. Bennett’s “violated rules,” when, in fact, she was furious that he was REJECTING OCDC’s tyranny and harassment by observing TDRPC Rule 8.03 (a) that requires:

“…a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate disciplinary authority.” (Under Texas law, the “appropriate disciplinary authority” is OCDC.)

I must ask The Supreme Court: Why must Texans endure OCDC’s incompetence and corruption for even one more moment? How can The Court NOT act by abolishing OCDC when the group of elitist officials of The State Bar and appointees of The Supreme Court are mocking The Court’s Rules, making fundamentally WRONG FINAL DECISIONS which deprive Complainants of DUE PROCESS, Obstruct Justice, and violate Confidentiality Rules? The idea that an Attorney who has violated Rules of Professional Conduct can be protected by Confidentiality Rules is outrageous and incorrect per TDRPC, Rule 1.05 Confidentiality of Information, (c) (4). How can The Court continue to ignore the incompetence and corruption of the State Bar, a “trade association for lawyers” which is leaving tens of thousands of Complainants with NO EXPLANATION and without any recourse from Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation, causing an embarrassing, abhorrent Media spectacle by maneuvers to keep Sebesta (and many other Criminal prosecutors and Civil Court attorneys) from being publicly DISBARRED and shamed, while at the same time,

30 |

publicly shaming and DISBARRING Mr. Bennett who by all accounts (outside of the OCDC elitist ensemble) is a very decent man and a reputable lawyer? It is time to force OCDC’s ACCOUNTABILITY, by filing second grievances (to “revisit” at least 89 more “nightmares”) against prosecutors in those 89 Criminal Cases, and in addition; file second grievances against Respondents in cases of the 27,417 unconstitutionally DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances from my study period (2011-2015). Chief Acevedo Maneuver #6 declined to comment on the Fourteenth Court's opinion (Bennett’s Disbarment) because the litigation is pending. When asked if the opinion paves the way for Bennett to immediately return to the practice of law, OCDC made NO proclamations to the Media about Mr. Bennett’s “invocation his right under State Bar rules to keep those proceedings private” (as she did for OCDC FRIEND Sebesta) Spokesperson Claire Mock said the commission is reviewing the opinion and "determining their options." OCDC’s Chief Acevedo believed that her principal ENEMY (who dared to expose OCDC even throughout the months of his own UNFAIR DISBARMENT from March 21st, 2014 through its’ reversal in March, 2016), Mr. Bennett, would be bankrupted BEFORE his Appeal would be decided by CLD. Mr. Bennett continued to consult with Texas attorneys throughout his unfair DISBARMENT). She was NOT amused by Mr. Bennett’s attempts to earn a living (while OCDC was "determining their options”) by consulting with lawyers who had “matters before” OCDC when, in fact, he had been DISBARRED! A Blog by Mark Bennett (“Absolutely No Relation” on September 4th, 2014) describes that Mr. Bennett consulted with Texas lawyers.

“Mr. Bennett is the owner of Bob Bennett Licensing Services for Professionals. The licensing counselors in this licensing service are especially proficient in cases involving, matters before the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, the Texas Medical Board, the State Board of Law Examiners, and other Boards involving professionals and DTPA violations, ethics defense, and white-collar criminal defense involving licensing issues…Specialties: Representing law students and lawyers with licensing issues before the Board of law Examiners or cases with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or before the Texas Board of Medicine or other professional boards that license professionals.”

In that same Blog, OCDC’s Chief Acevedo’s threat directly to Mr. Bennett can be read “between the lines:”“This sounds a lot like practicing law to me (which, as well as being a crime, would violate the court’s order). “Representing law students and lawyers with licensing issues before the Board of law Examiners” is certainly “appearing … in any representative capacity in any proceeding … before any administrative body,” which is interdicted by the order of disbarment.”

Perhaps OCDC’s Chief Acevedo does not know (even today) that the DISBARMENT of her ENEMY, Mr. Bennett, would be OCDC’s complete undoing because it caused more than 1,073 Texas attorneys to TAKE A STAND against the incompetent and corrupt OCDC, a “trade association” which holds EACH of 96,912 BAR CARDS clutched within “unclean hands.” On July 15th, 2014, “No. 14-14-00470-CV “IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOUTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, Bob Bennett A/K/A Robert S. Bennett, Appellant V. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Appellee, FROM THE 334TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2013-56866, AMICUS CURIAE FILING IN SUPPORT OF MEDIATION, was presented. Perhaps some of the 1,073 attorneys are actually friends of Mr. Bennet; certainly their signatures were not applied due to friendship. 1,073 Texas attorneys were shocked by the overt OCDC corruption and compelled to sign the Amicus Curiae Filing to send a CLEAR MESSAGE to The Supreme Court of Texas to boot OCDC Chief Acevedo, other officials of the State Bar, and appointees of The Supreme Court because they have directly caused such devastation to the efficacy of all lawyers and Courts in Texas. On September 29th, 2014, the second nail was driven into the OCDC coffin when Marc R. Stanley filed his PETITION for Administrative Relief to The Supreme Court which perfectly sums up the tyrannical effrontery of OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and her consortium. Mr. Bennett (and, of course, Anthony Graves) have driven the FINAL NAIL into OCDC’s Coffin by their courageous stand against OCDC which yielded a decision that

31 |

applies, not just to the Bennett/Graves Grievance against Respondent Sebesta; but to each and every one of 27,417 DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance Complainants and Respondents in my study period from 2011 – 2015 (and tens of thousands more since 1/1/2004 when OCDC willfully misconstrued intent of Changes, eff. 1/1/2004), so that tens of thousands of Complainants who wrote formal Grievances, describing and documenting Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation against Respondents have been DEPRIVED of a fair trial, neutral judge, and proper Notice of DENIAL & DISMISSAL with Appeal Rights. In opposition to Statutes, OCDC egregiously conceals all evidences and documents of valid Grievances in “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILES until EXPUNGED!” and fails to expose any OCDC Atty/FRIENDS to DISCIPLINE! In his Appeal from DISBARMENT, filed before BODA on July 9th, 2015 and in a lawsuit against the Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CLD) dated September 29th, 2015, Sebesta purported that the Change, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.], required that OCDC’s “investigations” of BOTH DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance “writings” on Appeal to BODA and Grievance Complaints prior to being submitted to disposition by a Summary Disposition Panel, were so vastly superior to the pre 2004 “investigatory hearing” wherein a Complainant and Respondent were most often invited to appear and testify under oath before an investigatory panel of the State Bar Grievance Committee, that since 1/1/2004, summary dismissals by CDC’s Grievance Panels, were on an equal basis (of merit) as any evidentiary proceeding, e.g. a CLD Evidentiary Panel or a District Court. Sebesta claimed, therefore, “res judicata” applied to the Bennett/Graves Grievance against him; postulating that Statutory Laws prohibited his DISBARMENT for same TDRPC violations. OCDC had NOT “found” DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCE to him 2007. SBOT’s Opinion DISAGREED: “preliminary screening” which do NOT by definition rise to a level of an Evidentiary Panel or District Court” have NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT.

“In this attorney discipline case, we determine whether changes to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in 2004 result in a res judicata effect when a Summary Disposition Panel dismisses a grievance upon a determination that Just Cause does not exist. We hold that the legal principles established in cases pre-dating the 2004 rule changes remain unchanged: summary dismissals of grievances, prior to commencement of any evidentiary proceeding, have no res judicata effect. The judgment of disbarment is affirmed.”

I must ask The Supreme Court: Would not the SBOT Opinion on February 8th, 2016 apply to each and every one of those tens of thousands of WRONGFUL DENIALS & DISMISSALS with NO EXPLANATION, insufficient investigations and civil/criminal injustices that occurred when OCDC DEPRIVED Complainants of Rights to Appeal and Amend their Grievances? Does not BODA clearly state: summary dismissals of grievances, prior to commencement of any evidentiary proceeding, have no res judicata effect? OCDC willfully misled Grievance Complainants by Improper Notices that summary dismissals of Complaints could not be appealed and gave either NO Proper Notice of Statutory Rules for Amendments or REJECTED Grievances properly filed within 20 days of a DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notice by BODA; OCDC refused to even read Amendments. CLD’s 2016 Report can announce that, at least, 27,417 Grievances (from 2011-2014) will be “revisited” due to OCDC’s Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures employed since 1/1/2004! CLD’s new Chief John Neal NEED NOT file a MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL before making the announcement because Mr. Bennett’s and Anthony Grave’s January 29th, 2014 Grievance against Sebesta provided an authoritative Order; PROOF THAT OCDC ALREADY KNOWS THE ANSWER BEFORE ASKING!

32 |

I must ask The Supreme Court: Is it NOT within The Court’s jurisdiction and inherent powers to grant Texans’ Relief from the Dysfunctional Attorney Disciplinary System which undermines the authority of The Court, the administration of justice, and the respect of the public for the legal profession in Texas?

While Mr. Bennett was DISBARRED, OCDC hastily worked to DISMISS Sebesta’s DISBARMENT and EXPUNGE any record of WRONGDOING from Sebesta’s record.

By the time of his own unfair DISBARMENT on March 21st, 2014, Mr. Bennett had been involved (pro-bono) with Anthony Graves’ dilemma since 2003, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had begun reviewing Graves’ case. The Court found that Sebesta did not reveal exculpatory statements to Graves’ counsel as Sebesta was required to do. In March of 2006, Mr. Bennett testified on Mr. Grave’s behalf in State v. Anthony Graves in the 21st District Court in Burleson County. In March, 2006, Graves’ conviction was overturned; he was released from DEATH ROW to prison in September, 2006. After his conviction was overturned in 2010, former Harris County District Attorney Kelly Siegler told reporters that Grave’s case represented "a criminal justice system nightmare." Mr. Bennett was the attorney who filed the first Grievance against Charles Sebesta for Prosecutorial Misconduct (although in 2007 when it was filed, Mr. Graves was still in prison until he was finally released by Siegler’s, Bennett’s and others hard work on his behalf). Not until December, 2013, did Graves meet Bennett in person . In 2007, Mr. Bennett had filed the Grievance (pro-bono) on behalf of Anthony Graves. Due to an extremely cruel (unlawful) misinterpretation of Changes eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.], OCDC’s Complainant-adverse proponents, even while noting Misconduct per TDRPC was uncovered in Complainant’s Grievances, characteristically determined “no just cause,” by conducting insufficient, Respondent-biased “investigations.” Docs and evidences were falsified by OCDC and presented clandestinely to Summary Disposition Panels (which are anonymous to Complainants but NOT to the Respondents!). Valid Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED! Complainants were provided NO Statutory Amendment or Appeal Right Notices. OCDC and Summary Disposition Panels CONCEAL all docs and evidences in “(secret)” confidential CLOSED FILES until EXPUNGEMENT! From CLD and BODA Reports from 2011-2015, I gathered statistical data which points out that 5,016 Respondents (not including the Bennett/Graves Grievance against Respondent Sebesta which occurred in 2007) had valid Grievances, classified as Complaints, which were never EXPLAINED, sufficiently investigated but had been DENIED & DISMISSED by OCDC and Summary Disposition Panels, improperly with NO AMENDMENTS, NO APPEALS ! Tens of thousands of Complainants since 1/1/2004 have been abused by OCDC in the same manner as Anthony Graves was in 2007. After intense scrutiny of the Media and Texas public (due to the Grievance filed by Bennett/Graves on January 29th, 2014), the State Bar of Texas stripped Sebesta of his law license and formally disbarred him on June 15th, 2015; but despicably OCDC encouraged Sebesta to Appeal based on the fact of the prior 2007 DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance! Sebesta appealed; asserting a prior DENIAL & DISMISSAL (in 2007) of a Grievance filed on behalf of Graves should insulate Sebesta from the disciplinary action that led to his disbarment! I offer positive proof that OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and her consortium did contemptibly coach Sebesta to Appeal based on her misinterpretation of “res adjudicate and estoppel” which are evidenced by Improper Notices provided to an innumerable number of Complainants since 1/1/2004. (OCDC routinely hides and/or discards Grievances without reading, recording or classifying them): 1. Standard OCDC forms, “Multiple Grievances” Notices are provided to any Complainant who has filed more than one Grievance with OCDC. The fraudulent OCDC intent is conspicuous on the face of these DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notices because NO ATTORNEY’S NAME is placed anywhere on the Notice; nor is the Respondent ever provided a copy of the Notice. For each of these “Multiple Grievances” Notices I have received; the entire Grievance with all its documentation has been returned to me, unread, unrecorded and unclassified. (A discussion of “Multiple Grievance Notices” occurs on page 81.) I have formally complained vehemently to OCDC Chief Acevedo, CLD Chair Harrison, GOC Chair Catherine N. Wylie, Spokesperson Claire Mock, Supreme Court General Counsel Nina Hess Hsu, and others too numerous to mention but received not a single, solitary word in response.

33 |

There are tens of thousands of these standard “Multiple Grievances Notices” that have disgracefully been sent to Complainants who have refiled Grievances with OCDC (like Mr. Bennett and Anthony Graves did) because they were CERTAIN that it was VERY IMPORTANT that Texas attorneys who overtly (and repeatedly) violated TDRPC by why Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentationrequire DISCIPLINE, making them ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS! I must ask The Supreme Court: if the central goal of sanctions in the disciplinary system is NOT to improve the practice level of Respondent Attorneys, then what is the purpose of the Dysfunctional Grievance System? How can OCDC demand authority to accept tens of thousands of Grievances, DENY & DISMISS most, and outwardly REJECT thousands, sending them back unread, unclassified and unrecorded? The Court must acknowledge that, since 1/1/2004, it has turned a blind eye on the fact that Texas attorneys are NOT required to have malpractice insurance (or disclose the fact to Clients if the firm is unprotected). Therefore, The Supreme Court is complicit in the maladministration of the Complainant-adverse Grievance system, which has precluded DISCIPLINE to attorneys and EXPUNGED records of valid Complaints against tens of thousands of Texas attorneys for a well-known but undisclosed fact that Texas State Bar members’ premiums for professional liability insurance are discounted due to the Dysfunctional Grievance System’s dishonesty. Only about half of Texas law firms today feel a “necessity” to have Malpractice insurance! 2. “Standard” OCDC forms for “Amendment Denial Notices” are not provided OCDC or BODA. Any Complainant who reads TRDP 2.10 and asserts their right can insist on filing an Amendment. BODA has not ever complied with TRDP, 2.10, which accords Complainants with the Right to file Amendments within 20 days of BODA’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notices. Instead, BODA “denies, “dismisses,” “closes,” and wrongly states on the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision. My husband, Clement W. Machacek, filed Grievances on December 17 th, 2015 against two Comal County Attorneys, Barron Casteel & Carter Casteel, that were DENIED & DISMISSED by both CDC (January 14th, 2016) & BODA (February 24th, 2016). Although BODA’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notice, dated February 24th, 2016 “denied, “dismissed,” “closed,” and wrongly stated on the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision, Clement filed an Amendment per TRDP 2.10, on March 4th, 2016 within the 20 day time limit provided in TRDP 2.10. (Please note that Sebesta’s Motion on Res Judicata and Estoppel was DENIED on December 17 th , 2014 , APPEALED, and DENIED again on February 8 th , 2016 but by April 1, 2016, OCDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Jordan Lindsay Preddy had not even heard of it!) On April 1, 2016, Counselor Preddy send identical “PRIOR COMPLAINT CASE” DENIAL NOTICES; one each for Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel! Never properly referring to the Amendments that Clement filed on March 4th, 2016 with more evidences and docs (even more invoices – evidencing Barratry - from Casteel & Casteel, PLLC, which Clement had received from the Respondents since he filed the Grievances on December 17th, 2015), OCDC’s Counselor Preddy referred to Amendments as “Prior Complaint Case #201507447 and #201507449:”

“After examining your grievance, this office has determined that this grievance does not contain any additional information which would demonstrate misconduct on the part of the lawyer. Accordingly, this grievance has been classified as an Inquiry and dismissed.You may appeal this determination to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. You must submit your appeal directly to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals by using the enclosed form. You have thirty (30) days from your receipt of this letter to appeal this decision.”

On April 6th, 2016, Clement appealed to BODA, a second time for each Grievance . Having already been apprised by Counselor Preddy that OCDC is entirely ignoring BODA’s ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL for Sebesta that BECAME FINAL on February 8 th , 2016 , I can only assume that BODA’s Grievance Panels will likewise DENY & DISMISS, due to RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL. Clement’s Grievances against Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel are FOREVERMORE DENIED & DISMISSED because they are deemed “Prior Complaint Cases,” i.e., cases that were DENIED & DISMISSED by CDC & BODA previously. Perhaps, OCDC has “determined” that each of the 24,417 Grievances Complainants previously DENIED & DISMISSED by the Dysfunctional Grievance System proponents must file a MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL before BODA and CLD will allow Complainants to “Amended Grievances” or file entirely new Grievances on the same issues as their original DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances? I

34 |

plead that The Supreme Court gives the summary boot to OCDC and begins a slow process to lead to restitution of JUSTICE and INTEGRITY in Texas. Mr. Bennett had been prohibited by his own unfair DISBARMENT from representing Anthony Graves in the 1/29/2014 Grievance case against Sebesta which Mr. Bennett had valiantly championed since 2006!

In consultation with new attorneys for Anthony Graves: Kathryn Kase, Neal Manne and Charles Eskridge III; Mr. Bennett became apprehensive of that his own UNFAIR DISBARMENT might play an adversarial role to Anthony Graves’s strong stand that Criminal Attorneys who cause their victims so much anguish must be held ACCOUNTABLE. Besides his 12 years on death row, Graves spent two years awaiting his first trial, then another four in jail awaiting a second trial. “The ordeal experienced by Mr. Graves is almost unimaginable," his attorneys, Kathryn Kase, Neal Manne and Charles Eskridge III, said in a statement on June 12th, 2015, a day after Sebesta’s DISBARMENT. "We are humbled and inspired by the grace and character he has shown throughout - including when he shook Mr. Sebesta's hand after the hearing ended and wished him well." It was a really good day for justice," Graves told PEOPLE on June 11th, "The ruling helped save lives. There's no telling how many more innocent lives Sebesta has affected." On July 9th, 2015 Sebesta filed a Notice of intent to Appeal before BODA. On Sept 29th, 2015 filed Appeal against CLD; Oral Argument Request. Fearing that BODA and CLD would seize upon his own unfair DISBARMENT and the fact that Mr. Bennett had been active in filing BOTH the 2007 Grievance and the January 29th, 2014 Grievances against Sebesta, a new strategy required that Anthony Graves do precisely what he did not want to do: disavow that he (Graves) had anything to do with the 2007 Grievance filed by Mr. Bennett, Graves’ long-time champion; just in case BODA and CLD made yet another unfair decision in favor of the incompetent and corrupt OCDC; i.e. in case a decision was made upholding RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL based on the original 2007 Grievance’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL; thereby releasing Sebesta from ACCOUNTABILITY for WRONGDOING, including withholding key evidence and suborning false testimony.

Per STATEMENT OF AMICUS POSITION on January 18th, 2016: “I, Anthony Graves, did not authorize the prior grievance or participate in the proceedings that Sebesta asserts should insulate him from the disciplinary action that led to his disbarment…. Anthony C. Graves was wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and twice faced execution as a result of the unethical actions of Charles J. Sebesta, Jr. Although procedural rules do not provide a means for Graves to participate as a party at this juncture, he without question has a direct, substantial, and continuing interest in these proceedings. Graves seeks to vindicate his interest by participation as amicus curiae. And that term—amicus curiae, friend of the court—perhaps was never truer in its literal sense. Notwithstanding the illegal conduct to which Sebesta, acting on behalf of the State, wrongfully subjected him, Graves never lost faith in the courts of Texas and of the United States. He trusted those courts to vindicate him, and to do right and justice by him. Although it took nearly two decades, those courts ultimately rewarded his belief in due process under the law. Once fully exonerated, Graves extended that same faith and trust to the State Bar of Texas to determine that there was “just cause” to proceed on his grievance; to the Evidentiary Panel to hear all of the evidence, find that Sebesta engaged in grievous misconduct, and hand down the appropriate sanction; and now to this Board of Disciplinary Appeals to understand that Sebesta’s reckless and wrongful conduct left genuine tragedy in its wake, and to affirm the decision of the Evidentiary Panel that heard all of the evidence.Anthony Graves submits that this Board should affirm the order of the Judgment of Disbarment signed by the Evidentiary Panel for State Bar District No. 08–2 on June 11, 20l5, and should affirm the Order on Respondent’s Motion on Res Judicata and Estoppel, signed on December 17, 2014.”

On February 9th, 2016, a 24 year-long saga (while Sebesta declared repeatedly to the Media that Anthony Graves was a “murderer set free!”) might end badly, i.e. Sebesta who had been DISBARRED for Prosecutorial Misconduct would be reinstated to the State Bar but Mr. Bennett would be found to have violated his own Disbarment Order by having lent his consulting expertise to Kathryn M. Kase, Neal S. Manne, and Charles R. Eskridge III; instead ended (thankfully well) by an Order denying Charles J. Sebesta, Jr.’s Motion on Res Judicata and Estoppel and reaffirming Sebesta’s DISBARMENT.

35 |

Without the ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL, OCDC purportedly DID NOT KNOW that The Court required BODA and Grievance Panels to give Notice of a Complainant’s Right to file Amendments to DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances; Nor that Summary Disposition Panels, eff 1/1/2004, were required to place Grievances on an Evidentiary or District Court Roster when evidences and docs supported “just cause;” and did NOT have an arbitrary discretion (as APPOINTTEES OF THE SUPREME COURT) to Obstruct Justice by Concealing Evidence in “(secret)” confidential CLOSED

Mr. Bennett and Anthony Graves may not yet know how dramatically the ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL, which finalized Sebesta’s DISBARMENT, has changed how all attorneys in Texas conduct themselves. The Supreme Court must take action to hold OCDC ACCOUNTABLE for the fact that tens of thousands of Respondents have gone without Discipline since, at least, 1/1/2004, and contemptibly had their State Bar Licensing records EXPUNGED of valid Grievances.

1. On February 8th, 2016, BODA denied Sebesta’s MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL, ending all current or future arguments against Sebesta’s DISBARMENT. Instead of siding with OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and Sebesta allowing Sebesta to escape Discipline with his State Bar Record EXPUNGED of the January 27th, 2014 Bennett/Graves Grievance, BODA’s decision was to side with The Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Mandate provisions, i.e. Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]. In doing so, BODA pointed out that OCDC’s misinterpretation of those Changes -to be Complainant-adverse- were entirely and indefensibly WRONG; clearing the way for tens of thousands of improperly DENIED & DISMISSED Grievance Complainants, since 1/1/2004, to re-file Grievances, in exactly the same manner as Mr. Sebesta and Anthony Graves had. The Statute of Limitations for each of these Cases can only begin running upon the day and year (in the near future) that OCDC determines, by reviewing “(secret)” confidential CLOSED and EXPUNGED FILES that OCDC, BODA or Summary Disposition Panels improperly designated the Grievance classification to be “Inquiries,” INCONSEQUENTIAL TO THE RESPONDENT, and erred when those BODA or Summary Disposition Panels failed to place the Grievance on the Roster for an Evidentiary Hearing or District Court. On July 9th, 2015 Sebesta gave notice of his intent to appeal the Judgment of Disbarment signed by the Evidentiary Panel for State Bar District No. 08-2, State Bar of Texas on June 11th, 2015, and the Order on Respondent’s Motion on Res Judicata and Estoppel on December 17th, 2014. On Sept 29th, 2015, Sebesta filed Appeal against CLD, with an Oral Argument Request. On February 8 th , 2016, Res Judicata was DENIED, judgment of DISBARMENT was affirmed.

“OPINION In this attorney discipline case, we determine whether changes to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure in 2004 result in a res judicata effect when a Summary Disposition Panel dismisses a grievance upon a determination that Just Cause does not exist. We hold that the legal principles established in cases pre-dating the 2004 rule changes remain unchanged: summary dismissals of grievances, prior to commencement of any evidentiary proceeding, have no res judicata effect. The judgment of disbarment is affirmed.”Background of February 8th, 2016 (abbreviated) On June 11, 2015, an Evidentiary Panel of the State Bar District 8-2 grievance committee entered judgment disbarring Charles J. Sebesta, Jr. The grievance was initiated by Anthony Graves on January 29, 2014. Sebesta had earlier obtained the conviction of Robert Carter, who was sentenced to death for the six murders. Carter … had implicated Graves…Sebesta and Carter negotiated for Carter’s testimony in the upcoming trial against Graves. Because no physical evidence linked Graves to the murders, Carter’s testimony would be critical to the prosecution of Graves.

36 |

The night before Carter was to testify against Graves, Carter told Sebesta that he had committed the murders alone. This statement necessarily excluded Graves as a participant in the murders. Sebesta never disclosed this information to the defense. This failure to disclose violated Disciplinary Rule 3.09(d). Sebesta also presented false trial testimony both by Carter and by the lead investigator that (except for earlier grand jury testimony) all Carter’s statements implicated Graves…Sebesta took no steps to correct the false testimony of Carter…or to bring the perjured statement to the court’s attention. Sebesta’s use of testimony that he knew to be false violated Disciplinary Rule 3.03(a)(5). Graves presented an alibi defense. Before the defense called Graves’ critical alibi witness, Sebesta falsely stated in open court that the alibi witness was a suspect in the murders and would possibly be indicted. The witness then refused to testify and left the courthouse. Sebesta had no evidence or information tending to show any involvement by the alibi witness in the murders. Sebesta’s false statement to the court violated Disciplinary Rule 3.03(a)(1). Additionally, Sebesta told defense counsel that Carter had implicated a person named “Red” in the murders…ruled out as a suspect….Sebesta’s failure to disclose this information to the defense violated Disciplinary Rule 3.09(d). Sebesta also failed to disclose to defense counsel that an important prosecution witness was currently under indictment on other charges. Sebesta’s failure to disclose this information to the defense violated Disciplinary Rule 3.09(d). The Evidentiary Panel also found that Sebesta violated Disciplinary Rules 8.04(a)(1) and 8.04(a)(3).”“C. Dismissal of prior grievance On January 31, 2007, Houston attorney Robert S. Bennett filed a grievance against Sebesta. The grievance was initially classified as an Inquiry and dismissed. On Bennett’s appeal, the grievance was determined to be a Complaint, and the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel was directed to investigate further. Sebesta filed a written response to Bennett’s grievance. (The written response in 2007 stated facts substantially contradictory to the facts later found by the Evidentiary Panel in 2015, which are unchallenged in this appeal.) After an investigation, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel determined that no Just Cause existed. On August 16, 2007, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel wrote Sebesta (i) that the Summary Disposition Panel had determined that the grievance should be dismissed and (ii) that “our file on this matter has been closed and this office will take no further action.” Sebesta’s affidavit in 2014 says that J. M. Richards, Senior Investigator of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, discussed with Sebesta (i) that Sebesta had passed a lie detector test, and (ii) that Anthony Graves had failed a lie detector test. Sebesta’s affidavit says that Richards told him, ‘That’s all we needed.’ The 2007 grievance was based on substantially the same allegations of misconduct as the 2014 grievance. Sebesta asserts that the 2014 prosecution should have been barred either by res judicata or by quasi-estoppel.

“III. Res Judicata A. Law prior to the 2004 rule changes (abbreviated) Sebesta acknowledges that, prior to the 2004 rule changes, determinations by a grievance committee whether or not to take disciplinary action did not have any res judicata effect... such preliminary screenings, prior to any evidentiary proceeding…but they have not been decisions upon the merits of the complaints… The Committee's prior decisions did not ever rise to the level of a final determination of the merits of the complaints before them, and they are not res judicata.III. Res Judicata A. Law prior to the 2004 rule changes (abbreviated) Sebesta acknowledges that, prior to the 2004 rule changes, determinations by a grievance committee whether or not to take disciplinary action did not have any res judicata effect... such preliminary screenings, prior to any evidentiary proceeding…but they have not been decisions upon the merits of the complaints. The Committee's prior decisions did not ever rise to the level of a final determination of the merits of the complaints before them, and they are not res judicata.

37 |

B. 2004 rule changes (abbreviated) Sebesta asserts that the foregoing principle is no longer applicable, due to changes to the disciplinary process in 2004…after January 1, 2004, (i) there was no longer a local investigatory hearing for attorney discipline actions, (ii) investigations are instead conducted by a team of professional investigators employed by OCDC (iii) even upon a determination by OCDC that no Just Cause exists, the determination must be reviewed before any dismissal can occur, (iv) a Summary Disposition Panel makes an independent determination whether Just Cause exists, and (v) no appeal is available from a dismissal by the Summary Disposition Panel if it determines that no Just Cause exists. Sebesta emphasizes that under pre-2004 procedures, a dismissal was without prejudice to the Complainant’s ability to re-file a complaint within 30 days with additional evidence; after 2004, the words “without prejudice” were stricken and the appeal right was removed. C. Analysis (abbreviated) The 2004 changes to the rules diminished, rather than increased, the investigatory tools available to the screening entity. The dismissal in 2007, which Sebesta says should be given res judicata effect, was by a Summary Disposition Panel. We compare its tools and powers with those available to a grievance committee prior to 2004, whose dismissals did not have res judicata effect. The Summary Disposition Panel has no subpoena power to compel production of documents or to compel testimony; and it hears no witnesses. The pre-2004 grievance committees had subpoena power to gather documents and to require testimony; and they had the opportunity to hear and cross-examine witnesses under oath. The Summary Disposition Panel has fewer tools than the pre-2004 grievance committees to attempt any adjudication of merits, and the Summary Disposition Panel is not charged with any adjudicatory function. The changes in 2004 do not transform the role of the screening entity into an adjudicatory body, whose decisions might have res judicata effect. Just as the pre-2004 screening role of grievance committees has frequently been compared to the inquisitorial and non-adjudicatory role of grand juries, the Summary Disposition Panels continue to perform that function but with fewer investigatory tools. Sebesta’s further argument – that pre-2004 dismissals were expressly “without prejudice” to a complainant’s right to re-file the same complaint with additional evidence within 30 days – does not persuade a different conclusion. The pre-2004 cases found no res judicata following a screening dismissal – without regard to whether a complainant had, or had not, chosen to re-file within 30 days from the dismissal. The limited procedural opportunity before 2004 for a complainant to re-file the same complaint within 30 days was irrelevant to the question whether the Commission on Lawyer Conduct is barred by res judicata from initiating a disciplinary proceeding in the future. It should be no surprise that a dismissal prior to commencement of an evidentiary proceeding can have no res judicata effect. Even after commencement of an evidentiary proceeding, and during an evidentiary hearing up until the close of the Commission’s case in chief, allegations of an attorney’s professional misconduct can be voluntarily non-suited by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. Such a non-suit is without prejudice and without any subsequent res judicata effect. There is no jurisprudential or public policy reason why a dismissal at a much earlier date should be given res judicata effect – at a time when a screening entity does not have the benefit of the investigatory tools available later in an evidentiary proceeding, such as the capacity to subpoena production of documents and to subpoena testimony, the capacity to receive any sworn testimony in any depositions or evidentiary hearing, and the opportunity for cross-examination. “Res judicata” means “the matter has been adjudicated.” There is no adjudication by a Summary Disposition Panel, but only a screening based upon the investigation by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel without the formal tools later available in an evidentiary proceeding. The Summary Disposition Panel makes a determination of which matters warrant the commencement of evidentiary proceedings. It does not adjudicate the merits, nor does it yet have the tools to make any evidentiary findings by a preponderance of the evidence. Those findings are made at the conclusion of

38 |

an evidentiary proceeding – either by an Evidentiary Panel or by a district court. Only then – after an adjudication – should principles of res judicata become applicable.

The February 8th, 2016 Decision DENYING Res Judicata will serve as a Precedent for Tens of Thousands of Cases since 1/1/2004 incorrectly DENIED & DISMISSED and unconstitutionally DEPRIVED of Appeal because of OCDC’s Misinterpretation of Changes, eff 1/1/2004 to be Complainant-adverse. So accurately described in the Order, are unwritten exceptions to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law that are the impetus for their Improper Notices. Sebesta’s absurd rendition of OCDC’s “applicable 2004 Changes” have the same misconstructions that CLE Classes (e.g., Jennifer A. Hasley’s “State Bar of Texas, TEXAS MINORITY PROGRAM” CLE training program, dated May 20th, 20005, Chapter 6) have absurdly “taught” to CDC staff attorneys, and appointees of CLD, BODA, and GOC. OCDC’s “unlawful tenets,” i.e. Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, promulgate some very absurd OCDC “notions,” such as:

preliminary screenings, prior to any Respondent Attorney’s reading or response, rise to the level of a final determination based on the merits of the complaints and are FINAL DECISIONS with a res judicata effect. The notion can be observed on the “standard OCDC forms” of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures on each and every Grievance “writing” DENIED & DISMISSED with NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION and EXPUNGED. For example, just in my study period (2011 -2015) OCDC applied this absurdly incorrect “unwritten exception” to “finally adjudicate” 21,730 Grievance Complaints out of 28,827 that OCDC acknowledged as received! Each and every one of those 21,730 Grievance Complaints was “determined” to have a res judicata effect, DENYING & DISMISSING the Grievances without EXPLANATION, sufficient investigation and DEPRIVING Complainants Rights to Appeal – FOREVER, when in fact, the OCDC purposely (for “easy,” unconstitutional DENIALS & DISMISSALS with NO EXPLANATION) misunderstood a small but important detail that- it was only a Grievance “writing/screening,” (i.e. when Grievances are classified and DENIED & DISMISSED as an Inconsequential Inquiry“ at CDC’s intake”) that could NOT be Appealed to BODA except within thirty days after OCDC’s Notice of screening classification as an “Inquiry! The Supreme Court did not authorize (and would NEVER REQUIRE) the incompetent OCDC to apply a “res judicata” effect to Grievance “writings,” INCONSEQUENTIALLY DENIED & DISMISSED, and never even read by the Respondent! But, inanely, this is exactly how OCDC’s Chief Acevedo has misinterpreted the detail about “screenings!” Imagine just how many tens of thousands of Grievance Complainants with valid Complaints have been improperly DENIED & DISMISSED since 1/1/2004 (and without the Respondents ever even receiving a copy of the Grievance to read)! OCDC preposterously assigns a “res judicata effect” to ALL DENIALS & DISMISSALS, giving Complainants only 30 days to file a BODA Appeal on a writing; but – if there is NO Appeal within 30 days, Complainants are DENIED & DISMISSED FOREVER , regardless of evidences and documentations!

a “just cause” determination can be based on “hearsay allegations” of a Respondent (such as J. M. Richards, Senior Investigator of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s discussion that Sebesta had passed a lie detector test, and that Anthony Graves had failed a lie detector test. Sebesta’s affidavit says that Richards told him, ‘That’s all we needed.’) In my study period (2011 – 2015), OCDC applied this same absurdly incorrect “unwritten exception” to “finally adjudicate” 5,016 Grievance Complaints out of 28,827 that OCDC acknowledged as received! Just like in the Sebesta case, OCDC provided each and every one of those 5,016 with a res judicata effect, DENYING & DISMISSING the Grievances without EXPLANATION, sufficient investigation and DEPRIVING Complainants Rights to Appeal – FOREVER! Imagine just how many tens of thousands of Grievance Complainants have been improperly DENIED & DISMISSED, since 1/1/2004, in which Complainants had submitted valid evidence and documentation which was “not needed” by “investigators” whose only purpose was to DENY & DISMISS the Grievance without DISCIPLINE!

In Sebesta’s and OCDC Chief Acevedo’s injudicious grasp, the changes in 2004 transformed the role of the screening entity into an adjudicatory body, whose decisions might have res judicata

39 |

effect. OCDC contends there is an “adjudication by a Summary Disposition Panel,” when such Panels only make determinations of which matters warrant the commencement of evidentiary proceedings. OCDC imprudently contends that even after a screening entity such as the BODA Panels or Summary Disposition Panels find “just cause” and places the Grievance on a Roster for an Evidentiary Hearing or a District Court, that OCDC has “discretionary authority” to DENY & DISMISS a valid Grievance without Discipline or disperse the Grievance through CAAP; and that such DENIALS & DISMISSALS can be “with prejudice.” OCDC provided each and every one of those 671 Grievance Complaints out of 28,827 from 2011-2015 with a res judicata effect, DENYING & DISMISSING the Grievances without EXPLANATION, sufficient investigation and DEPRIVING Complainants Rights to Appeal – FOREVER! Imagine just how many tens of thousands of Grievance Complainants have been improperly DENIED & DISMISSED, since 1/1/2004, in which Complainants had submitted valid evidences and docs and BODA and OCDC Summary Disposition Panels found “just cause;” but OCDC made unauthorized “decisions” to NOT pursue Discipline, misrepresenting to Complainants that such “decisions” could apply “with prejudice.” Eschewing Discipline, OCDC hid Misconduct - FOREVER; EXPUNGING the Respondent’s State Bar record!

On February 8 th , 2016, Estoppel was DENIED Sebesta, judgment of his DISBARMENT was affirmed. “…as an equitable defense, quasi-estoppel is not available to parties with unclean hands. The unchallenged findings of fact show Sebesta’s conduct in the underlying prosecution was egregious and the March 29, 2007 response Sebesta submitted in connection with the 2007 grievance failed to admit, and substantially contradicted, the facts found concerning his conduct in the underlying prosecution.” Fourth, it is not unconscionable for a screening entity of a disciplinary authority to reach one conclusion as to Just Cause when presented with information in 2007 (including Sebesta’s materially inaccurate March 29, 2007 response) and to reach another conclusion when presented with information in 2014 (including a 2010 affidavit from the special prosecutor stating his determination that there was no credible evidence that Graves had any involvement in the murders). V. Conclusion The judgment of disbarment is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

For more than seven (7) years, I have collected data on the Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. OCDC has ignored all of my Reports; I must assume that countless other Complainants so injured by the Professional Misconduct of Attorneys with the same “unclean hands” referred to by BODA in the Order.

2. On February 8th, 2016, BODA denied Sebesta’s MOTION ON RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL, and provided a firm foundation on which to base Grievances against each and every official or attorney staff member of the State Bar, and, in addition, appointees of The Supreme Court of Texas who have, since 1/1/2004, disgracefully maladministered an Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedure to the detriment of tens of thousands of Grievance Complainants. Contemptibly, tens of thousands of Respondents have gone undisciplined, allowed to repeat Misconduct without any interference by the reprehensible OCDC, and destroyed the credibility of all Texas Lawyers and Courts. OCDC officials, staff and appointees of The Court have been involved in an unfair conspiracy that is overtly Complainant-adverse.

Since 1/1/2004, OCDC has denied Complainants who have sought the names of Panel Members that had been assigned to their Grievances which have been DENIED & DISMISSED without EXPLANATION or APPEAL; but Complainants have been disallowed access to those names. Disgracefully, OCDC has provided those Panel Members Names to Respondents, as evidenced by the July 18th, 2007 Notice, disclosing OCDC did not “determine just cause,” in an effort to aid Mr. Sebesta to influence his case in “ex parte communications” with those Panel Members.

In each and every case (5,016 Grievances just from my study period 2011-2015) and tens of thousands since 1/2/2004, when Summary Disposition Panels were first assembled, OCDC has practiced an extreme prejudice in favor of Respondents – in defiance of The Supreme Court Mandate that Grievance System be

40 |

unbiased. I must ask The Supreme Court: will It allow the officials of the Bar and appointees of The Court, many of whom are, in fact, judges to defy The Court without demanding an Evidentiary Panel Hearing or District Court Hearing leading to DISBARMENT of each and every official or attorney staff member of the State Bar, and, in addition, appointees of The Supreme Court of Texas? Are those OCDC Panel Members NOT bound by TDRPC and TX Code of Judicial Conduct? Per TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (amended by The Supreme Court through August 22, 2002), (5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. (8) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties between the judge and a party, an attorney, a guardian or attorney ad litem, an alternative dispute resolution neutral, or any other court appointee concerning the merits of a pending or impending judicial proceeding. A judge shall require compliance with this subsection by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control.

Since 1/1/2004, OCDC has unabashedly instructed the State Bar staff attorneys (and non-attorneys) to apply Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq. in such a Complainant-adverse manner that no matter how egregious the Misconduct was described in Grievances, OCDC DENIED & DISMISSED most Grievances (27,417 out of 28,827 Grievances just in my study period from 2011-2015), DEPRIVING Complainants of an Explanation, sufficient investigation, Amendment Rights and Rights to Appeal Amendments. OCDC’s tyrannical standpoint has been: if a Complainant did not APPEAL the unexplained OCDC’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL of a Grievance “writing” within exactly 30 days of receipt of Notice of Right to Appeal to BODA, that res judicata could be applied; i.e., that preliminary screen decision was held by an incompetent and corrupt OCDC to apply as a FINAL DECISION so that a Complainant’s further Appeals were DENIED & DISMISSED without APPEAL RIGHTS and (most disturbing) with NO DISCIPLINE to Respondent and EXPUNGEMENT of valid Grievances.

OCDC’s Chief Acevedo, BODA’s Chief Jones, CLD’s Chief Harrison, GOC Chief Wylie purposely and willfully maladminister the “discipline” system by overseeing CLE Classes which mislead attorneys and judges who “volunteer” to serve on Panels of Grievance Committees, i.e. BODA and Summary Disposition Panels. For just one example of OCDC’s adversity toward Complaints, I refer to a “teaching” in Jennifer A. Hasley’s “State Bar of Texas, TEXAS MINORITY PROGRAM” CLE training program, dated May 20th, 20005, Chapter 6, - a copy is contained at #41 -in which she states (on pg. 2) :

“If CDC determines that Just Cause does not exist, the CDC will present the Complaint and supporting evidence to a summary disposition panel. Because neither the Complainant nor the Respondent are permitted to appear in person before the Summary Disposition panel, the content and quality of their respective written submissions (e.g.., grievance, response, supporting documents, etc.) may be determinative of the outcome at this relatively early stage in the grievance process for a favorable outcome. This is the Respondent’s second opportunity (the first being the classification decision) in the grievance process for a favorable outcome – dismissal. The summary disposition panel will either concur with CDC’s recommendation and dismiss the case or disagree with the CDC’s recommendation and refer it for prosecution. The decision of the summary disposition panel is not subject to review.”

The emergence of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures can be traced by to an absurdly incorrect misinterpretation by OCDC officials and appointees of The Supreme Court that the Legislative Changes in 2004 transformed the role of the screening entity into an adjudicatory body, whose decisions might have res judicata effect. Contemptibly, OCDC promulgated misinformation in CLE classes that Complainants and Respondents were DEPRIVED OF Due Process by Legislative Changes, eff. 1/1/2004. OCDC “determined an authority” to could quickly read Grievance “writings” and Respondent “responses” – and keep the much favored “BAR MEMBER/RESPONDENT” from Disciplinary Action; and also keep all Texas

41 |

State Bar members’ premiums for professional liability insurance are discounted due to the Dysfunctional Grievance System’s dishonesty. Disgracefully, Summary Disposition panels (whose Panel Member Names were disclosed in written Notices of findings of JUST CAUSE, directly to RESPONDENT but WERE NEVER – UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES – PROVIDED TO THE COMPLAINANT), could “confer clandestinely to decide” to DENY & DISMISS Complainants who would have NO RIGHT TO REQUIRE A REVIEW, (i.e., to APPEAL!). Per Complainant-adverse proponents “favorable outcomes --- dismissals!” can be based on those written submissions of poor quality and content! I must ask The Court: Will It NOT find “JUST CAUSE” to determine gross Professional Misconduct of Bar officials and Court appointees just based upon the wording and content of OCDC’s “training” program? Or will The Court, instead, contend that Bar officials and appointees astute enough to pass the Texas State Bar Exam, could mistake a Grievance “screening,” which summarily DENIES & DISMISSES a valid Grievance due to dishonorable, insufficient investigations, could become FINAL DECISION with a res judicata effect?

Complainants are misled by Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures - to NOT FILE an Appeal to BODA within 30 days. For example, each standard DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notice presented to Complainants, “screenings/Inquiry dismissals,” misled Complainants that, as an alternative to filing an Appeal with BODA, Complainants could “mediate” the Discipline problem with CAAP, a voluntary “service” that Respondents need not attend (unless they “want” to.) In each CAAP case, when the Complainant did not appeal to BODA in 30 days, OCDC determined it was “authorized” by The Supreme Court to DENY & DISMISS any future Grievances against Respondents due to OCDC’s purposeful misinterpretation that the “screenings/Inquiry dismissals” have a res judicata effect. Based on that “screening,” OCDC often does not even read, classify or record second Grievances filed by Complainants on any Issue, pronouncing nonsensically that a FINAL DECISION HAD BEEN MADE PREVIOUSLY! Bar Officials and Supreme Court appointees overtly disenfranchised tens of thousands of Complainants (from money, property and important Civil Rights without proper Appeal) and failed to DISCIPLINE Respondents – actually encouraging the Respondents to continue Professional Misconduct thousands more times over!

3. Since 1/1/2004, OCDC and BODA have maladministered a Grievance System that is purported to be a ““SELF-HELP” process. How can Texans practice “self-help” when OCDC and BODA are not using TDRPC to describe Professional Misconduct but employ a “playbook” which contains “unwritten exceptions” to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law, that are the impetus for their Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Such “unwritten exceptions” are known to OCDC’s Chief Acevedo and her consortium, and BODA’s appointees and employees; and despicably the Rules change on a “case-by-case basis?” Complainants (who have the misfortune of retaining unethical attorneys) write valid Complaints describing Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, only to be told that the Respondent has NOT violated TDRPC, without any EXPLANATION and NO Appeal Rights – FOREVER!” In the following Report, I give detailed descriptions how OCDC harassed me, failing to describe at all why my well-documented Grievances were summarily DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION or APPEAL, while the Respondents were left UNDISCIPLINED with my valid Grievances EXPUNGED. I have only been told by GOC (under the Chairmanship of Catherine Wylie) that I do NOT understand because I am NOT an attorney! My website attracts many disgruntled Complainants, some well-educated (or even attorneys themselves) but mostly individuals who are not experienced with attorneys or Lawsuits and very vulnerable. It is so unfair that the only way that Complainants can file Grievances by “SELF-HELP procedures” is by becoming so very well acquainted with TDRPC (and TRPC) as I have. (I studied for years to no avail). While I have taken much encouragement from Mr. Stanley’s PETITION; it took a very long time for me (a non-attorney) to comprehend its meaning. I am so respectful of Anthony Graves fight against Charles J. Sebesta and Mr. Bennett’s horrendous ordeal with OCDC. But, I assert it will be IMPOSSIBLE by “SELF-HELP procedures” to find all those Complainants so adversely effected by OCDC and BODA now that the Order on Respondent’s Motion on Res Judicata and Estoppel has revealed OCDC’s and BODA’s gross misinterpretation (eff. 1/1/2004) of fundamental purpose of the State Bar. There must be a complete transformation of the Disciplinary Authority in Texas which allows for fair legal representation of all

42 |

Complainants, especially non-attorneys (even if we can afford attorneys – the OCDC has harassed ethical attorneys for so long, we cannot retain them.) Absurdly BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones proclaims “New Rules” to Aid in “SELF-HELP” Initiatives. A non-attorney, office manager, BODA’s Jackie Truitt, Exec. Assistant, controls the BODA docket, makes meeting arrangements, telephone inquiries and has primary responsibility for classification appeals from intake through disposition. Exec. Assistant Truitt steadfastly refuses any new/additional information from any Complainant and actually warns Respondent Attorney (who never even receives a copy of a Complainant’s “writing” (unless CDC finds just cause) on her “standard BODA Review Form” in bold writing NOT TO RESPOND to her and misspells “Disciplinary.” BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” gives no explanation of why CDC and BODA agree that the “writing” allegations do not constitute professional misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. There is NO Notice of Complainants’ Rights to file Amendments within 20 days after receipt of BODA’s Denial. In BODA’s Chair Jones’ own bureaucratic words in the 2015 Report (page 6):

“BODA considers only information available to the CDC at screening and does not review any additional information sent to either CDC or to BODA. If a complainant sends new information to BODA, staff returns the documents and explains that the complainant may refile the grievance with the CDC to have additional information considered.”

However, if the Complainant refiles, OCDC steadfastly refuses to read, classify or record the Amendment or “Prior Complaint Case,” applying the absurd misinterpretation that the Legislative Changes in 2004 transformed the role of the screening entity into an adjudicatory body, whose decisions might have res judicata effect. Such “refilings” purported as “new rules” by BODA Chair Marvin W. Jones, are DENIED & DISMISSED with NO APPEAL, often not even read or recorded by OCDC! CAAP “SELF-HELP” is proposed and highly recommended by the Complainant-adverse Proponents!A State Bar of Texas’ Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program provided to attendees of the TEXAS MINORITY ATTORNEY PROGRAM on May 20th, 2005 in Houston Texas by Jennifer A. Hasley, OCDC, pg. 2:

“Throughout the disciplinary process, all dismissals must be referred to a voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure – CAAP.Respondents may no longer appeal the classification as a “Complaint.”

OCDC’s “standard Denial Notice,” dismissing the “writing” with no consequence to the Respondent attorney, is bizarrely sent to Complainants in Grievances “taken into” CDC; no matter what the “writing” describes and documents. (In my study period from 2011-2015, 21,730 of 28,827 Complainants got such Notices.) A “standard Summary Disposition Denial Notice,” dismissing Complaints with no consequence to the Respondent are sent to Respondents; no matter what evidence and docs are supplied by the Complainant! (In my study period from 2011-2015, 5,687 (5,016 + 671) of 28,827 Complainants got such Notices.) The “writings” of Complainants describe and document barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or any other professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC. Yet, in each case, CDC’s “standard Denial Notices” and “standard Summary Disposition Denial Notices,” absurdly contend that, in lieu of an Appeal, the Complainant may have CAAP, “mediate the dispute” in a face-to-face conference with the offensive attorney, if he/she will appear voluntarily. I must ask The Supreme Court of Texas: Why do Complainants need the SELF-HELP of OCDC to aid us to tell a Respondent Attorney that he/she has violated the TDRPC and DESERVES DISCIPLINE? I am certain that in each of every one of the 28,827 Complaints in my study period, Complainants have already expressed our contentions to the Respondents. Why would we need incompetent and corrupt OCDC “investigators” to support the Respondents’ Misconduct in a face-to-face CAAP meeting? (For example; Mr. Stanley got such a Notice – OCDC proposed that Mr. Stanley use CAAP to get more than $1,170,654 back from Respondent “Attorney J” on July 7th, 2014, while the Bar tenaciously held all docs and evidences of the unexplained (and inexplicable) DENIAL & DISMISSAL of Mr. Stanley’s Grievance in a “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILE!” Imagine the outrage that OCDC proposes “SELF-HELP BY CAAP!” in lieu of DISCIPLINE!

OCDC is harassing ethical lawyers in order to inflict Incompetence and Corruption! In March, 2016, after two years of an extremely humiliating public DISBARMENT, a Houston appeals court reversed a trial court's sanction DISBARRING of Robert S. Bennett of Houston and remanded it for

43 |

reconsideration of the "appropriate sanction" after finding evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Bennett violated two disciplinary rules. I must ask The Supreme Court: Does it NOT Matter that OCDC’s and BODA’s “playbook” of “unwritten exceptions to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law can be applied against ethical Attorneys with an apparent lack of Precedence? Among the tens of thousands of DENIED & DISMISSED Grievances with NO EXPLANATION, NO APPEAL and NO DISCIPLINE to Respondents, refilling of those Grievances as must be accorded DEPRIVED Complainants, will reveal an astonishing number of violations of TDRPC (with evidences) much more troublesome than the unproven violations by which OCDC called for Disciplinary Sanction (and DISBARMENT) of Mr. Bennett on March 21st, 2014. For example, Mr. Stanley’s Petition revealed that Complainants purchased property for $1,170,654. But, Respondent, “Attorney J” secretly sold it and used proceeds to purchase more property that Attorney J then used as collateral for a loan on another property! When Mr. Stanley presented the fraud to “Attorney J,” he admitted the fraud but said he would “SELF-REPORT” his crimes to OCDC! As unbelievable as it is to conceive that OCDC, a DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, would DENY & DISMISS Mr. Stanley’s Grievance against “Attorney J,” with NO APPEAL, NO DISCIPLINE and EXPUNGEMENT of the valid Grievance, that is precisely what OCDC did! OCDC has NO PRECEDENT FILES but “determines” DISCIPLINE v. EXPUNGEMENT on a case-by-case basis!

To quote Mark Bennett, “ (“Absolutely No Relation” on September 4th, 2014): “You’d better talk to a lawyer” might not be legal advice, but “you don’t need a lawyer” damn sure is.” Illustrating the fact that OCDC has created such confusion among Texas attorneys by publicly sanctioning Robert S. Bennett while obsessively concealing MISCONDUCT of Respondent attorneys in “(secret”) confidential CLOSED FILES UNTIL EXPUNGMENT, Mark Bennett points out:

Protip: whether it is practicing law or not does not depend on what you call it. According to Section 81.101(a) of the Texas Government Code, In this chapter the “practice of law” means … a service rendered out of court, including the giving of advice … requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge….Advising people on “handling licensing issues” is giving legal advice.”

Having noted nothing but the salacious fact that Robert S. Bennett was DISBARRED, Mark Bennett seems not to notice Robert S. Bennett’s Notice to Appeal and apply, therefore, OCDC’s Chief Acevedo’s contention that DISBARRED ATTORNEYS can invoke a right! under State Bar rules to keep those proceedings private. Mark Bennett’s BLOG insinuates that Mr. Bennett cannot consult with attorneys on “licensing issues” because he is giving “legal advice” as a Consultant - not as an Attorney. The BLOG alludes to Robert S. Bennett’s supposed Misconduct of implying Clients “don’t need a lawyer,” by Robert S. Bennett’s efforts to assist Clients as a Consultant. State Bar Members have exactly the same conflict; failing to tell Complainants they are representatives of a “trade association for lawyers” and that Complainants NEED AN ATTORNEY to represent the Complainant in a “Client-Attorney Relationship” in order to protect Complainants RIGHTS. Mr. Stanley’s PETITION gives credence to the truth: “the State Bar has a dramatic conflict of interest.”

“…It acts as a trade association for our profession, advocating our interests-but then it purports to conduct discipline of its own members. Based on the Complainants’ experience, and evidently based on the experience of other Texans, the present system is not working. The Bar is flouting this Court’s Rules because no one is watching and the Bar apparently believes the Court is indifferent or distracted by multiple other responsibilities.”

OCDC’s Complainant-adverse proponents are lawyers, misleading Complainants that they are representing the Complainant against Respondents who violate TDRPC. OCDC attorneys violate TDRPC 1.06 which can only allow a “trade association employee, or official” paid by the State Bar to represent a Complainant if full disclosure of the “existence, nature, implications, and possible adverse consequences of the common representation and the advantages involved, if any.” Per Comment 8:

“8. Disclosure and consent are not formalities. Disclosure sufficient for sophisticated clients may not be sufficient to permit less sophisticated clients to provide fully informed consent. While it is not required that the disclosure and consent be in writing, it would be prudent for the lawyer to provide potential dual clients with at least a written summary of the considerations disclosed.”

I must ask The Supreme Court: Are State Bar officials, employee staff lawyers, and appointees of The Supreme Court NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE to TDRPC and subject to DISCIPLINE just as all TX Attorneys are?

44 |

45 |

INCREASE IN ACTIVE ATTYS IN TEXAS – BUT A DECREASE IN # OF GRIEVANCES?

DECREASE IN THE # OF GRIEVANCES – AND A DECREASE IN THE # OF DISCIPLINES?

46 |

Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act, have served only to humiliate the Legal Profession.

DENIED & DISMISSED Noncompliance Issues Discipline% 7,071 5,576 ←79% DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants @ “Intake”- 21% Complaints → 1,49575.5% 5,348 Gross Noncompliance - CDC & BODA purposely deceive Complainants. 0 3.3% 228 Eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants - DEPRIVED of Proper HEARINGS & FAIRNESS. 0 (.6%) (40) “Augmentation”- District Crt Elections (50) less 10 = # of BODA’s Judgments. 4078.2% 5,536 ← Noncompliance-DENIED & DISMISSED/NO explanation or Atty Involvement _____

_____ Respondent first reads Complaint & responds; Complainant’s writings, BODA reversals sent for CDC investigation & Summary Disp. Panel review→ 1,535

17.2% 1,217 ← Gross Noncompliance DEPRIVES Right of Complainant or Respondent of adverse determinations of CLANDESTINE Summary Disp. Panel to BODA. →

(1,217)

95.5 % 6,753 ←Noncompliance,95.5% of 7,071 are DENIED & DISMISSED-only (4.5%) → 318 416 resolved “backlogged Complaints”– 318 = 98 new “backlogged”

(2.6) (184) Complaints from Evidentiary Panel Roster sent to CAAP, placed in unresolved backlog or in suspense without Discipline (502-318=184) 184

92.9% 6,569 ←DENIED & DISMISSED by CDC & CLANDESTINE Summary Disp. Panel -----------Sent 502 to Evidentiary/District Crt (502) (7.1%) → 502

# of NON-PRIVATE SANCTIONS (318 – 65= 253) 3.6%Cost $11,594,087/7,071 = $1,640/Grievance

47 |

Per BODA & CLD Reports (6/1/2014 – 5/31/2015), 6,753 (95.4%) of 7,071 Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED without explanation by the State Bar’s misadministration of a Complainant-adverse Grievance Process. Only 318 of 7071 (4.5%) Grievances were provided a Disciplinary Sanction by an Evidentiary or District Court Hearing after the classification, BODA Appeals, investigations of CDC & Summary Disp. Panel at a cost of $1,640. /Grievance.

* 96,912 attorneys, CLD Report shows 441 more Grievances (TTL 7,512) rec’d than BODA Report (7,071).

DENIED & DISMISSED Noncompliance Issues Discipline%7,394 5,827 ←79% DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants @”Intake” - 21% Complaints → 1,56776.85% 5,683 Gross Noncompliance - CDC & BODA purposely deceive Complainants. 01.95% 144 Eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants are DEPRIVED of a Proper HEARING & FAIRNESS. 0 (.8%) (53) “Augmentation”- District Crt Elections (58) - 5 BODA Adj. 5378.02% 5,774 ← Noncompliance-DENIED & DISMISSED/NO explanation or Atty Involvement _____

_____ Respondent first reads Complaint & responds; Complainant’s writings + BODA “reversals” sent for CDC investigation & Summary Disp. Panel review → 1,620

15.5% 1,147 ← Gross Noncompliance DEPRIVES Right of Complainant or Respondent of adverse determinations of CLANDESTINE Summary Disp. Panel to BODA. →

(1,147)

93.5% 6,921 ←DENIED & DISMISSED by CDC & CLANDESTINE Summary Disposition Panel which Sent 473 plus 5 BODA reversals to Evidentiary/District Crt (6.5%) 473

403 resolved “backlogged Complaints”– 323 = 80 new “backlogged”

2% 150Complaints from Evidentiary Panel Roster sent to CAAP, placed in unresolved backlog or in suspense without Discipline (473-323=150)

(150)

95.6% 7,071 ←Noncompliance, 95.6% of 7,394 are DENIED & DISMISSED- only (4.4) → 323# of NON-PRIVATE SANCTIONS (323-68 = 255) 3.4%

Cost $12,423,516/7,394 = $1,680/Grievance

DENIED & DISMISSED Noncompliance Issues Discipline%7,123 5,495 ←77% DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants @”Intake” - 23% Complaints → 1,62875% 5,345 Gross Noncompliance - CDC & BODA purposely deceive Complainants. 0 2.1% 150 Eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants are DEPRIVED of a Proper HEARING & FAIRNESS. 0(.6%) (43) “Augmentation”- District Crt Elections (59) less 16 = # of BODA’s Judgments 4376.5% 5,452 ← Noncompliance-DENIED & DISMISSED/NO explanation or Atty Involvement _____

_____ Respondent first reads Complaint & responds; Complainant’s writings + BODA “reversals” sent for CDC investigation & Summary Disp. Panel review → 1,671

18.3% 1,304 ← Gross Noncompliance DEPRIVES Right of Complainant or Respondent of adverse determinations of CLANDESTINE Summary Disp. Panel to BODA. →

(1,304)

94.8% 6,756 ←Noncompliance, 94.8% of 7123 are DENIED & DISMISSED…Only (5.2%) → 367 444 resolved “backlogged Complaints”– 367 = 77 new “backlogged”

(1.8%) (139) Complaints from Evidentiary Panel Roster sent to CAAP, placed in unresolved backlog or in suspense without Discipline (506-367=139) 139

93% 6,617 ←Noncompliance- 93% of 7,123 are DENIED & DISMISSED- only (7) → 506# of NON-PRIVATE SANCTIONS (367-89=278) 3.9%

Cost $11,221,292/7,394 = $1,575/Grievance

48 |

Per BODA & CLD Reports (6/1/2013 – 5/31/2014) 7,071 (95.6%) of 7,394 Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED without explanation by the State Bar’s misadministration of a Complainant-adverse Grievance Process. Only 323 of 7,394 (4.4%) Grievances were provided a Disciplinary Sanction by an Evidentiary or District Court Hearing after the classification, BODA Appeals, investigations of CDC & Summary Disp. Panel at a cost of $1,680. /Grievance.

*94,804 attorneys in TX, *comp error on pg. 17 of CLD report – shows 322 rather than 323.

Per BODA & CLD Reports (6/1/2012 – 5/31/2013) 6,756 (94.8%) of 7,123 Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED without explanation by the State Bar’s misadministration of a Complainant-adverse Grievance Process. Only 367 of 7,123 (5.2%) Grievances were provided a Disciplinary Sanction by an Evidentiary or District Court Hearing after the classification, BODA Appeals, investigations of CDC & Summary Disp. Panel at a cost of $1,575 /Grievance.

* 92,210 attorneys, BODA Report shows 759 more Grievances (TTL 7,882) rec’d than CLD Report

DENIED & DISMISSED Noncompliance Issues Discipline%7,239 5,400 ←75% DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants @”Intake” - 25% Complaints → 1,839

5,231 Gross Noncompliance - CDC & BODA purposely deceive Complainants. 074.6% 169 Eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants are DEPRIVED of a Proper HEARING & FAIRNESS. 0(5.9%) -432 360 (pending) + 84 (District Court) – BODA’s 2 Sanctions & -10 No Just Cause 43268.63% 4,968 ← Noncompliance-DENIED & DISMISSED/NO explanation or Atty Involvement _____

_____ Respondent first reads Complaint & responds; Complainant’s writings + BODA “reversals” sent for CDC investigation & Summary Disp. Panel review → 2,271

23% 1,671 ← Gross Noncompliance DEPRIVES Right of Complainant or Respondent of adverse determinations of CLANDESTINE Summary Disp. Panel to BODA. →

(1,671)

91.7 6,639 ←Noncompliance, 91.7% of 7,239 are DENIED & DISMISSED -only (8.3%) → 600516 resolved “backlogged Complaints”– 402 = 114 new “backlogged”

2.7% 198Complaints from Evidentiary Panel Roster sent to CAAP, placed in

unresolved backlog or in suspense without Discipline (600-402=198) (198)

94.4% 6,837 ←Noncompliance , 94.8% of 7,239 are DENIED & DISMISSED…Only (5.6%) → 402# of NON-PRIVATE SANCTIONS (402-106=296) 4.0%

Cost $11,057,892/7,239 = $1,528/Grievance v 6/1/2009 – 5/31/2010 found but not 6/1/2010 to 5/31/201

49 |

Per BODA & CLD Reports (6/1/2011 – 5/31/2012) 6,837 (94.4%) of 7,239 Grievances were DENIED & DISMISSED without explanation by the State Bar’s misadministration of a Complainant-adverse Grievance Process. Only 402 of 7,239 (5.6%) Grievances were provided a Disciplinary Sanction by an Evidentiary or District Court Hearing after the classification, BODA Appeals, investigations of CDC & Summary Disp. Panel at a cost of $1,528 /Grievance.

*87,881 attorneys in TX.

50 |

51 |

Bar Graph which Shows: Grievances Received & Resolved From CLD Report 2009-10

CLIENT-ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (2009-2010), pg. 25“The Client-Attorney Assistance Program (CAAP) is a statewide dispute resolution program… CAAP also supports the attorney discipline process by providing information about the grievance process and grievance forms upon request. The grievance complaint form was revised in January 2007 to provide more specific information regarding the option of resolving issues through CAAP without the need to file a formal grievance. A CAAP survey conducted from January 2007 through June 2010 reflects that this change in the form resulted in an additional 3,227 calls to CAAP from individuals expressing a desire to use this program before, or in lieu of, the filing of a formal grievance….” From CLD Report 2014-15

CLIENT-ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, 2014-15, pg. 27. “CAAP handled 15,138 live calls from the public and responded to 6,999 mail requests for forms, information, or resources in the past bar year while providing dispute resolution services for 1,094 Texas attorney-client relationships—successfully re-establishing productive communication in 84 percent of its cases.”CLIENT-ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2013-14, pg. 27. CAAP took action on behalf of consumers of Texas legal services 39,033 times in the past bar year, handling 17,559 live calls from the public and responding to 5,611 mail requests for forms, information, or resources. Additionally, CAAP provided dispute resolution services for 1,127 Texas attorney-client relationships and successfully re-established communication in 81 percent of their cases, marking a 7 percent increase in success from the previous year.CLIENT-ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2012-13, pg. 27. During the 2012-2013 bar year, the CAAP staff took action on behalf of Texas legal service consumers 45,809 times—including 17,497 live calls—and provided dispute resolution services for 1,159 (discrepancy from Bar Graph) Texas lawyer-client interactions.CLIENT-ATTORNEY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2011-12, pg. 27. During the 2011–12 Bar year, CAAP was contacted approximately 50,746 times and answered questions primarily about the grievance process and made referrals to programs that could assist with specific issues or concerns. CAAP resolved 659 cases between attorneys and their clients without the need for filing a formal grievance. Complaints about communication and neglect continued to top the list regarding representation issues. Dispute resolution files regarding criminal, family, and personal injury law are the top three legal matters for which dispute resolution is most frequently requested.

52 |

The State Bar of Texas’ Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, disdainful of Texans’ Rights, is devastating to the Profession of Law, and a humiliation to The Supreme Court of Texas.

Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures State Bar Directors; General and Assistant Disciplinary Counsels and Commission Chairpersons, which The Supreme Court has injudiciously entrusted with the Attorney Discipline Process, are disdainful of Texans’ Rights; instead, choosing to deny valid Texas Complainants’ Grievances “writings;” and summarily dismiss Grievances by means of an Improper Notices Procedure and the Grievance Denial Procedure. I have fully described in letters to officials of the Texas State Bar and appointees by The Supreme Court of Texas, other individuals, agencies, commissions and state offices; e.g., Sunset Advisory Commission, The Texas State House, The Texas Attorney General’s Office, the Marc R. Stanley Law Group; and The Supreme Court of Texas that the Texas State Bar’s Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC), Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BODA), Grievance Oversight Committee (GOC), and Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CLD) are abjectly administering an Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures with the full knowledge and complicity of BODA’s adjudicatory body of twelve (12) attorneys including Chair David N. Kitner, and the President-Elect of the State Bar of Texas, Frank Stevenson. The CDC, BODA, GOC and the CLD disserve Texas Grievance Complainants by their condescension and insult: arrogantly insinuating that Complainants are not well educated in Texas Law and just cannot understand the rules set down by The Supreme Court of Texas. While CDC, BODA, GOC and CLD self-importantly purport that Complainants’ Written Grievances do not describe Professional Misconduct, as it is defined in TDRPC, on the other hand, they give no explanation of why Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation that a Complainant describes is not defined by the TDRPC as Professional Misconduct. Speciously, CDC, BODA, GOC and the CLD intimates that “Members have a special privilege” which “less important” Complainants do not have: to define Professional Misconduct in an unintelligible manner that the CDC, BODA, GOC and the CLD decides conforms to “Denial Tenets,” unwritten exceptions to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law, that are the impetus for their Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Written Grievances are summarily dismissed by CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counselors without any disciplinary consequence to the attorney who is, most often, not even required to read or make any response to the Grievance. Even more disturbing is the fact that, at least since 1/1/2004, the CDC, BODA, GOC and the CLD have provided a “safe harbor” for unethical Texas attorneys; concealing the substance and quantity of a huge number of Texans’ Written Grievances by:

failing to read, classify, or record Grievances at all – in “CDC’s selected and favored attorney” cases, improperly classifying the majority of all Written Grievances in Texas as “inconsequential Inquiries,” failing to keep any ongoing records of the Professional Misconduct of attorneys, and actually encouraging Professional Misconduct in Texas. In many circumstances, Texas attorneys

have become an incorrigible and unwieldy group; often banding together against Texas Clients and ethical attorneys; and continuing to conduct themselves dishonestly and criminally without any fear of disciplinary action.

The State Bar of Texas is rewarding, rather than disciplining, Texas attorneys who conduct themselves unprofessionally. CDC’s and BODA’s Improper Notices Procedure insult Complainants who write Grievances and document disgraceful attorney misconduct by absurdly discounting the Complainant’s Grievance, indicating on official stationery, annotated with legends of the State Bar of Texas and The Supreme Court of Texas, that described attorney misconduct is not “Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud (etc.)” because it does not (in CDC’s and BODA’s inexplicable determination) fit the definition in TDRPC . CDC DENIES and DISMISSES the Grievance, classifying it as an “inconsequential Inquiry” as soon as it is received. INEXPLICABLY, the Grievance is released from any further investigation. BODA “rubberstamps” CDC’s Inquiry classification and falsely indicates the DENIAL and DISMISSAL to be a FINAL DECISION with no appeal rights. The unethical attorneys continue to pay their monetary dues to the State Bar and are rewarded with the continuance of their eligibility to practice law in Texas. The Texas Bar card has become

53 |

to dishonest attorneys: a license to steal, deceive and defraud, money, or the rights of property or person from Texans, while demanding large sums in Barratry.

While it is difficult to accept the fact that the State Bar of Texas officials and appointees, since 1/1/2004, have been conducting an unlawful Grievance Process which disdainfully denies Complainants’ Grievances as “superficial and unimportant” no matter how serious the Attorney Misconduct described within the Grievance is, it is impossible to fathom that the State Bar of Texas officials and appointees would, in fact, be so obtuse as to send out their condescending, Improper Standard Denial Notices and attempt to conduct the Grievance Denial Procedure with a Texas attorney, such as Marc R. Stanley, STANLEY LAW GROUP, with the inane expectation that Mr. Stanley would accept and participate in the piffle of the State Bar of Texas’ inane Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. On September 29th, 2014, Mr. Stanley filed a “PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF,vi” (hereafter, “PETITION”) with The Supreme Court of Texas calling for an end to the nonsense, which I have termed the “Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.”

NO NOTICE, NO RIGHT TO GRIEVE AND NO RIGHT TO APPEAL: Each Texans’ Right to Due Process is violated by The Texas State Bar’s disrespect of its mandate from The Supreme Court of Texas to read and investigate all Written Grievances; and sanction and/or remove unethical Texas lawyers’ licenses to practice Law. Disgracefully, CDC, BODA, GOC and the CLD have developed an Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures and practiced a repetition of sending “standard Denial Notices” to Grievance Complainants which give false information about a Complainant’s Right to Appeal and which lead only to a swift Denial of each Written Grievance without any explanation or investigation. Thereby, the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures denies Due Process of Law to Grievance Complainants and, in addition, to attorneys whose professional misconduct is described and documented by each Complainant in the DENIED and DISMISSED Written Grievances. Texas Grievance Complainants, regardless of whether they are attorneys or non-attorneys, receive: (1) No Notice that explains why a Grievance describing a lawyer’s unprofessional conduct and the deleterious resulting effect on a Complainant’s right, or property, or person is classified as an “Inquiry” ---- and dismissed with no investigation and of no consequence. The Texas lawyer whose Misconduct is the subject of any Written Complaint, need not ever respond to any of the Written Grievance’s allegations of Professional Misconduct. (2) No Right to Grieve or disagree with the State Bar which makes false claims that it has the impunity to have unregulated and unquestionable decision making authority imbued upon it by The Supreme Court of Texas: to deny the Grievance’s investigation and dismiss it as an “inconsequential Inquiry.” (3) No Right to Appeal when a Complainant who receives no explanation of the DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance is not satisfied with the outcome of the Grievance Denial Procedure.

Per The Government Code, Title 2, Subtitle G, Chapter 81, Subchapter A, Section 81.036,(Chapter 325 of The Government Code - Texas Sunset Act), I required each Chief Disciplinary Counsel Acevedo, BODA’s

54 |

Spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas, Claire Mock; Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Linda A. Acevedo, CDC’s Deputy Counsel, Laura Popps, Assistant Disciplinary Counsels, Susan M. Beckage, Kathleen W. Morgan, David Nowlin, and Rebecca Stevens; BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E McKeeman, BODA’s Deputy Director Gayle Vickers, BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones; GOC Chair Catherine N. Wylie, CLD Chair Guy Harrison; and other Officials and Appointees of the State Bar of Texas, Have Shamefully Avoided Duty per Chapter 325 of TEX GV. Code - Texas Sunset Act to Respond to Multiple Written Criticisms of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

Executive Director & General Counsel, GOC Chair and CLD Chair to address specific points in a formal, Written Response in to letters and reports that I wrote. I have sent letters and full documentation of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures to many officials and appointees of the State Bar of Texas. I have received not a single, solitary word in response. Using the “standard Denial Notices,” CDC and BODA, since 1/1/2004, have routinely provided wrong information on letters to Grievance Complainants, preposterously denying that the Grievance (no matter how inexcusable the alleged violations are) describes “any” violation of TDRPC and which contemptibly “close” all prospects of disciplinary action against the Respondent Attorney. BODA’s “standard Denial Notices” (signed by the Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman [herself]) and alleged to be “on behalf of” THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS) are nothing but an reprehensible humiliation to The Supreme Court of Texas because the “standard Denial Notices” falsely purport such Grievance Denials to be “FINAL DENIALS” with no further right to appeal; thereby, denying Due Process of Law to the Complainant. It is alarming and shameful that CDC’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Linda A Acevedo, and Assistant Disciplinary Counselors, S.M. Beckage and K.W. Morgan; and BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E. McKeeman (and others) are administering an Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures in direct opposition to the clearly stated Regulations provided to the CDC and BODA by The Supreme Court of Texas. While explicitly declaring falsely that BODA is following “rules” provided by The Supreme Court of Texas, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman has the audacity to dishonor The Supreme Court of Texas by displaying BODA’s Letterhead “THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,” on each “standard Appeal Denial Notice” addressed to Grievance Complainants who Appeal CDC’s absurd Grievance Denials. GOC Chair Catherine N. Wylie and CLD Chair Guy Harrison have failed to even superficially address the disgraceful fact that the Texas State Bar’s Exec. Director & General Counsel of BODA, Christine E. McKeeman - #16174500; Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Linda A Acevedo - #00829825; Assistant Disciplinary Counselors, S.M. Beckage - #24045467, K.W. Morgan - #00789969, David Nowlin - #24049196, Rebecca Stevens - #24065381 (and others too numerous to mention here) are and have routinely denied tens of thousands of Texas Grievance Complainants and Respondent Attorneys Due Process of Law since, at least, 1/1/2004, the effective date of the Complainant-Adverse Changes related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]). I have listed the “standard Denial Notices” used by CDC’s and BODA’s Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures to DENY and DISMISS Grievances as inconsequential on an Appendix. In the following pages, I discuss CDC’s and BODA’s “Denial Tenets” of the Grievance Denial Procedures which CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV are currently applying and have used to the grave detriment of tens of thousands of Texas Grievance Complainants since, at least, 1/1/2004.

55 |

The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures are based on CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s “Denial Tenets” which are in direct conflict with Correct Procedure dictating CDC’s “Intake of a Grievance,” in TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCESvii and, in addition, TRDP, 2.10. Classification of Inquiries and Complaints.viii

Correct Procedure – on “Intake of Grievance” CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s “Denial Tenets” CDC is instructed to review each “writing” (i.e., a grievance received from a Complainant) and determine whether that “writing” alleges professional misconduct on its face; and classify each Grievance Complaint as either an “Inquiry” or a “Complaint,” upon receipt.

Per their unjust “Denial Tenets,” CDC “allows” itself to classify Grievances it receives as an “Inquiry,” dismissing it from further investigation; no matter how serious the Grievance’s allegations are, e.g., barratry, fraud, theft, or professional misconduct, as defined in TDRPC .

If the “writing” does not allege professional misconduct under the TDRPC, the “writing” is classified as an “Inquiry” and dismissed. Notification to Complainant must provide a full explanation and instructions of the Right to Appeal CDC’s Inquiry Classification decision. If the “writing” alleges professional misconduct under the Rules, then the “writing” must be classified as a “Complaint” and the Respondent Attorney is provided a copy of the Grievance “writing” and required to respond, in writing. A full explanation with Appeal Rights is provided to the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney, if after an investigation, a “Complaint” is determined by CDC to require NO DISCIPLINE. Before FINAL DENIAL & DISMISSAL, evidences/docs received from Complainant & Respondent must be submitted to a Summary Disposition Panel.

Per their unjust “Denial Tenets,” CDC inexplicably denies “writings” and provides a deficient “standard Denial Notice” to each Complainant of the Right to Appeal CDC’s determination as an “inconsequential Inquiry.” CDC staff insinuate Complainant may use CAAP, a voluntary program, in lieu of an Appeal. Giving No Notice to Respondent, CDC denies further investigation of Complainant’s “writing.” BODA rubberstamps CDC’s misclassification; affirming each of CDC’s Inquiry Classifications with no explanation to Complainant or investigation of the professional misconduct of the Respondent. BODA fails to give any Notice whatsoever of the Grievance Complainant’s Right to Amend a Grievance. BODA “denies, “dismisses,” “closes,” and wrongly states on the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision.

a) The CDC falsely insinuates that The Supreme Court of Texas gives CDC ultimate decision-making authority and promptly misclassifies Grievance “writings” CDC receives as an “Inquiry,” dismissing it from any investigation.

Upon receipt of a Texas Complainant’s Grievance, CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsels (S.M Beckage and K.W. Morgan) provide false information to each and every Complainant on the State Bar of Texas Letterhead, i.e., a “standard Denial Notice” that:

Denies Grievances as an “Inquiry;” gives no explanation of why each Grievance (as written) does not constitute professional misconduct as defined under the TDRPC, and dismisses the Written Grievances from any further investigation of the alleged professional misconduct.

Incomprehensibly claims that a Grievance “Inquiry classification” with no further explanation requires the Complainant, who disagrees with the misclassification, to immediately choose to Appeal within thirty (30) days OR to Amend within twenty (20) days; or forgo the Complainant’s Right to Due Process of Law completely.

CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsels’ S.M Beckage “standard Denial Notice,” dated September 4th, 2014,2 which is cumbrously bureaucratic, misleads a Grievance Complainant: (The bold-face type and

2 Attached is a “standard Denial Notice,” signed by CDC’s Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, dated September 4 th, 2014 which gives officious, demanding instructions and incorrect time limitations. (I received it on October 9 th, 2014

56 |

underlined word and command noted on the excerpt below is contained on each “standard Denial Notice” as emphasis to each Denied Grievance Complainant.)

“You may appeal this determination to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. Your appeal must be submitted directly to the Board in writing, using the enclosed form, within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice.

Instead of filing an appeal with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, you may amend your grievance and re-file it with additional information, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this notice.

Please note that while you have the option of appealing the dismissal of your grievance or amending and re-filing it with additional information, you may not take both actions simultaneously.”

The officious “rules” provided (above) on the “standard Denial Notice,” are incorrect instruction and misleading.

b) No such twenty (20) day time limit (counting from the date receipt of CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” receipt) for the filing of an Amendment is contained in TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES. It provides that, within thirty (30) days of CDC’s Notice of the “Inquiry classification,” a Complainant can appeal to BODA.

Noted in TRDP, 2.10. Classification of Inquiries and Complaints are specific time limits which are clearly intended to properly give the Complainant the Right to Due Process in the Grievance Process:

(I.) A Complainant who has written a Grievance which has been denied any investigation and summarily dismissed as an “inconsequential Inquiry” can Appeal directly to BODA within thirty (30) days of CDC’s Notice of Denial.

(ii.) If BODA affirms CDC’s classification of the original Grievance “writing” as an “inconsequential Inquiry,” and dismisses it with no further investigation, the Complainant must be notified by BODA and given a twenty (20) day time period to Amend the Grievance (one time only) by providing new or additional evidence to the CDC.

(iii.) If the CDC again dismisses the Amended Grievance as an “inconsequential Inquiry,” the Complainant is given the Right to Appeal again the dismissal of the Amended Complaint as an “inconsequential Inquiry” directly to BODA within thirty (30) days.

and appealed to BODA on October 10th, 2014.)57 |

The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures are established on CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOV’s “Denial Tenets” that are contrary to Lawful Procedure, which require “a full explanation” in (1.) TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.072 CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES,ix and TRDP, Effective Jan. 1, 2004, 2.10, Classification of Inquires and Complaints.x

Lawful Procedure for providing “a full explanation.” CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOV’s “Denial Tenets” CDC’s Proper Notice of Inquiry Classification must advise the Complainant, specifically, why the “writing allegations” do not allege professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC, and of the Right to Appeal the Decision of the Inquiry Classification to BODA within thirty (30) days. CDC’s Notice of Inquiry Classification must be provided to the Respondent, in an effort to apprise the attorney of allegations of professional misconduct and the potential for disciplinary action. Prior to providing BODA’s Notice of a Denial of a Grievance based on an Inquiry Classification, BODA must provide a full explanation of BODA’s decision to affirm the CDC’s Inquiry Classification, specifically, why the “writing allegations” do not contend misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. EACH BODA Notice must advise the Complainant of a Right to Amend (one-time) the Grievance to add new or additional within twenty (20) days of BODA’s Notice of affirmation of CDC’s Inquiry Classification. If BODA denies Amendment, Complainant can Appeal.

CDC and BODA always affirm that the “writing,” does not demonstrate professional misconduct as defined in TDRPC. Absurdly, the CDC and BODA provide no explanation to the Complainant or Respondent of why the “writing” does not allege misconduct as defined in the TDRPC before the summary dismissal without investigation. CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” gives incorrect information that a Complainant can only file an Amendment to add new or additional information to a Grievance within twenty (20) days of receipt of CDC’s “standard Denial Notice.” BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” provides no Notice of the Complainant’s Right to file an Amendment within twenty (20) days of receipt of BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” and wrongly “denies, “dismisses,” “closes,” and erroneously states that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision. BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” copies to the Respondent Attorney, who has never seen or read the “writing,” releasing the attorney from any Discipline; and EXPUNGING it.

If an Inquiry Classification is changed to a Complaint Classification by CDC (after an Amendment review) or by BODA (after an Appeal), Proper Notice will be sent to the Complainant and Respondent. Due Process of Law is accorded the Respondent. A full copy of the Grievance and any Amendments must be delivered to the Respondent who will make written response (that can be provided to the Complainant and CDC) within thirty (30) days. Prior to implementation of Complainant-Adverse Changes (eff. 1/1/2004), Complainants and Respondents were both allowed the Right to Appeal “intake” Inquiry or Complaint Classifications to BODA and were invited to attend hearings in person. The numbers of Disciplinary Judgments were much greater BEFORE 1/1/2004 and that was causing attorneys to have difficulty obtaining legal malpractice coverage at reasonable rates.

Per their unjust “Denial Tenets,” CDC and BODA unabashedly shield the Respondent Attorney from even “the potential” of Disciplinary Action. The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures encourage Texas Attorneys’ misconduct because unethical attorneys receive not a single word of discipline from the State Bar. Why do Texans require a Grievance System when only a fraction of one percent of BODA’s appealed CDC DENIALS and DISMISSALS were reversed to Complaints in 2015 so that attorneys were held accountable for injustices? From 6/1/2014-5/31/ 2015, there were 5,576 DENIALS & DISMISSALS at “intake,” 1,958 Appealed to BODA; only 228 were judged by BODA to merit a CDC investigation. 5,348 were never read by Respondent. Yet, contemptibly, TLIE returned over $41,550,000 in profits to its members insureds over the past 19 years!

a) CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” and BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” give no explanation to Complainants upon dismissal of “Inquiry” or a “Complaint.”

58 |

A supercilious “Denial tenet” of the Grievance Denial Procedure is in evidence in “standard Denial Notices” of both the CDC and BODA. CDC and BODA contend that each can “determine using its own opinionated misguidance” (with no further explanation or clarification), that if information, as it is written and contained on Written Grievances at the time of “intake of the Grievance,” does not demonstrate professional misconduct, per CDC’s and BODA’s “prejudiced opinions” then, a Grievance can be “denied, “dismissed,” “closed,” and that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision.

CDC’s and BODA’s “standard Denial Notices” are in direct opposition to TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.072, GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES, giving no explanation of why a Complainant’s Grievance’s many cited violations of the TDRPC were ignored and an improper classification as an “Inquiry” was made by CDC and affirmed by BODA with no investigation or additional adjudicatory procedures. CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsels’ S.M Beckage “standard Denial Notice,” dated September 4th, 2014, does not classify my Grievance, describing Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation, against the Respondent Attorney as a “Complaint,” but as an “Inquiry” and contemptibly postulates:

“Lawyers licensed in Texas are governed by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and may only be disciplined when their conduct is in violation of one or more of the disciplinary rules. After examining your grievance, this office has determined that the information alleged does not demonstrate professional misconduct or an attorney disability. Accordingly, this grievance has been classified as an Inquiry and has been dismissed.”

b) The Respondent Attorney was not notified of my Grievance’s Classification as an “Inquiry” or CDC’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL. BODA’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL notice provides a carbon copy (cc) to the Respondent Attorney.

CDC dominates the Grievance Denial Procedure by an oppressive assertiveness of the State Bar of Texas, a “trade association for lawyers,” with an extreme bias in favor of the Respondent attorney and against the Complainant. When the CDC determines upon CDC’s receipt (with no further explanation or clarification), that the Grievance is an “Inquiry” and dismissed, CDC does not provide any Notice of the Grievance to the attorney, in spite of the fact that professional misconduct of that attorney, was described and documented by the Complainant’s Grievance. The State Bar of Texas was so little concerned with my Grievance which fully describes and documents Adam Alden Campbell’s Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation, CDC failed to notify Respondent Attorney Campbell of it; or CDC’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL of my Grievance “writing.”

When I received Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage’s “standard Denial Notice,” denying my Grievance against Adam Alden Campbell, I knew that the Grievance was never even read by CDC; but just denied it as “an inconsequential Inquiry” and dismissed it. On Oct. 11th, 2014, I filed an appeal3 with BODA of the classification of my Grievance as an “Inquiry.”

When BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E. McKeeman denied my appeal, giving no explanation of the denial of my Grievance as an “inconsequential Inquiry” and NO NOTICE that I have a Right to file an Amendment within twenty (20) days of BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” per TRDP, Effective Jan. 1, 2004, 2.10, Classification of Inquires and Complaints on November 19th, 2014,4 I determined that I would file an Amendment, dated December 8th, 2014,5 to my original Grievance, dated August 19th, 2014., per (TRDP), 2.10. Contemptibly, BODA has not ever complied with TRDP, 2.10, according 3 Attached is a form and email from BODA, indicating that I properly filed an Appeal of 201405100 – Debbie G. Asbury – Adam Alden Campbell, Bar No. – 24040213/Dismissal Date: 9/2/2014.”4 Attached is a “standard Appeal Denial Notice” from Christine E. McKeeman, BODA, dated November 19th, 2014 affirming the dismissal of the Grievance, Debbie G. Asbury v. Adam Alden Campbell, 201405100; BODA Case No. 55135. 5 BODA’s November 19th, 2014 “standard Appeal Denial Notice” does not provide me with information describing my Right to file an Amendment. A letter to BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, dated December 8th, 2014 expressed my notification of my filing of an Amendment within the 20 day time limit provided by The TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, Section 2.10.

59 |

Complainants with the Right to file Amendments. BODA has not found the professional integrity to make response to my December 8th, 2014 letter.

The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures do not discipline attorneys but only serve to subject Complainants to open abuse by relegating their Grievances to an unimportant classification; unexplained and dismissed of no consequence to the Respondent Attorney, in direct conflict with TEX GV. Code 81.072 (d) and (e),xi and TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES, (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) and (11).xii

Mandatory Provision for Lawyer Discipline CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOV’s “Denial Tenets” Each attorney is subject to the TRDP and TDRPC. An Inquiry Classification means that CDC has determined that the “writing” does not allege Professional Misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. CDC must classify any Grievance as a Complaint when allegations describe acts or omissions that violate one or more of the TDRPC; for example but not limited to, a lawyer cannot engage in professional misconduct involving barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Per their unjust “Denial Tenets,” the CDC “allows” itself to make arbitrary rules which oppose The Supreme Court’s mandate that CDC classify Grievances as a “Complaint” when the “writing” alleges attorney misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC. CDC DENIES and DISMISSES each Grievance regularly; even though the “writings” describe serious barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. BODA routinely rubberstamps CDC’s erroneous decisions.

It is improper to refer the Complainant to Client-Attorney Assistance Program (CAAP) until the Complainant has exhausted all avenues of Appeal of the Inquiry Classification and Grievance Dismissal. It is inappropriate and emotionally abusive to suggest that a Grievance Complainant endure a face-to-face mediation (which is voluntary and not disciplinary) with an attorney who the Complainant steadfastly believes has engaged in professional misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. Each and every written Grievance describing any Texas attorney’s engagement in barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or any other professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC must be classified as a “Complaint” and investigated. If professional misconduct is determined as a result of investigation of a Complaint, swift and appropriate disciplinary action must follow.

CDC’s “standard Denial Notice,” dismissing the “writing” with no consequence to the Respondent attorney, is bizarrely sent to Complainants in 75-79% of all Grievances “taken into” CDC; no matter what the “writing” describes and documents. The “writings” of Complainants describe and document barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or any other professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC. Yet, in each case, CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” absurdly contends that, in lieu of an Appeal, the Complainant may have CAAP, “mediate the dispute” in a face-to-face conference with the offensive attorney, if he/she will appear voluntarily. Absurdly, CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” falsely states that such a “conciliatory” CAAP conference can only apply to “mediate a dispute” when there is an attorney-client relationship (i.e. a retainer agreement signed by Complainant-Respondent Attorney).

a) CAAP is authorized by The Supreme Court of Texas to be used whenever a “writing” expresses some “allegedly improper behavior” which may be offensive to the Complainant but does not violate TDRPC. For just one example, a Respondent Attorney who has lost his/her Plaintiff’s claim to large financial damages in a Lawsuit against a Home-Seller because the Respondent Attorney was compelled by his/her lawyer’s oaths to divulge that the Plaintiffs concealed expert foundation reports (which the Plaintiffs had procured and hid from the Defendant, the Title Company and the Wells Fargo Lender on an FDIC insured loan) would not be held in high esteem by the Plaintiffs. However, CAAP could readily explain that such attorney conduct is compelled by TDRPC and, therefore, the fact that the Respondent Attorney divulged

60 |

evidences that caused the Plaintiffs to lose the Lawsuit cannot be determined by CDC or BODA to be barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or any other professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC.

CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” implements an arbitrary “rule” that CDC can legitimately refer a Complainant’s “writing,” (after CDC summarily DENIED and DISMISSED it as an “inconsequential Inquiry,” ceasing any further investigation), directly to CAAP. CAAP could never be authorized by mandate of The Supreme Court to provide Discipline to attorneys who have conducted themselves unethically. CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage’s “standard Denial Notices,” provide the incorrect information that, as an option to filing an appeal to BODA of CDC’s classification of a Grievance, as an “inconsequential inquiry,” that the Complainant forgo the Right to Appeal the unjust Classification. Contemptibly, the Complainant is urged to use CAAP to “mediate the dispute;” thereby, abandoning a BODA Appeal to review of the misclassification.

CDC’s “standard Denial Notices” opine that the Complainant can contact CAAP, even though CDC has failed to include any explanation of why the Written Grievance does not describe Misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC, and BEFORE all options to Appeal the Inquiry Classification have been exhausted.

All of the CDC “standard Denial Notices” state: “Pursuant to the State Bar Act, the State Bar of Texas maintains the Client-Advisory Assistance Program (CAAP), which you may have contacted prior to filing your grievance. Accordingly, please be advised that even after a grievances has been dismissed, CAAP can still attempt to assist you through alternative dispute resolution procedures unless the attorney at issue is deceased, disbarred, suspended or not *your* lawyer. CAAP is not a continuation of the attorney disciplinary process, and participation by both you and *your* attorney is voluntary. Should you wish to pursue that option, CAAP may be reached at 1-800-932-1900.”

The wording “* your* lawyer” as noted in the print is an error that has evolved over the last seven (7) years on the “standard Denial Notices.” Incorrect information is being widely disseminated by CDC that, in order for a Grievance “writing” to possibly be determined as a “Complaint,” (and, therefore, not immediately dismissed) the Grievance requires an “attorney-client relationship.” TDRPC 8.04xiii (a) (3) “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”) does not require an attorney-client relationship.

Although CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage’s “standard Denial Notices” contain language that appears to severely limit CAAP “dispute mediation services,” to attorneys that have been retained by the Grievance Complainant, this is nothing but a misnomer and completely opposes TEX GV. Code 81.072 (d) and (e), which make it clear that The Supreme Court of Texas holds every attorney accountable to the TDRPC and any professional misconduct is subjected to CDC’s investigatory and adjudicatory function for The State Bar.

b) By falsely declaring that each Grievance at “intake” does not describe Professional Misconduct as defined in the TDRPC and sending the “standard Denial Notice” only to the Complainant (not the Respondent Attorney), CDC has become an eager advocate for Attorneys who have many Grievances filed against them due to attorney misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

A better system for garnering Complainants’ respect of the State Bar’s Grievance Process and for properly disciplining Respondents, provided that Respondents could appeal the Classification (as a Complaint) by an Appeal to BODA. Prior to 1/1/2004,xiv a Respondent Attorney was allowed to Appeal a Classification finding that a Grievance constituted a Complaint (requiring CDC’s Investigation of a “writing.”)

2005 BODA Report Chart “BODA Classification Appeals Summary By Disposition, 1995 – 2004” 04-05 03-04 02-03 01-02 00-01 99-00 98-99 97-98 96-97 95-96

Ttl classification decisions 2,630 3,014 3,111 2,831 2,798 2,672 2,537 2,397 2,499 2,450Avg Decision time (days) 14 12 14 14 12 13 13 12 11 11Total reversal rate 8% 11% 12% 12% 9% 9% 11% 13% 13% 15%Total complainant appeals 2,603 2,343 2,258 2,040 2,075 1,976 1,731 1,549 1,591 1,382Compl. appeals reversed 8% 8% 7% 7% 4% 5% 7% 8% 8% 8%Ttl respondent appeals * 5 671 785 791 723 696 806 848 908 1068

61 |

Respon. Appeals reversed NA 23% 25% 25% 21% 18% 20% 20% 20% 23%*Respondent appeals discontinued for filings after 1/1/04.

I have made the following deductions to illustrate just how much the Complainant-Adverse Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), are counterproductive to the Grievance System’s purpose: to provide discipline whenever Complainants’ Grievances demonstrate professional misconduct as defined by TDRPC.

FY 1995-FY2005 BEFORE Complainant-Adverse Chg.

Per Page 7 of 2015 BODA Report

CDC’s Total Classification Decisions averaged 2,693 CDC classified 7,071 Grievances in FY 2014-2015 Prior to 1/1/2004, Respondent Attys as well as Complainants were allowed to Appeal a Complaint Classification to BODA. Total Complainant Appeals averaged 1,955; Total Respondent Attorney Appeals averaged 730. More than 99% of all Classification Decisions (1,955+730/2693=.997 percent) were appealed to BODA and returned to CDC for an investigation; leaving less than one (1) percent with no further investigation by CDC after “intake of a writing.” Nearly all Grievances were read by Respondents.

Changes, 1/1/2004, deprived Respondent Attorneys of an Appeal of a Complaint Classification to BODA. 1,958 Complainants appealed to BODA; 228 Grievance “writings” were sent back to CDC by BODA for an “investigation.” Therefore, less than 11 percent (228/1,958= 11 percent) were accommodated by CDC with an investigation, leaving more than 89 percent with NO further CDC investigation BEFORE BODA’s DENIAL & DISMISSAL after CDC’s “intake” and BODA’s summary Appeal “decision.”

Total Respondent Attorney Appeals averaged 730, approximately 27% of “writings” (730/2693=.271 percent) and were appealed to BODA. Each of those 730 Grievances were most often heard before an investigatory panel of the State Bar Grievance Committee at which a Complainant and Respondent could appear and testify under oath. Therefore, each of 730 Grievances had the “potential” for Disciplinary Action to the Respondent Attorney. Before 1/1/2004, Complainant and/or Respondent Atty were allowed to Appeal the Decision of an investigatory panel.

The Complainant-Adverse Changes, 1/1/2004, eliminated the “just cause” HEARING which was replaced with a Summary Disposition Panel not inclusive of the Complainant or Respondent. Only 228 Complainant Grievances in all of the 5,576 Grievance “writings” dismissed at “intake,” resulted in an “investigation” by CDC before a decision of “just cause/no just cause” was presented to a Summary Disposition Panel by CDC; the rest were DENIED & DISMISSED with NO APPEAL and NO DISCIPLINE. Due to 1/1/2004 “Misinterpretation,” Complainants were DEPRIVED of Appeal of Decision of a Summary Disp. Panel.

Of note is the fact that ninety-nine (99) percent of Classification Decisions were appealed to BODA in 2004-2005 because it indicates that nearly all of the Total CDC Classification Decisions for that fiscal year were “Inquiries” with no further investigation. In the period before 1/1/2004 Revision of TRDP that incorporated the Complainant-Adverse Changes, Total Complainant Appeals to BODA were approximately 73 percent of the Total “intake” of Grievances, indicating that a greater percentage of the “intake classifications” had been as “Complaints” which the Respondent Attorney was required to Appeal or he/she would face disciplinary action from the State Bar of Texas. The Total Respondent Appeals in 2004-2005 were less than a quarter of one percent because there were virtually no CDC Classification Decisions of “Complaints” for that small portion of fiscal year 2004-2005 when attorneys were still allowed to Appeal to BODA when disagreeing with CDC’s “intake” Classifications.

After 1/1/2004, the State Bar of Texas’ disciplinary system has become widely disrespected by Grievance Complainants and well-known to be of no value in providing Discipline to Attorneys.

c) The CDC’s “standard Denial Notices” (disseminated by the dysfunctional Disciplinary System advocates) absurdly recommend that a Complainant who has written a Grievance that has been classified by CDC as “an inconsequential inquiry” with no explanation and no investigation of the Respondent Attorney, might decide to confront the Respondent Attorney in a face-to-face “negotiation of the effrontery caused by the Respondent Attorney’s professional misconduct”- with the aid of a State Bar of Texas CAAP Attorney to

62 |

“mediate the dispute.” Incongruously, if the Respondent Attorney decides to voluntarily appear, he/she will evade any Disciplinary Action while the CAAP Attorney will make attempts to “mediate a dispute” caused by the attorney’s professional misconduct as described and documented in the “writing.”

It is difficult to even imagine that The State Bar of Texas’ officials and appointees might have developed a tenet of the Grievance Denial Procedures which postulates that, instead of requiring the State Bar of Texas to investigate and discipline attorneys who have conducted themselves unprofessionally, and in opposition to the TDRPC, that a Grievance Complainant can be expected to use a “dispute resolution procedure” to address the Misconduct which is described and documented in a Written Grievance!

It is clear that The Supreme Court of Texas’ intended CAAP to resolve “disputes” still existing after Grievance Process was completed; and a Disciplinary Judgment was made by an Evidentiary Panel. Grievances. If an Evidentiary Panel does “not require a disciplinary sanction” after a full investigation of the Grievance by CDC and BODA review, and a Grievance is dismissed can, a Complainant can be left with animosity for the Respondent Attorney and the Legal Profession, in general (after Appeals have been exhausted). CAAP, a “voluntary” service is meant to provide a meeting of the Complainant and Respondent; the Complainant can face the attorney to discuss the Grievance; only after all attempts have been made by CDC and BODA to make an explanation of why the “Complaint” was of no consequence to the Respondent.

Due to the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, when a CDC misclassification as an “inconsequential Inquiry” occurs, the attorney whose misconduct is the focus of the Complainant’s Grievance, is never sent a copy of the Grievance. It is bizarre that CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage asserts that a Grievance Complainant DENIED and summarily DISMISSED by CDC might be encouraged to “mediate a dispute” - with the assistance of a CAAP attorney from the State Bar – while the attorney has previously demonstrated such professional misconduct that the Complainant already wrote a Grievance against the Respondent Attorney.

From the start of such a preposterous “dispute resolution procedure,” the CAAP attorney will always agree with CDC that the Respondent Attorney’s actions do not constitute professional misconduct. The voluntary “dispute resolution procedure” is futile in the case that the Grievance alleges professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC but is misclassified as an “inconsequential Inquiry.” A Complainant will only become more enraged as the CAAP attorney will always dismiss all of the “alleged professional misconduct” of the Respondent Attorney without any explanation or further investigation. Could any Member of the Texas State Bar who managed to pass the Bar exam be so obtuse as to “volunteer” time and effort to attend a CAAP “dispute resolution mediation” after the CDC has misclassified the Grievance against the attorney as an “inconsequential Inquiry” and, without any explanation or research, “dismissed” the Grievance from further investigation or potential disciplinary consequence? Can CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage honestly claim that Texas attorneys who conduct themselves unprofessionally do not know they are practicing Law dishonestly; or any attorneys accused of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation want to argue “even confidentially” with their victim? Out-raged Grievance Complainants are expected by the disgraceful “Denial tenet” of CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage to argue with the same attorney they complained about in their Grievance; but – this time - out-of-court! Does CDC expect that the Respondent Attorney will supposedly repent his unlawful professional conduct and pay back thousands of dollars the attorney charged in Barratry or want to give back money or other property that was fraudulently taken from the Grievance Complainant by a band of malpracticing attorneys?

I refer to Marc R. Stanley’s PETITION to point out the incongruity of the proposed option on CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage’s “standard Denial Notices,” that, instead of appealing the improper classification of the Grievance as an “inconsequential inquiry,” a Grievance Complainant might

63 |

“The current dysfunctional state of the Texas attorney disciplinary system and its clear violations of this Court’s procedural rules governing the attorney disciplinary system in Texas undermine the authority of this Court, the Administration of justice, and the respect of the public for the legal profession in Texas.” (Petition for Administrative Relief, September 29th, 2014, Marc R. Stanley)

use CAAP to “mediate the dispute.” On April 30th, 2014, CDC’s S.M. Beckage sent a “standard Denial Notice”6 to Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Law Group, in regard to a Grievance he filed against “Attorney J” on April 22 nd , 2014 . Below I paraphrase the Misconduct of “Attorney J” as described by Mr. Stanley.

“Attorney J” solicited Complainants to invest in real property in 2006 and represented to investors that real property investment would return 40% to 80% (potentially) over two to three years.

Complainants purchased the property for $1,170,654. and owned the property with a limited liability company they formed. They agreed that “Attorney J’s” separately owned limited liability company could manage (provide K-1’s to Complainants, and collect reimbursements for mowing, insurance, ad valorem taxes, etc.) until 2012.

“Attorney J” led the Complainants to believe he had a buyer. However, by March 2014, Complainants contacted a Texas attorney, Stuart A. Morse, to force “Attorney J” to sell the property by August 15th, 2014 or relinquish the interest “Attorney J’s” own limited liability company held in the property.

Mr. Morse found out through public records that “Attorney J” had sold the property in 2009 to another entity that was controlled by “Attorney J” and others; Complainants no longer held title to the property. In 2009, “Attorney J” had secured a bank loan using the property as collateral. In 2011, “Attorney J’s entity” sold the property to yet another entity.

“Attorney J” admitted to Marc R. Stanley that he defrauded the Complainants in a scheme of fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and would “report himself” to the State Bar of Texas.In a Grievance, Mr. Stanley fully described and documented the gross scheme, and the fact that

“Attorney J” had admitted to fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation. If I did not see (with my own eyes) CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage’s “standard Denial Notice,” addressed to Mr. Stanley, I am certain I would never have believed that CDC would possibly classify such a Grievance as an “inconsequential Inquiry” to be dismissed (and without ever even providing a copy of the Grievance to “Attorney J.)” Even more absurd is that CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M. Beckage’s “standard Denial Notice,” suggests to Mr. Stanley that he accept the misclassification and forgo an Appeal of it to BODA so that he could go to a “mediated dispute procedure” with a CAAP attorney from the State Bar of Texas and face “Attorney J” to demand the $1,170,654 PLUS! back from “Attorney J” through CAAP! (It is a shocking and true depiction of the humiliating injustices caused by the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.)

By CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” dated April 30th, 2014, the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel wrote to Petitioner Marc R. Stanley:

“After examining your grievance, this office has determined that the information alleged does demonstrate professional misconduct or an attorney disability.” According, this grievance has been classified as an Inquiry and has been dismissed.”

The State Bar dismissed this complaint without conducting any investigation at all and never requested any of the supporting documentation, referenced in the Petitioner’s report!

Less than two weeks after receiving the “standard Denial Notice” which Petitioner Marc R. Stanley described as “astonishing” in the PETITION, on May 12th, 2014, Petitioner filed a “classification appeal” with The Texas Supreme Court (’s) BODA and asked the Board to review and reverse the clearly erroneous classification and dismissal decision. Instead of promptly reviewing and reversing the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, BODA affirmed the State Bar’s dismissal by a letter dated July 7th, 2014.7

6 Attached is a “standard Denial Notice” from CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, dated April 30 th, 2014 RE: 201402288 – Marc R. Stanley – Name Redacted (which contains seven (7) short, identical paragraphs to the “standard Denial Notice” I received in Re: Adam Alden Campbell).7 Attached is a “standard Appeal Denial Notice,” sent to Marc R. Stanley, signed by BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman, dated July 7th, 2014, which affirms CDC’s decision to dismiss Marc R. Stanley’s Grievance as an “inconsequential inquiry” and “denies”, “completes,” “closes” the Grievance and states “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” The BODA letter: RE: 201402288 – Marc R. Stanley – Name Redacted has three (3) short paragraphs and is identical to the “standard BODA Denial Notice” I received in Re: Adam Alden Campbell.

64 |

The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures promulgate improper action to deny Complainants’ Grievances, by applying unwritten exceptions to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law; in direct conflict with the Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law.

Mandatory Provision for Grievance Amendments CDC’s and BODA’s “Denial Tenets” CDC and BODA are charged with reviewing the Complainant’s “writing” and applying Rules for Inquiries and Complaints without any exceptions to those Rules. The Classification process is meant to be a “give-and-take” procedure. BEFORE there is a FINAL DECISION to deny the Grievance as an Inquiry of no disciplinary consequence to Respondent Atty, any new or additional information can be applied to the “writing” by an Amendment. Complainant must be given the Right to do so by BODA within 20 days after receipt of a BODA DENIAL and DISMISSAL Notice. A Complainant must also be given Notice of the Right to Appeal BODA’s Amendment Decision. The Classification process is meant to provide the State Bar with documentation for determining the prevalence of attorney misconduct in Texas and to aid in the administration of proper compulsory disciplinary measures against Attys.

CDC asserts a blatantly incorrect “denial tenet” that when the Complainant chooses to file an Appeal with BODA, per CDC’s Grievance Denial Procedure, the Complainant loses the Right to file an Amendment within 20 days of BODA’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL. Nor does CDC acknowledge that a Complainant can Appeal BODA’s Decision on an Amendment. CDC has misinterpreted (and ignored) TDRPC and TRDP and, therefore, promulgates an “unwritten exception” to the Classification Rules. BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” provides NO Notice of the Complainant’s Right to file an Amendment within 20 days of receipt of BODA’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL and wrongly “denies, “dismisses,” “closes,” and erroneously states that “there is no Appeal. Since 1/1/2004, CDC and BODA have administered an Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures which encourage and embolden Attorney Misconduct.

a) CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Beckage and, BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman have not bothered to “assemble language on a standard Denial Notice” that can deny the Grievance per CDC’s and BODA’s Grievance Denial Procedure, in the circumstance that a Complainant properly submits an Amendment within the 20 day time limit provided in the TRDP, 2.10. Classification of Inquiries and Complaints.

By filing my December 8 th , 2014 Amendment to my Grievance against Adam Alden Campbell, originally filed on August 19 th , 2014 , I broke the monotonous, repetitious sequence of CDC and BODA’s Improper Notice Procedure. However, BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman failed to respond in any way; but, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage demonstrated CDC’s defiance of TDRPC and TRDP in her resolute refusal to read, review or classify the Amendment.

By the date, December 8th, 2014 of the Amendment, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E. McKeeman, using the November 19th, 2014 “standard Appeal Denial Notice” had already “denied, “dismissed,” “closed,” my Grievance and commanded that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision. In the “standard Denial Notice” dated December 29th, 2014,8 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Beckage states her denial of my Grievance with no mention of the Amendment filed December 8th, 2014.

“The Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas has examined your grievance concerning the above-referenced individual and determined that these allegations have been

8 Attached is a “shortened standard Denial Notice,” signed by CDC’s Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, dated December 29th, 2014 which refuses CDC’s review of the Amendment; that was irrevocably denied (“denied”, “complete,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision”) by BODA on November 19th, 2014.

65 |

previously considered and dismissed by The Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Accordingly, this grievance has been dismissed as an Inquiry.”

By Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Beckage’s wrongful application of the Improper Denial Notices Procedure and the Grievance Denial Procedure, CDC is in noncompliance with TRDP 2.10 which states:

“ If BODA affirms the classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be so notified and may within twenty (20) days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence……The Complainant may appeal (to BODA) a decision by the CDC to dismiss the amended Grievance as an Inquiry. No further amendments or appeals will be accepted.”

In a hurry to DENY and DISMISS my valid Grievance with no Disciplinary consequence to the Respondent Attorney Adam Alden Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Beckage made the overtly erroneous judgment that she need not review my December 8 th , 2014 Amendment because it was not filed within twenty (20) days of CDC’s receipt of the September 4th, 2014 CDC letter; yet BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” was dated November 19 th , 2014 . Such an unauthorized, unwritten “Denial Tenet” is in compete opposition to TRDP, 2.10.

b) CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Beckage and, BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman appeared to be dumbfounded by my Appeal to BODA of CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” dated December 29th, 2014.

CDC was compelled to send me a two (2) sentence Notice dated January 22nd, 20159 that BODA would again review that classification decision regarding “Debbie G. Asbury – Adam Alden Campbell.” (No mention was made of the November 19th, 2014 “standard Appeal Denial Notice” which had already “denied, “dismissed,” “closed,” my Grievance and commanded that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision.)

On January 20th, 2015, I provided a nineteen (19) page letter10 to BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman describing the Improper Denial Notices Procedure and the Grievance Denial Procedure administered by CDC and BODA and demanding retraction of the irrevocably denied Grievance dated August 19th, 2014 regarding Adam Alden Campbell (which was “denied”, “complete,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision”) by BODA on November 19 th , 2014 so that CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Beckage would review the Amendment that I filed on December 8 th , 2014 . BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman, never replied.

In February, 2015, I received a “standard BODA Appeal Denial, regarding Adam Alden Campbell; very odd, it was dated February 13th, 2014.11 Once again, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E. McKeeman asserted that “the appeal should not be granted as the conduct described does not allege a violation of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Conduct” and dismissed the Grievance as inconsequential. The appeal is “denied”, “complete,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.”

The State Bar of Texas’ CDC and BODA improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures is an awkward and humiliating finger of blame pointing procedure which only serves to proliferate attorney misconduct; disgracing The Supreme Court of Texas:

9 Attached is a letter from the CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, January 22nd, 2015, which repeats the transfer of the original Grievance filed August 19th, 2014 back to BODA for a second review of the efficacy of CDC’s original denial of my Grievance as an “inquiry” and its dismissal.10 Attached is a letter dated January 20th, 2015 that I wrote to BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman demanding retraction of the irrevocably denied Grievance dated August 19th, 2014 regarding Adam Alden Campbell (which was “denied”, “complete,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision”) by BODA on November 19 th , 2014 . It has never been responded to. 11 BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman apparently back-dated the improper “Appeal Denial Notice to a the prior year (February 13th, 2014)” because the first part of the Denial Notice states: “Dear Ms. Asbury” On February 12 th , 2015 , the Board of Disciplinary Appeals appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas considered your appeal from the dismissal…the Board affirms the dismissal….. “denied,” “complete,” …“closed,” … “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.”

66 |

CDC points the blame back at BODA after failing to classify a Grievance or an Amended Grievance as a “Complaint” even though the Grievance and Amendment fully describes and documents Professional Misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. CDC refuses to provide any EXPLANATION of why the prospective Respondent Attorney’s unprofessional conduct does not constitute Professional Misconduct as defined in the TDRPC and, speciously, declines review of ANY Amended Grievances, in direct opposition to the dictates of the TRDP, Section 2.10. Without reviewing ANY Amended Grievance, CDC rejects Amendments with NO FURTHER EXPLANATION, indicating that allegations of the Amended Grievance have previously been reviewed and rejected by BODA. Therefore, CDC makes an invalid and unauthorized assessment that BODA need not reconsider the Amendment apart from the Grievance before CDC again rejects the Grievance and Grievance Amendment as an “inquiry.”

“….these allegations have been previously considered and dismissed by The Board of Disciplinary Appeals. Accordingly, this grievance has been dismissed as an Inquiry.”

BODA points the blame at the CDC in the false and unauthorized standard Grievance Rejection and Denial Notice form letter with NO FURTHER EXPLANATION OR APPEAL RIGHTS:

“After reviewing the grievance as filed with the State Bar Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas and no other information, the Board has determined that your appeal should not be granted as the conduct described does not allege a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the Board affirms the dismissal of the grievance by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. The appeal is complete, and the Board’s file for this matter is closed. The Board’s decision not to grant the appeal is final, and there is no appeal from the Board’s decision.”

GOC Chairperson Wylie insisted unabashedly to me in our brief twenty-five (25) minutes, including several GOC Members that GOC need not take the GOC’s time to listen to individual complaints involving attorney-client issues of Grievances. Apparently GOC perceives from their lofty position away from the stark reality of multitudes of improperly DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances that convey shocking Barratry and Professional Misconduct, that, if GOC cannot “see or hear” about the shocking Barratry and Professional Misconduct displayed in multitudes of individual Grievances, “dismissed as inquiries” and never investigated, that GOC need not attend to the unpleasant GOC Duty to report to The Supreme Court of Texas, the, perhaps, tens of thousands of improper denials of Grievances against unethical and unprofessional attorneys who have been hidden for a very long period of time by the Grievance Oversight Committee (GOC), The Commission for Attorney Discipline, (CLD) and the State Bar of Texas from very much needed disciplinary action.

67 |

CDC’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Acevedo; BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman; BODA’s Chair Jones;’ GOC Chair Wylie’s; and CLD’s Chair Harrison’s Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures shield Texas attorneys from any discipline by deliberate misclassifications of Complainants’ Grievances as Inquiries; and the unlawful DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Complainants’ “writings” with no explanation and no investigation.

Blatant misinterpretations of TRDP, 7.11 Judicial Review,xv and TEX GV. Code, Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES, (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) and (11), which provide that the Grievance System’s purpose is to provide Discipline, are willfully flouted among State Bar’s officials and Supreme Court’s appointees, proponents of the dysfunctional Grievance System. In gross dishonesty and noncompliance, BODA Internal Procedural Rules (IPR)xvi very obviously and purposely misconstrue steadfast Rules that protect Complainants’ and Respondents’ Rights to Due Process of Law in the Grievance System.

Atty Discipline System per IPR and TRDP is rendered unconstitutional (eff. 1/1/2004)

CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, GOC’s “Denial Tenets” Mock Statutory Mandate to Provide Due Process of Law.

Investigatory and adjudicatory functions call for a proper Classification of each Grievance “writing” involving barratry, fraud, dishonesty, deceit, etc….to be - as a “Complaint.” BODA’s FINAL CLASSIFICATION DECISION cannot (per TRDP and IPR) be appealed to The Supreme Court. Therefore, BEFORE any FINAL DECISION by BODA, both the Complainant and Respondent must be provided a full explanation of a Grievance’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL and a Right to Appeal the Classification of Grievances as an Inquiry or a Complaint. Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), unconstitutionally deprive the Respondent of the Right to Appeal the classification of “Complaint” by CDC and a Summary Disposition Panel to BODA. Prior to Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004), the Respondent Attorney could appeal to BODA. A superior Discipline Process ensued previous to Changes because the Complainant’s “writing” was only provided to the Respondent Attorney AFTER his or her Appeal to BODA rendered a “Complaint” Classification. Respondent Attys used knowledge of TDRPC in defense of actions alleged to be

CDC asserts that Grievances, regardless that the “writing” depicts that the Respondent has engaged in barratry, fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation, is classified as an “Inconsequential Inquiry” and makes no further investigation. Each improper “Inquiry classification” is referred to CAAP; in spite of the fact that the Complainant’s “writing” describes financial damages and/or loss of important Rights due to Misconduct. CDC preposterously instructs the Grievance Complainant (to attend a “confidential CAAP meeting”) to “settle a dispute” involving barratry, fraud, dishonesty, etc… with the Respondent (if that attorney volunteers to appear for a conference)! When the Complainant chooses to appeal an obviously wrongful Inquiry Classification rather than take complex legal problem to CAAP, BODA rubberstamps each wrongful Inquiry Classification decision and sends a Notice to the Respondent indicating that a Grievance was filed against the attorney but dismissed because NO OFFENSE of the TDRPC was committed.

68 |

professional misconduct directly to peers at CDC and BODA, first and foremost BEFORE being provided the Complainant’s “writing.” (Eff. 1/1/2004), a Respondent Attorney is not allowed to appeal the Complaint classification to BODA but given 30 days to directly respond to the “writing.” Since 1/1/2004, CDC and BODA provide unintelligible Classification DENIAL and DISMISSAL notices to Complainants (usually without law degrees) which require the Complainants, rather than the Respondent, to become fully knowledgeable of the specific contents and definitions of TDRPC.

BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notices” wrongfully contend that the DENIAL and DISMISSAL is a c ompleted, closed decision and the Complainant is deprived of Amendment Rights and Amendment Appeal Rights. Inquiry Classifications cannot be appealed to The Supreme Court, (eff. 1/1/2004), CDC and BODA take advantage of Complainants by DENYING and DISMISSING Grievances as “inconsequential Inquiries.” Contemptibly, Respondent often never receive a copy of the Complainant’s Grievance “writing” before it is expunged by CDC.

a) Since 1/1/2004, CDC, BODA, GOC and CLD have concealed the professional misconduct of Texas attorneys from any Disciplinary Action by DENYING and DISMISSING Grievance “writings” without any investigation of allegations of barratry, fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation.

No statistical information can be found to indicate how many Grievance “writings” are, in actuality, received at “intake” by CDC and classified as “inconsequential Inquiries” and dismissed; or, in other cases, returned unread and unclassified and summarily RETURNED to the Complainant due to unlawful “Denial Tenets” of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Information from BODA’s website (http://www.txboda.org/), indicates that since 1992, BODA has:

“heard and decided over 57,000 disciplinary matters including grievance screening decisions (classification appeals) by the State Bar of Texas Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office, appeals from District Grievance Committee evidentiary panels, petitions to revoke probated license suspensions, compulsory discipline cases, reciprocal discipline cases, and disability cases.”

i. Among the Complainants “writings” which were never investigated by CDC but BODA denied, completed, closed decisions and gave Complainants no Appeal Rights since 1992 were:12

o “Debbie G. Asbury v. Carter Barron Casteel,” S0100922707; BODA Case No. 45638, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Acie Craig McAda,” S0100922703; BODA Case No. 45637, “Debbie G. Asbury v. John T. Dierksen,” S0100922702; BODA Case No. 45636, Debbie G. Asbury v. Jonathan H. Hull,” S0100922700; BODA Case No. 45634, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Gary L. Steel,” S0100922701; BODA Case No. 45635, each dated December 27th, 2009,xvii in which I fully described and documented a gross scheme involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC. (Christine E. McKeeman, BODA’s Exec Director & General Counsel is so careless and disrespectful that each of these “standard Appeal Denial Notices” begin with “Dear Mr. Asbury:”.)

o “Melanie Sloan v. Alberto R. Gonzales,” A0010509652; BODA Case No. 34417, dated February 17th, 2005, “Jayson E. Eoff v. Jeffrey Mark Bragg”, D0110938834; BODA Case No. 45878 dated February 11, 201013.It is essential to note here that Jeffrey Mark Bragg was disbarred on March 25th, 2011 on

BODA Case No. 48248; just a little over one year of BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” dated February 11th, 2010 “denied”

12 Attached are “Debbie G. Asbury v. Carter Barron Casteel,” S0100922707; BODA Case No. 45638, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Acie Craig McAda,” S0100922703; BODA Case No. 45637, “Debbie G. Asbury v. John T. Dierksen,” S0100922702; BODA Case No. 45636, Debbie G. Asbury v. Jonathan H. Hull,” S0100922700; BODA Case No. 45634, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Gary L. Steel,” S0100922701; BODA Case No. 45635, each dated December 27th, 2009,13 Attached are “Melanie Sloan v. Alberto R. Gonzales,” A0010509652; BODA Case No. 34417, dated February 17th, 2005 and “Jayson E. Eoff v. Jeffrey Mark Bragg”, D0110938834; BODA Case No. 45878 dated February 11, 2010. (I attached pages from the Texas Bar Journal, dated May 2011, which indicate that BODA Case No. 45878 was dismissed as an “inconsequential inquiry” at the same time that Jeffrey Mark Bragg had a Public Disciplinary History. On March 25th, 2011, Jeffrey Mark Bragg was disbarred by an evidentiary panel due to a BODA Cause No. 48248.)

69 |

“dismissed,” “closed,” and stated that “there is no Appeal” re: Jason E. Eoff v. Jeffrey Mark Bragg, BODA Case No. 45878. One can only wonder if Jayson E. Eoff’s BODA Case No. 45878 had not been abruptly DENIED and DISMISSED on February 11th, 2010, that many Texans would have been spared the fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and Professional Misconduct of Jeffrey Mark Bragg BEFORE he was disbarred on March 25th, 2011. I can attest from my own experience that Barron Casteel has continued undisciplined from DENIED and DISMISSED BODA Case No. 45638 dated December 27th, 2009 to practice unethically through today’s date. It is unthinkable to imagine just how many improprieties occurred among the 52,440 “writings” which were DENIED and DISMISSED “as inconsequential to the Respondent Attorney” per the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures since 1992.

( ii.) “The Report 2014, THE BOARD of DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS” indicatesxviii (http://txboda.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Report2014.pdf) 7,394 Grievances were filed and classified by CDC in 2014. Among the Complainants “writings” that were never investigated by CDC but BODA denied, completed, closed decisions and gave Complainants no Appeal Rights in 2014, were:o Marc R. Stanley – (name redacted), April 30th, 2014, in which Mr. Stanley fully described and

documented a gross scheme, constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, and the fact that “Attorney J” had admitted to fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation.

o Debbie G. Asbury v. Carter Barron Castel,” 201306919: BODA Case No. 53544, “Debbie G. Asbury v. John T. Dierksen, 201306923; BODA Case No. 53547, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Jonathan H. Hull, 201306924; BODA Case No. 53548, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Acie Craig McAda 201306921: BODA Case No. 53546, each dated February 13th, 2014; in which I fully described and documented a gross scheme involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC.14

(iii.) “The Report 2015, THE BOARD of DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS” indicatesxix (http://txboda.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Report2015_0.pdf) 7,071 Grievances were filed and classified by CDC in 2015 resulted in a Disciplinary Judgment against the Respondent Atty. Among the Complainants “writings” that were never investigated by CDC but BODA denied, completed, closed decisions and gave Complainants no Appeal Rights in 2015, were:o Debbie G. Asbury –Adam Alden Campbell, originally dated August 19 th , 2014 , in which I described and

documented Adam Alden Campbell’s offenses which constitute Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, for example; but not limited to: Barratry, Terminating Representation and Malicious Representation. I received BODA’s “Disposition of Appeal Notice, Debbie G. Asbury v. Adam Alden Campbell, 201407486; BODA Case No. 55572,” in February, 2015 but it was carelessly dated February 13 th , 2014 by Christine E. McKeeman, Exec. Director & General Counsel of BODA. (See footnote 11.)

b) In direct conflict with the BODA Internal Procedural Rules (IPR), TRDP, 7.11 Judicial Review, and TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES, (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) and (11), CDC, BODA, GOC and CLD avoid Compulsory Disciplinary Measures in IPR and TRDP, and concentrate all of their efforts on defending Texas attorneys against the “writings” of Complainants which describe and document transgressions and crimes which constitute Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, for example but not limited to: fraud, dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation.

14 Attached are Debbie G. Asbury v. Carter Barron Castel,” 201306919: BODA Case No. 53544, “Debbie G. Asbury v. John T. Dierksen, 201306923; BODA Case No. 53547, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Jonathan H. Hull, 201306924; BODA Case No. 53548, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Acie Craig McAda 201306921: BODA Case No. 53546, each signed by Christine E. McKeeman and dated February 13th, 2014. Also attached at footnote 18 is “Debbie G. Asbury v. Christine E. McKeeman, 201306925: BODA Case No. 53549, signed by Gayle Vickers, Deputy Director/Counsel, BODA dated February 13 th, 2014

70 |

CDC’s, BODA’s, GOC’s and CLD’s only motive is to conceal the attorney misconduct from Attorney Disciplinary Process; rather than to investigate and provide sanction or disbarment as commanded by The Supreme Court of Texas. In direct opposition to standards and procedures for processing grievances against attorneys, CDC’s and BODA’s Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, deny Complainants’ valid Grievances any investigation and dismiss Respondent Attorneys from any compulsory disciplinary measures.

CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC are willfully deceitful in order to conceal the fact that there is a systematic failure within the State Bar of Texas so that the CDC “intake staff attorneys” are routinely dismissing grievances that should proceed further in the Grievance process. Therefore, attorneys who consistently practice unlawfully and unprofessionally are never disciplined; nor are there any ongoing records kept of rampant attorney misconduct . BODA, GOC and CLD Reports to The Supreme Court of Texas are compilations of deliberate lies, withholding the truth that the State Bar of Texas’ Attorney Disciplinary Process has failed to such a humiliating level that it is a mockery of justice. Contemptibly, CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC will defend a Texas State Bar Card holding member against any Grievance filed by a Complainant, unless and until the crime committed is brought to the full attention of the Media.

(i.) Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice,” gives her incorrect, puerile misinterpretation of the TRDP, 7.11 Judicial Review; on each BODA letter, on which Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman (who claims to have the “authority” of THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS), falsely indicates:

“After reviewing the grievance as filed with the State Bar Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas and no other information, the Board has determined that your appeal should not be granted as the conduct described does not allege a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the Board affirms the dismissal of the grievance by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. The appeal is complete, and the Board’s file for this matter is closed. The Board’s decision not to grant the appeal is final, and there is no appeal from the Board’s decision.”

No such “denied, complete, closed decision with no appeal” can be made legitimately by BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman’s, who is imposing an “authority” which any official of The State Bar of Texas or appointee of The Supreme Court of Texas could never possibly have: to deny Due Process of Law to Grievance Complainants.

While giving the Complainant incorrect verbiage on the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “there is no appeal from the Board’s decision,” Exec. Director & General Counsel is contemptibly “quoting out of context” from content of the TRDP, 7.11 Judicial Review, which states: (the boldface print is my own in an effort to denote the origin of the incongruity of BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice”):

7.11 Judicial Review: An appeal from a determination of the Board of DisciplinaryAppeals shall be to the Supreme Court. Within fourteen days after receipt of notice of a finaldetermination by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, the party appealing must file a notice ofappeal directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The record must be filed within sixtydays after the Board of Disciplinary Appeals' determination. The appealing party's brief isdue thirty days after the record is filed, and the responding party's brief must be filed withinthirty days thereafter. Except as herein expressly provided, the appeal must be madepursuant to the then applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Oral argument may begranted on motion. The case shall be reviewed under the substantial evidence rule. The

71 |

“At present, in Texas, the State Bar has a dramatic conflict of interest. It acts as a trade association for our profession, advocating our interests---but then it purports to conduct discipline of its own members. Based on the Complainants’ experience, and evidently based on the experience of other Texans, the present system is not working. The Bar is flouting this Court’s Rules because no one is watching and the Bar apparently believes that the Court is indifferent or distracted by multiple other responsibilities.” (Petition for Administrative Relief, September 29th, 2014, Marc R. Stanley)

Court may affirm a decision on the Board of Disciplinary Appeals by order without writtenopinion. Determinations by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals that a statement constitutes anInquiry or transferring cases are conclusive, and may not be appealed to the Supreme Court.

It is alarming that Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman has extrapolated from TRDP, 7.11 the basis for the DENIAL and DISMISSAL tenet of the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” which she has used to FINALLY DENY Grievance “writings” as “inconsequential Inquiries.” Furthermore, she proclaimed Grievances to be complete, closed decisions with no appeal on official notices with BODA, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, sent to tens of thousands of Complainants! Most assuredly, no ethical State Bar of Texas Member would misinterpret TRDP, 7.11 to be a DENIAL and DISMISSAL tenet for BODA’s improper Denial Notice and Grievance Denial Procedure.

What TRDP, 7.11 means is: Grievances which have merely been classified as “an Inquiry and not investigated” and “dismissed;” and which have never been classified by CDC as a “Complaint” and, therefore, never been read, discussed and rebutted by the Respondent Attorney, cannot be appealed to The Supreme Court of Texas. (It would, indeed, be absurd to send reams (thousands per year) of uninvestigated Grievances to The Supreme Court of Texas to review; especially because the State Bar of Texas fails to provide Due Process of Law to Texas Grievance Complainants and improperly dismisses Grievances without any explanation as required by TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.072, GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES, or a Right to file an Amendment and an Amendment Appeal to the Grievance per TRDP, Section 2.10).

(ii.) BODA, GOC and CLD Reports (since 2005) tout that CDC and BODA processes huge numbers of “Classifications;” but pathetically fail to note that Complainant’s “writings” are nearly all classified as “inconsequential Inquiries” and dismissed without even any notice to the attorney who is the subject of the “writing” and without any disciplinary sanction at all to the Respondent Attorney.

Since 1/1/2004, the CDC, BODA, GOC and CLD have been completely out of the administrative control of The Supreme Court of Texas. The State Bar of Texas has ignored the Rules and the Disciplinary Mandate is meaningless to Texas attorneys. I have fully discussed the Grievances I have filed against attorneys in Comal County with a number of attorneys who I have respect for. Each of those attorneys have indicated that they will gladly take my cases against these attorneys who are clearly guilty of professional misconduct per the definitions of the TDRPC; but only AFTER THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS’ GRIEVANCE SYSTEM investigates my Grievances. I can fully appreciate that each of these attorneys with integrity do not wish to have to argue with the State Bar of Texas, which all Texas attorneys pay dues to in order to maintain their licenses to practice law over, whether or NOT an attorney requires disbarment for Professional Misconduct.

It is especially perplexing that The Supreme Court of Texas has showed so little interest so far in helping Texans from having to “be our own attorneys” and “arguing our own cases” against unprofessional and unlawful attorneys who are joining together in bands to commit Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation against us. While we are filing our multitudes of Grievances, the State Bar of Texas is DENYING and DISMISSING a majority of our valid Grievances as inconsequential no matter how succinctly we describe Professional Misconduct, as it is defined in the TDRPC. Despicably, the same attorneys are able continue undisciplined and unhindered by the large numbers of Grievances filed against them and to fully disregard Texans’ Grievances which do not affect them in anyway because CDC, BODA, GOC and CLD only take pride in how quickly our Grievances can be dismissed with no consequence at all to the Respondent.

Per the TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.072, GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY, TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH, SUBTITLE G. ATTORNEYS, CHAPTER 81. STATE BAR, SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(o) Whenever a grievance is either dismissed as an inquiry or dismissed as a complaint in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and that dismissal has become final, the respondent attorney may thereafter deny that a grievance was pursued and may file a motion with the tribunal seeking expunction of all records on the matter, other than statistical or identifying information maintained by the chief disciplinary counsel pertaining to the grievance.

72 |

Each month that The Supreme Court of Texas delays the long overdue process of removing and replacing appointees and State Bar officials who have participated in willful and/or grossly negligent violations of the Supreme Court of Texas Rules, It is exacerbating the problem of the multitudes of dishonorable attorneys who have gone far too long in Texas without any Disciplinary Control; for example, but not limited to: disciplining, suspending, disbarring, and accepting resignations of attorneys. It is most urgent and necessary to appoint an independent inspector general to conduct a comprehensive review of all grievances that have been dismissed on classification decisions, since, at least, 1/1/2004.

The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures are in defiance of the State Bar Act, §81.011 (a) of the Gov’t Code,xx BODA’s Internal Procedural Rules (IPR) (February 19th, 2015),xxi TX GV. Code, § 81.072, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES, and TRDP, 7.11 Judicial Review. The State Bar’s Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures are fabrications, consisting solely of tenets of indiscretion, as though The State Bar officials and THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS appointees are endowed by a higher governmental body than THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS to formulate their own Attorney Disciplinary Process, disrespectful of the Rights accorded to Complainants.

Due Process of Law/Proper Right to Amendments CDC’s and BODA’s Disgraceful NoncomplianceTRDP 2.10 provides: CDC shall, within 30 days examine each Grievance received, to determine whether it constitutes an Inquiry or a Complaint. If the Grievance is determined to an Inquiry, CDC shall notify the Complainant and Respondent of the dismissal. Complainant can Appeal within 30 days.

CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” gives no explanation of why CDC refutes that the “writing” allegations constitute professional misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. Nor, is CDC’s “standard Denial Notice” provided to the Respondent attorney, as it is assumed by CDC that the attorney will not appeal an “Inquiry’s dismissal.”

TEX GV. Code, § 81.072 CLASSIFICATION… states Complainant must be given a full explanation on dismissal of an Inquiry or Complaint.IPR, Section 3: Classification Appeals states in Rule 3.01 Notice of Right to Appeal “(a) If a grievance filed by the Complainant under TRDP 2.10 is classified as an inquiry, the CDC must notify the Complainant of his or her right to appeal as set out in TRDP 2.10 or another applicable rule.” TRDP 2.10 states: “If BODA affirms the classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be so notified and may within twenty (20) days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence. The Complainant may appeal a decision by the CDC to dismiss the amended Grievance as an

A non-attorney, office manager, BODA’s Jackie Truitt, Exec. Assistant, controls the BODA docket, makes meeting arrangements, telephone inquiries and has primary responsibility for classification appeals from intake through disposition. Exec. Assistant Truitt steadfastly refuses any new/additional information from any Complainant and actually warns Respondent Attorney on her “standard BODA Review Form” in bold writing NOT TO RESPOND to her and misspells “Disciplinary.” BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” gives no explanation of why CDC and BODA agree that the “writing” allegations do not constitute misconduct as defined in TDRPC. NO Notice of Complainant’s Right to file Amendments within 20 days after receipt of BODA’s Denial is provided. Anonymous BODA Members agree most

73 |

Inquiry to the BODA. No further amendments or appeals will be accepted.” BODA, a statewide independent adjudicatory body of 12 attys appointed by The Court, must promote consistency in interpretation and application of the TDRPC and TRDP. By Statutes, BODA must provide Due Process to “writings,” including PROPER NOTICE, RIGHT TO GRIEVE, AND RIGHT TO APPEAL to Complainants before a FINAL DECISION to DENY/DISMISS as an “Inquiry.” A FINAL DECISION by BODA cannot be made until all avenues of Appeal (Amendments and Amendment Appeals) have been covered. Per TRDP, 7.11, determinations by BODA that a Grievance constitutes an Inquiry…may not be appealed to The Supreme Court.

Grievance “writings” are “inconsequential Inquiries.” In disgraceful noncompliance, BODA’s DENIALS & DISMISSALS indicate: After reviewing the grievance as filed with the CDC and no other information, the Board has determined that your appeal should not be granted as the conduct described does not allege a violation of the TDRPC. Therefore, the Board affirms the dismissal of the grievance by the CDC…The appeal is complete, and the Board’s file for this matter is closed. The Board’s decision not to grant the appeal is final, and there is no appeal from the Board’s decision.” TDRPC, Rule 1.05 (c)(4 )obliges attys to reveal confidential information to comply with TDRPC, but BODA insists its’ “secrets are entirely confidential.”

a) Removal the Texas State Bar membership and licenses to practice law of Texas officials and appointees of the State Bar of Texas who have participated in willful and/or grossly negligent violations of The Supreme Court Rules is mandatory because State Bar of Texas members have deliberately harmed tens of thousands of Texans by their failure follow the exact course of The Supreme Court of Texas Laws.

It is clear that Assistant Disciplinary Counselors: S.M. Beckage, K.W. Morgan, David Nowlin, Laura Popps of CDC, and Linda A. Acevedo, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman, GOC Chair Wylie and CLD Chair Guy Harrison each have the full knowledge that BODA has denied,” “completed,” “closed,” Complainants’ Grievances, and gave improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision” by willfully failing to:

o Provide Complainants with Due Process of Law; i.e. falsely alleging that BODA has the authority of The Supreme Court of Texas to FINALLY DENY and DISMISS a Grievance “writing” without any explanation or further investigation, and

o Advise Complainants of their Right to file an Amendment within twenty (20) days of Receipt of BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice.”

b) On December 16th, 2013, I received a “standard Denial Notice” from CDC, re: 201306925-Debbie G. Asbury – Chris McKeeman,15 which DENIED and DISMISSED my Grievance “writing.” The officious “rules”

15 Attached is CDC’s “standard Denial Notice,” dated December 16th, 2013, re: 201306925-Debbie G. Asbury – Chris McKeeman signed by Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, David Nowlin which provides that I can EITHER “Appeal to BODA” within 30 days OR Amend my Grievance “writing” within 20 days of December 16 th , 2013 (OR contact CAAP).

74 |

“Under the State Bar Act, §81.011 (a) of the Government Code, this Court has a mandatory duty: “The Supreme Court of Texas, on behalf of the judicial department, shall exercise administrative control over the state bar…” Further the Court “shall establish minimum standards and procedures” for attorney discipline, including “classification of all grievances” and a “full explanation to each complainant on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint…” This Court has promulgated such rules, but the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Board of Disciplinary Appeals apparently are ignoring the Rules. Petitioner respectfully submits that if the Chief Disciplinary Counsel is allowed to continue to ignore the Rules, the Court’s efforts to meet those statutory mandates will be severely compromised---if not rendered completely meaningless. The result will be continued erosion of trust in the Bar by lawyers and the public. (Petition for Administrative Relief, September 29th, 2014, Marc R. Stanley)

provided on CDC’s “standard Denial Notice,” are incorrect instruction and misleading and provided to each Denied Grievance Complainant.

“You may appeal this determination to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. Your appeal must be submitted directly to the Board in writing, using the enclosed form, within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice.

“Instead of filing an appeal with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, you may amend your grievance and re-file it with additional information, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this notice.

Please note that while you have the option of appealing the dismissal of your grievance or amending and re-filing it with additional information, you may not take both actions simultaneously.…..Accordingly, please be advised that even after a grievance has been dismissed, CAAP can still attempt to assist you through alternative dispute resolution procedures unless the attorney at issue is deceased, disbarred, suspended or not your lawyer….”

c) On December 23rd, 2013, I appealed CDC’s denial of my Grievance “writing” on a form16 sent to me in a “Denial Package” on December 16th, 2013. On December 23rd, 2013 I also emailed BODA a letter, RE: Appeal of Dismissal of Grievance, Re: 20136935-Debbie G. Asbury – Chris McKeeman – Dismissal Date 12/6/2013/Dismissal Letter dated 12/16/2013:

“Dear Board of Disciplinary Appeals:The purpose of the Letter and Attached Documentation is two-fold:

1) I have been unable to determine what BODA’s purpose is-if NOT to review fraudulent actions, misrepresentation, and malpractice of Texas Attorneys – as I have been subjected to in Comal County, TX. Therefore, I insist that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel has refused to read the Grievance which I sent for Review. Had the Grievance been read, there would be NO DOUBT that Christine McKeeman has demonstrated professional misconduct over the last four years in failing to ever assemble a Judicial Panel to properly deal with Grievances which I have repeatedly sent.

Am I to assume that the State Bar of Texas has determined that it is justified in ignoring my Grievance and, thereby, also ignoring the fact of the fraudulent and federal misconduct?.........

Most importantly, because BODA (under the direction of Chris McKeeman) has failed to reprimand those involved in the overt fraud, I fear many more Comal County Citizens have been subjected to the malpractice and barratry of these attorneys and judge, in the same manner as I have become their victim. To date, none of the attorneys or the Judge, have been contacted by BODA and are unaware I have filed Grievances fully describing that they have:

Overtly Violated The Truth in Lending Act, and Dishonored HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) Provisions, particularly, those

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC) REGULATIONS………” I have NOT ever received any reply from BODA. On January 16th, 2014, I received a two sentence

notice17 from CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, David Nowlin, indicating that CDC had received my Appeal to BODA within the thirty (30) day time limit.

d) On February 13th, 2014, I received BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice”18 signed by BODA’s Deputy Director/Counsel Gayle Vickers and copied to BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman and Laura Popps of CDC which denied,” “completed,” “closed,” my Grievance, and gave improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.”

BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” provides no Notice of the Complainant’s Right to file an Amendment within 20 days of receipt of BODA’s Denial and wrongly “denies, “dismisses,” “closes,” and

16 Attached are an email and letter that I sent to BODA on 12/23/2013 in order to Appeal the Inquiry Classification of my Grievance, “201306925, “Debbie G. Asbury – Chris McKeeman”17 Attached is a January 16th, 2014, two sentence notice from CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, David Nowlin, indicating that CDC had received my Appeal to BODA within the thirty (30) day time limit.18 Attached is BODA’s Deputy Director Gayle Vickers’ “Disposition of Appeal Notice, Debbie G. Asbury v. Christine E. McKeeman, dated February 13th, 2014.

75 |

erroneously states that “there is no Appeal. Since, at least, 1/1/2004, CDC and BODA have administered an inexcusable Grievance Denial Procedure which only serves to embolden Attorney Misconduct.

e) Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel in CDC, was apparently obligated to write a letter dated March 17th, 2014;19 which embodies all of the contempt (as I have experienced over the last seven, [7] years) that CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC have for the statutory mandate of The Supreme Court Rules. Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray gives no explanation of the Inquiry Classification and abrupt dismissal but absurdly restates CDC’s and BODA’s contention that my well described/documented Grievance “writing” against Christine E. McKeeman, Executive Director and General Counsel of BODA describe NO VIOLATIONS OF TDRPC.

“As you were notified, your complaint was dismissed during classification on December 6 of last year. Your grievance was dismissed because it was deemed not to contain facts alleging a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC).”

Even more incongruous is the fact that Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray’s one page letter proclaims opposition to TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.072 CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES 81.072 (which states a Complainant must be given a full explanation on dismissal of an Inquiry or a Complaint). I was shocked and alarmed at the manner in which Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray disdainfully explained that it was just “NOT Chris McKeeman’s job to investigate a Complainant’s claims.” In the third paragraph she writes:

“From my review of materials from the file, I can tell you that nowhere in the TDRPC or the rules pertaining to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BODA) is there a requirement that the Executive Director of BODA contact respondent attorneys to investigate a complainant’s claims. Accordingly, your assertions along these lines failed to amount to a possible violation of any applicable rules.”

In Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray’s skewed argument, apparently meant to be in defense of BODA; it is obvious that she believes it is most important to set deadlines for Amendments for the sole purpose of denying a Complainant’s “writing.” BODA’s February 13th, 2014 “standard Denial Notice, ”Re: Disposition of Appeal Notice, Debbie G. Asbury v. Christine E. McKeeman, signed by BODA’s Deputy Director Gayle Vickers DOES NOT provide any explanation of why CDC and BODA agree that the “writing” allegations do not constitute professional misconduct as defined in the TDRPC. Nor, are there instructions of Right to file an Amendment within 20 days after receipt of BODA’s Denial. Yet, on March 17th, 2014, Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray blindly writes in the short fourth paragraph her observation that I did not file a “timely” (within 20 days of February 13th, 2014) Amendment:

“As you were notified, you had twenty days from your receipt of BODA’s denial notice to amend your grievance and refile. I do not show you did this. Accordingly, this matter has been closed.”

Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray no longer works for the State Bar of Texas. By Order of The Supreme Court of Texas, Maureen E. Ray’s license to practice law in the State of Texas and bar card number were canceled on April 10th, 2015. However, Maureen E. Ray’s multitude of unprofessional and inaccurate decisions and letters which wrongfully deny investigation of Grievances against Texas attorneys remain as an excruciating embarrassment to the State Bar of Texas. It is time for The Supreme Court of Texas to fully remove the Texas Grievance System from the State Bar of Texas and demand a “revisiting” of the many wrongful decisions made by CDC and BODA since, at least, 1/1/2004.

19 Attached is a March 17th, 2014 letter from Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, CDC, RE: #20136925 Debbie Asbury – Chris McKeeman.

76 |

Under the injurious auspices of Marvin W. Jones, BODA’s Chair for 2014-2015, CDC’s Chief Acevedo, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman, GOC Chair Wylie and CLD Chair Harrison have compiled “BODA’S REPORT FOR 2015” which describes a “new PROCEDURE FOR AN APPEAL FROM A GRIEVANCE DISMISSAL”xxii in which they have fully embraced the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

Statutes Provide Complainants with Due Process of Law & Right to Grieve by Amendments

BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones’ “new rules” are a baffling discomfiture , opposing Statutes

TRDP 2.10 states: “The Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall within thirty days examine each Grievance received to determine whether it constitutes an Inquiry or a Complaint. If the Grievance is determined to constitute an Inquiry, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall notify the Complainant and Respondent of the dismissal.” IPR, Section 3:01 Notice of Right to Appeal requires that rules of TRDP 2.10 or other applicable rules apply, including a full explanation of why the CDC finds no violation of the TDRPC - to both the Complainant and Respondent of the dismissal of the Grievance “writing” as an inquiry.TRDP 2.10 states: “If BODA affirms the classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be so notified and may within twenty (20) days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence….The Complainant may appeal a decision by the CDC to dismiss the amended Complaint as an Inquiry to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. No further amendments or appeals will be accepted.” TX GV Code, Section 81.072 (o) provides that when dismissal of a Grievance is FINAL, the Respondent Attorney may thereafter deny that a

CDC denies most Grievance “writings” stating CDC finds no facts constituting a violation of TDRPC with no explanation. No copy of the “standard Denial Notice” is sent to the Respondent. When Complainant Appeals within the 30 day time limit, BODA always concurs with CDC, sending a “standard Denial Notice” to the Complainant and Respondent that “writing” shows “no violation of TDRPC” but no explanation. BODA’s “standard Appeal Notice” falsely indicates that the Grievance “writing” is “denied,” “completed,” “closed,” and gives improper notice that the BODA determination is FINAL and that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” BODA’s “new rules” fully disregard the Statutory Mandates in TRDP 2.10 which require BODA to give 20 days after a Complainant’s receipt of BODA’s “standard Denial Notice” for an Amendment and, in addition, a 30 day time limit to Appeal the Denial of an Amendment to a “writing” before a FINAL Inquiry Classification Denial and Dismissal can be made. BODA’s Chair Jones proudly displays his 43 day Timeline for a Classification Appeal which is achieved by his repeal of each Complainant’s Right to file an Amendment and an Appeal. After

77 |

grievance was pursued and may file a motion with the tribunal seeking expunction of all records on the matter.

43 days of a Complainant’s BODA Appeal, a Respondent Attorney can disavow any Grievance was ever filed against the atty.

a) In BODA’s Chair Jones’ own bureaucratic words in the 2015 Report (page 6):“BODA considers only information available to the CDC at screening and does not review any additional information sent to either CDC or to BODA. If a complainant sends new information to BODA, staff returns the documents and explains that the complainant may refile the grievance with the CDC to have additional information considered.”

When a Complainant’s Appeal is rejected by BODA before the FINAL DECISION to “deny” “complete,” …“close,” … “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision,” per BODA Chair Jones’ preposterous “new rules,” the Complainant is required to “ refile the Original Grievance writing .” BODA’s unlawful abandonment of the statutory mandates to provide for Amendments and Amendment Appeals places an overwhelming, unlawful burden on Complainants and only serves to misinform The Supreme Court of Texas that BODA is “properly processing classification appeals within 43 days.”

In BODA’s Report for 2015, Marvin W. Jones (Chair 2014 – 2015), acknowledges “new rules” which contemptibly eliminate the Supreme Court of Texas’ mandates that CDC and BODA provide Due Process of Law to both Complainants and Respondent Attorneys in the Grievance Process. In direct opposition to The Supreme Court of Texas’ efforts to assure a fair and just Grievance Process to lawyers and to the public and that Disciplinary Measures are undertaken as appropriate, BODA’s Chair Jones completely disregards the IPR, TRDP 2.10 and other rules. Disgracefully assuming an authority that would never be provided to BODA by The Supreme Court of Texas, Chair Jones has unofficially repealed the Right of Grievance Complainants to make Amendments to “writings” before a BODA determination becomes FINAL.

a. If a Complainant reads and applies TRDP, Section 2.10, filing an Amendment within twenty (20) days of receipt of BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice,” CDC will not read, or reclassify the Grievance Amendment because ““these allegations have been previously considered and dismissed by The Board of Disciplinary Appeals.”

In opposition to Regulations (TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES) from The Supreme Court of Texas, CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, (in a letter dated December 29th, 2014) refused to review and investigate the Amended Grievance that I filed with CDC on December 8th, 2014 within the twenty (20) day time limit from my receipt of the November 19 th, 2014 Grievance “standard Appeal Denial Notice” signed by BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E. McKeeman. Although the Right to file an Amendment is conspicuously missing from BODA’s Denial Notice, those twenty (20) days for filing an amendment to a Grievance with the CDC are accorded to me by TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, Section 2.10.

In complete dishonor to The Supreme Court, TX GV. Code and TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE, (TRDP) Section 2.10, CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel’s reason for CDC’s failure because:

“these allegations have been previously considered and dismissed by The Board of Disciplinary Appeals. Accordingly, this grievance has been dismissed as an Inquiry.”

In contempt of The Supreme Court of Texas’ statutory mandates that I receive a full explanation of why the CDC and BODA concur that my “writing” does not allege Misconduct as it is defined in TDRPC, BODA has sent me 2 identical (except for the dates), “standard Appeal Denial Notices” (on 11/19/2014 and 2/12/2015) that falsely proclaim that BODA Board can FINALLY “deny” “complete,” …“close,” … “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision” without giving me any explanation of why my very carefully written, detailed, and documented Grievance against Adam Alden Campbell does not “allege attorney misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC” in CDC’s and BODA’s unexplained and inexplicable viewpoint. Adam Alden Campbell continues to disavow that I filed any Grievance against him to this date and all records on the matters of the Respondent Attorney’s Barratry, Terminating Representation and Malicious Representation are EXPUNGED.

b) BODA’s “new rule” to abandon the processing of BODA Appeals by BODA’s unofficial repealing a Complainant’s Right to file an Amendment and an Amendment Appeal, is a humiliation to the Supreme Court of Texas’ statutory mandates and solely aimed at discouraging Complainants from filing Grievances.

78 |

Contemptibly, BODA’s Chair boasts in BODA’s 2015 Report that it is so easy for a Complainant to sign a one page form for an Appeal of an Inquiry Classification to BODA (page 6):

“BODA provides a one-page form written in English and Spanish that CDC includes with the notice letter to complainants explaining the grievance was dismissed. The Complainant has only to sign the form and send it to BODA by email, regular mail or FAX.”

Missing from BODA’s 2015 Report is the most relevant fact that BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” gives no explanation why carefully written, detailed, and documented Grievance “writings” do not “allege attorney misconduct as it is defined in TDRPC.” Upon reading (astonishingly) that CDC does not consider conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” to be defined as attorney misconduct in the TDRPC, no doubt each Complainant will provide new and/or additional information along with the one-page BODA Appeal Form. Reprehensibly, instead of requiring CDC to help the Complainant file an Amendment to the Grievance “writing” with the new or additional information, BODA’s “new rules” allow BODA to abort the Appeal (releasing it from the 43 day timeline for a classification appeal) and instruct the Complainant to “refile” the Original Grievance Writing to include the new and/or additional information (despicably adding it once again as a new Grievance “writing” to CDC’s “intake” count).

Marvin W. Jones, BODA’s Chair for 2014-2015, CDC’s Chief Acevedo, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman, GOC Chair Wylie and CLD Chair Guy Harrison improvised unofficial “new rules” that conceal Professional Misconduct by DENYING, DISMISSING and DEPRIVING Complainants of PROPER NOTICE, RIGHT TO GRIEVE AND RIGHT TO APPEAL the unfair Inquiry Classification Decision.

CDC’s duty is to read, record and classify each Grievance “at intake,” and send Proper Notices.

Unlawful “refiled writings” call for “Abandonment of Grievances Due to Multiple Grievances.”

Grievance “Writings” are classified by CDC as either an Inquiry or Complaint within 30 days of receipt. CDC nor BODA have authority of The Supreme Court to refuse to Classify Grievances. An Inquiry Classification can be appealed to BODA within 30 days of CDC’s proper Denial Notice which must include an explanation of why CDC found no violations of TDRPC in the “writing.” TRDP 2.10 provides that if BODA affirms CDC’s classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be so notified and may within twenty (20) days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence. Within 30 days, the Complainant may appeal a decision by the CDC to dismiss the amended Complaint as an Inquiry to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. No further amendments or appeals will be accepted. TX GV Code, Section 81.023 provides that CDC shall classify each grievance on receipt as a Complaint, if the grievance alleges conduct that, if true, constitutes professional misconduct or disability cognizable under TDRPC. TEX GV. CODE ANN.; Texas Statutes – Section 81.075 indicates that CDC shall review and investigate each grievance classified as a Complaint to determine whether there is just cause, as defined by TRDP.

Complainants receive CDC’s “standard Denial Notices” with no explanation of the abrupt DENIAL and DISMISSAL of the “writing.” Per unlawful “new rules,” BODA abandons the Grievance “writing” Appeal making no classification determination. BODA staff returns the documents to the complainants, instructing each to “refile” the grievance with CDC but this nothing but a cover-up which will result in shielding the Respondent Attorney from any effects that the Original Grievance “writing” will have on attorney, in spite of its’ demonstrated, described and documented professional misconduct, as it is defined in TDRPC. If any grievance is “refiled,” CDC sends the entire Grievance “writing” and all documents back to the Complainant, refusing to read, record or make any Classification Decision of Inquiry or Complaint. CDC sends a “standard Multiple Grievances Notice” indicating that Grievance Classification is not read, or recorded but refused because the Complainant has previously filed a Grievance against an atty and, therefore, is “not allowed to file another Grievance” against an atty. Farcically, the unlawful “Multiple Grievances” notice is only provided to the Complainant and does not bear any attorney name. No record is kept of the attys who have had “Multiple Grievances” filed against them.

79 |

a) Respondent Attorneys are provided a copy of BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notices” which FINALLY CLOSES the Complainant’s Appeal; completely absolving the Respondent Attorney from any investigation, discipline or fear of sanction in any future Grievance.

Under the infliction of “new rules,” CDC and BODA provide an Improper Notice, “RE: Multiple Grievances,” by which CDC purports to have unregulated authority to send back a Grievance “writing,” unread, unclassified and with no record kept of the Grievance on the Respondent Attorney’s Record. The only purpose of the “Multiple Grievance” Procedure is to conceal attorney misconduct so that Respondent Attorney can disavow any Grievance ever filed against the attorney per TX GV Code, Section 81.072 (o).xxiii

To date, two (2) Grievances that I have written against (1.) Barron Casteel (July 31st, 2014) and (2.) Carter Casteel (June 6th, 2015), have not been classified; CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counselors, S.M. Beckage and K.W. Morgan have refused to read, classify or maintain any record of the Grievances against these attorneys in an obvious effort to shield the attorneys from much needed and necessary Discipline. It is disturbing that CDC, can misinterpret The TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (Including Amendments Effective January 15, 2014), Section 2.10 to mean that a Complainant can be allowed only one Grievance due to an attorney’s Misconduct in a Complainant’s lifetime no matter how many Lawsuits the Respondent Attorney files against the Complainant!

Per CDC’s inconceivable MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES notion, CDC will reject future Grievances, depicting Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation, while Barron Casteel has filed MULTIPLE LAWSUITS against me. I am cast as “the Complainant with a stigma of MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES,” given no recourse against Barron Casteel, the Respondent Attorney, by the noncompliant CDC.

There can be no doubt, whatsoever, that GOV Chair Wylie; S.M. Beckage and K.W. Morgan of CDC, and Linda A. Acevedo, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, in conjunction with “unofficial new rules” depicted by BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones, are very obviously concealing the Grievances against Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel; failing to record them in anyway or make any classification of those Grievances. Clearly, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC are responsible for conspicuously hiding the Barratry, Malpractice, and Professional Misconduct of the two attorneys (Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel) who require immediate sanction and, most likely, disbarment. In fact, neither Barron Casteel’s nor Carter Casteel’s name is recorded on the Grievance Rejection form, “Multiple Grievances” letter at all or in any place!

b) On August 5th, 2014, CDC sent me an unsigned Denial Letter, RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES20 and returned my entire 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of the Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. While no attorney’s name was indicated on the “MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” Notice, I assumed CDC had wrongly determined that the July 31st, 2014 Grievance I filed against Barron Casteel was not a new “writing” but that I had meant it as “an Amendment” to a prior Grievance I had filed against Barron Casteel in 2009 due to an earlier (completely different) Lawsuit Barron Casteel filed against me in 2007.

It is entirely inappropriate for CDC to insinuate that any principle forbidding the filing of “MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” by a Complainant would be promulgated in accordance with TRDP Rule 2.10. By returning my Grievance dated July 30th, 2014, unread and unclassified, CDC denied my Right to Due Process. By CDC’s rejection of my Grievance “writing,” failing to keep any record of it, CDC is dissolutely using the Improper “MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” Notice procedure to shield Barron Casteel from much needed disciplinary action.

CDC’s dismissal of my Grievance filed against Barron Casteel regarding a Lawsuit he filed against me in 2007 has enabled Barron Casteel to engage in Barratry and Misconduct in his Law Practice, for at least, the past seven (7) years. I did not accept CDC’s ban against “MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” that will have the insufferable effect of allowing Barron Casteel to go without Discipline for continued Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation in his Law Practice.

20 Attached find an unsigned letter from CDC on The State Bar of Texas Letterhead, dated August 5th, 2014 that bears my name but no attorney’s name whatsoever. It indicates that my entire Grievance was returned to me, unread, unclassified and rejected by CDC with NO APPEAL RIGHTS.

80 |

I challenged CDC’s contention that CDC can lawfully refuse to classify my Grievance dated July 30 th, 2014 against Barron Casteel, in accordance with TEX GV. CODE, Section 81.073 and; thereby, deprive me of my Right to Due Process. I have never received any response whatsoever from CDC, GOC, or CLD.

c) On September 8th, 2014, CDC sent me ANOTHER unsigned Denial Letter, RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES21 and returned my entire 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. I had returned the entire July 30th, 2014 - 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. But AGAIN, CDC refused to read, record or keep any record of it.

d) On November 12th, 2014, CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, sent me a Letter, RE: RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES22 and returned my entire 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. I had AGAIN returned the entire July 31st 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. But AGAIN, CDC refused to read, record or keep any record of the “writing.”

d. On December 22nd, 2014, CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel sent me a Letter, RE: RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES23 and returned my entire 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. I had AGAIN returned the entire July 31st 100 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Barron Casteel. But AGAIN, CDC refused to read, record or keep any record of the “writing.”

e. On June 22nd, 2015, CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel K.W. Morgan sent me a Letter, RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES,24 and returned my entire 108 page plus Grievance writing,” RE: Carter Casteel, sent to The State Bar of Texas on June 8th, 2015, inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Carter Casteel . I returned the entire June 8th, 2015 - 108 page plus Grievance “writing,” inclusive of full documentation of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of Carter Casteel. But, CDC refused to read, record or keep any record of the Grievance “writing” against Carter Casteel, dated June 8th, 2015. I have never (before June 8th, 2015) filed any Grievance against Carter Casteel; I must assume that the fact that I have sent more than ten (10) Grievances to CDC over the last seven (7) years means that I am annoying CDC with my “writings” against various attorneys. CDC must have developed the “MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” letter for those (like me) who demand that the State Bar of Texas be required to comply with statutory mandates of The Supreme Court of Texas. I sent the Carter Casteel Grievance, dated June 8th, 2015 back to CDC with a letter dated July 7th, 2015 to K.W. Morgan,25 insisting that CDC must review and classify the Grievance “writing” against Carter Casteel. To 21 Attached find an unsigned letter from CDC on The State Bar of Texas Letterhead, dated September 8th, 2014 that bears my name but no attorney’s name whatsoever. It indicates that my entire Grievance was AGAIN returned to me, unread, unclassified and rejected by CDC with NO APPEAL RIGHTS. 22 Attached is a letter, “RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” signed by CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, dated November 12th, 2014, that bears my name but no attorney’s name whatsoever. It indicates that my entire Grievance was AGAIN returned to me, unread, unclassified and rejected by CDC with NO APPEAL RIGHTS. 23 Attached is a letter, “RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” signed by CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage, dated December 22nd, 2014, that bears my name but no attorney’s name whatsoever. It indicates that my entire Grievance was AGAIN returned to me, unread, unclassified and rejected by CDC with NO APPEAL RIGHTS. 24 Attached is a letter, “RE: MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” signed by CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, K.W. Morgan, dated June 22nd, 2015, that bears my name but no attorney’s name whatsoever. It indicates that my entire Grievance was AGAIN returned to me, unread, unclassified and rejected by CDC with NO APPEAL RIGHTS.25 Attached is a letter, “Re: Grievance ---Carter Casteel---Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys---Priority Mailed July 7 th, 2015.

81 |

date, I have not yet received ANOTHER “MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES” Letter. I have never received any response whatsoever from CDC, GOC, or CLD.

Under the “authority” of Marvin W. Jones, BODA’s Chair for 2014-2015, “BODA’S REPORT FOR 2015” describes an unconstitutional “new PROCEDURE FOR AN APPEAL FROM A GRIEVANCE DISMISSAL.”

Per Statute, new or additional evidence can be submitted BEFORE Appeal’s FINAL DENIAL.

BODA is desperate to FINALLY DENY/ DISMISS “writings” with NO explanation/investigation.

TX GV Code, Section 81.023 provides that CDC classify each grievance on receipt as a Complaint, if the “writing” alleges conduct that, if true, constitutes misconduct under TDRPC. TEX GV. CODE, Section 81.075, indicates that CDC shall review and investigate each grievance classified as a Complaint to determine whether there is just cause, as defined by TDRPC or TRDP. TRDP 1.06. Definitions: U. “Just Cause”… such cause as is found to exist upon a reasonable inquiry that would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an atty has committed an act of Misconduct requiring that a Disciplinary Sanction be imposed…. TRDP: 2.10. Classification of Inquiries & Complaints: CDC shall within 30 days examine each Grievance received to determine whether it constitutes an Inquiry or a Complaint. If the Grievance is determined to constitute an Inquiry, the CDC shall notify the Complainant & Respondent of the dismissal. Complainant may, within 30 days from notification of the dismissal, appeal the determination to the BODA. If BODA affirms the classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be notified and may within 20 days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence. Complainant may appeal a decision by CDC to dismiss the amended Complaint as an Inquiry to BODA. No

CDC dismisses most “writings;” no matter that Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are presented therein. The State Bar dismisses most “writings” without conducting any investigation at all; never requesting any supporting documentation. BODA disobeys the statutory mandate for Amendments/Amendment Appeals and rubberstamps each CDC DENIAL/DISMISSAL; giving improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” CDC’s Maureen Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, had the task of “explaining” why Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation were NOT considered a violation of the TDRPC. “Explanations” were a humiliation to the State Bar. Subsequent to Ray’s resignation, BODA’s Jackie Truitt, a non-atty office mgr., sends out “standard Notices of Appeal Received” to the Complainants and Respondents, indicating that 3 BODA Members will meet in a “(secret) conference;” no hearing is held - to review the “writing” with no other information. Respondent Atty is warned “not send additional information concerning the grievance.” After the “secret conference,” BODA FINALLY “denies,” “completes,” “closes,” and gives improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” Without any explanation, investigation, Right to Amend, and again Appeal

82 |

further amendments or appeals will be accepted. TRDP: 2.12. Investigation & Determination of Just Cause: No more than sixty days after the date by which the Respondent Attorney must file a written response to the Complaint as set forth in Rule 2.10, the CDC shall investigate the Complaint and determine whether there is “Just Cause.”TX GV CODE 81.073(b) (eff. 9/1/2003) eliminated the Respondent Attorney’s Right to appeal the initial classification screening to BODA for grievances filed on or after 1/1/2004. Professional Misconduct is only discoverable by CDC’s investigation as a “Complaint.”

BODA’s obviously wrong “determinations,” a Complainant is sent a BODA Notice and each “inquiry classification” becomes FINAL without any investigation based on the “writing,” and never providing any explanation to the Complainant why Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are NOT TDRPC violations. A determination of “no just cause;” results in no Discipline. Complainants are unlawfully denied APPEAL RIGHTS. Unfairly, if a Judgment is rendered by an Evidentiary Proceeding, Respondent Atty can APPEAL xxiv so that it does not affect the Attorney’s Disciplinary Record with the State Bar.

a) Subsequent to the voluntary withdrawal of CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray, CDC has inanely continued to DENY and DISMISS most Grievance “writings” at “intake,” without any investigation of the “writing.” CDC sends a “standard Denial Notice” without any explanation of why Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation described in the “writings” fail to constitute professional misconduct as defined in TDRPC.

Instead of promptly reviewing and reversing the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s classification and Dismissal of Petitioner Marc R. Stanley’s Grievance’ Appeal to BODA, less than two (2) weeks later, BODA’s dismissal letter dated July 7th, 2014 stated BODA’s concurrence with CDC’s “standard Denial Letter.” BODA agreed that the “writing” by Marc R. Stanley did not allege did NOT demonstrate professional misconduct. BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial letter,” dismissed Marc R. Stanley’s Grievance “writing” with no contact with the Petitioner or investigation of the gross scheme involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC. Disgracefully, Petitioner Stanley’s Grievance “writing” was discarded as inconsequential to the Respondent Attorney; who could, thereafter, disavow that any Grievance was ever filed against him. BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice” announced the Grievance “writing” as “denied”, “completed,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.”

(i.) On July 23rd, 2014, a letter26 to CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel expressed Marc R. Stanley’s incredulousness that his Grievance “writing” had been FINALLY “denied”, “completed,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision” by the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. In Mr. Stanley’s letter of July 23rd, 2014, Page 2, he asks:

“…..I have the following questions:

26 Attached is a letter, dated July 23rd, 2014, RE: Inquiring Regarding Classification Decision in 201402288; Marc R. Stanley – (redacted) to CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel.

83 |

…….”By letter dated April 30th, 2014, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office wrote to Petitioner and announced that “[a]fter examining your grievance, this office has determined that the information alleged does not demonstrate professional misconduct or an attorney disability. Accordingly, this grievance has been classified as an Inquiry and has been dismissed. (Emphasis added). The State Bar dismissed this complaint without conducting any inquiry at all and never requested any of the supporting documentation, referenced in his report, from Petitioner. (If the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office conducted a “preliminary investigation” prior to its classification decision, that investigation did not include contacting Complainants, asking to review their documents, or any other discernable action. The State Bar has never claimed that it conducted a preliminary investigation in explaining its summary dismissal.) September 29th, 2014, “PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF,” Marc R. Stanley, page 6

1. Are fraud, theft and dishonest conduct not cognizable under Rule 8.04(a)(3), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct? Rule 8.04(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” Rule 8.04(a)(3) states that [a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

2. Why does the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office take the position in its dismissal notice to me that I did not allege professional misconduct, if I factually alleged fraud, theft and dishonest conduct by a Texas lawyer?

3. Is the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office applying a standard for reviewing grievances that is other than that provided by Texas law (i.e., the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure)? For example, is the Chief Disciplinary Counsel taking the position that it gets to “guess” about the ultimate outcome of a grievance rather than follow the procedural rules under Texas law? If so under whose authority has that important policy decision been made?

4. To what extent are the attorneys in your office who screen grievances instructed not to follow the plain classification requirements of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure?

5. Isn’t it embarrassing for the State Bar to take the position that a lawyer who concedes he committed fraud and theft should not have a grievance against him classified as a “complaint” because fraud and theft do not constitute professional misconduct?”

(ii.) On August 13th, 2014 , Maureen E. Ray made an unprofessional response27 to the Grievance filed by a Board Certified – Civil Trial Lawyer, Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Marc R. Stanley. Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, agreed that the State Bar of Texas was correct in dismissing a Grievance against a Texas attorney who conceded that he committed fraud and theft because he had not (yet) been convicted of any crime relating to the Grievance.

CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Ray’s own words in an August 13th, 2014 letter, RE: #201402288 Marc Stanley --- (redacted) were:

“…I can tell you that…your assertions…stem …from a possible breach of contract, which would be more appropriately pursued in a civil court and not the attorney discipline system. It also does not appear that Mr. (redacted) has been convicted of a crime related to your assertions.”

(iii.) On August 18th, 2014, in a letter responding to CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative

Counsel absurd comments of August 13th, 2014 (above), Marc R. Stanley expressed disbelief that his Grievance “writing,” describing and documenting a Respondent Lawyer’s dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation had been FINALLY “denied”, “completed,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision” by the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

As though he thought for an instant that CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel could be so ingenuous that she may never have noticed it in the TDRPC, Mr. Stanley presents a frank discussion of the plain language of TDRPC, Rule 8.04(a)(3).

“Compare the language with the plain language of Rule 8.04(a)(3), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which I helpfully cited to your office in my original complaint:Rule 8.04(a)(3): “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” I see nowhere in this simple prohibition, or elsewhere in Rule 8.04, where an “attorney-client relationship” is required for a violation. That is not true of some other disciplinary rule that state, as a prerequisite, language such as “in representing a client, a lawyer shall not…” See, for example, Rules 4.01, 4.02, 4.03, and 4.04, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, all of which

27 Attached is a letter from CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, dated August 13th, 2014, Re: #20140228 Marc Stanley – (redacted) which indicates CDC dismissed the Grievance on April 30th, 2014 and BODA, “an independent adjudicatory body” affirmed the dismissal. Inanely, CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel observed that the Respondent Attorney had not yet been convicted of a crime related to the Professional Misconduct described in the Grievance.

84 |

contain that prerequisite. Since Rule 8.04 does not contain that language, where exactly are you finding your “must arise from an attorney-client relationship” exception? Are you applying that exception to the other provisions of Rule 8.04 as well, including those that prohibit barratry, obstruction of justice, violations of a disciplinary order or judgment, or even failing to file a response to a grievance? Further, where exactly are you finding a “if a civil remedy exists” exception to allegations to professional conduct? I was under the impression that disciplinary proceedings were “civil remedies” as well. So, I am puzzled that you apparently believe that if a clear allegation of professional misconduct can be dealt with civilly, the State Bar lacks jurisdiction, or interest, in pursuing those allegations under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. I assume that the facts underlying many violations of the disciplinary rules could also result in civil liability for a Texas attorney, but this is the first time that I have heard the Bar won’t even investigate a matter if a complainant also has a civil remedy in the courts against a lawyer. Again, could you please identify that exception within any of the rules governing the grievance system? Finally, please let me know if the file that you reviewed reflects any evidence that a “preliminary investigation” (as allowed under Rule 1.06 G) occurred before my complaint was dismissed at the initial classification stage. I assume that, if such occurred, you would have noted that in your August 13th letter to me; however, I would very much appreciate absolute clarity on that point. Further, if you find any evidence of that, please identify what “preliminary investigation” occurred and what undisputable facts were found by your staff that led it to conclude that the allegations did not warrant classification a “complaint” under the Rules. Since I was not contacted by your staff, I am curious as to how any “preliminary investigation” could occur without contacting the complainant---or anyone else connected with the allegations. If the Bar is creating exceptions to the Rules promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court, where are those exceptions written down and who created those exceptions? Does the Court know what is being done in its name? Wouldn’t the Bar be interested in knowing whether these allegations are true in order to determine whether this lawyer is defrauding and/or stealing from his clients in other matters? I appreciate your prompt attention to my further inquiry as your letter obviously raised more questions than it answered…”

Leaving no doubt in Marc R. Stanley’s mind that CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel knew well that the State Bar of Texas is perpetrating unlawful exceptions improvised by feckless State Bar Officials and Appointees; , i.e., concealing a Respondent Lawyer’s dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; and condoning attorney fraud and stealing from Clients, the brazen Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, responded in only one week to Mr. Stanley’s August 18 th, 2014 letter. Her

85 |

September 29th, 2014, “PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF,” Marc R. Stanley, page 11 … “Following the bizarre dismissal of the Complainant’s grievance, Petitioner inquired of lawyers who regularly interact with the Texas attorney disciplinary system to determine if Petitioner’s experience is just a fluke or if this sort of treatment is common in the disciplinary system. Petitioner learned that several lawyers and complainants have had similar experiences where complaints that, on the fact, alleged misconduct, as defined by Rule 1.06G, were summarily dismissed at the outset by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel without any investigation. Based on these reports, that Office appears to regularly and erroneously classify legitimate complaints against lawyers as “inquiries” and, in each instance, Ms. Ray provides written explanation that assert various unwritten exceptions to the classification rules that have no basis under Texas law. Further, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, charged with reviewing the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s classification decisions under the exact standard as that governing the Chief Disciplinary Counsels, routinely rubberstamps those erroneous decisions. …”

insolent response, dated August 25th, 2014,28 implies and conveys a condescending viewpoint that I have noticed which pervasively infests proponents of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Obviously, Counselor Ray’s superiority due to her employment for Linda Acevedo, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, gives her “an authority” to make laconic, inane remarks to respected attorneys within the State Bar Membership.

“Re: #201402288 Marc Stanley --- (redacted)Dear Mr. Stanley: Thank you for your August 18 letter, responding to mine of August 13. I regret that you are not satisfied with my assessment of why your grievance was dismissed, but I have nothing further to add to the information in my previous letter. I note again that the dismissal was affirmed by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals.

Yours very truly,Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel

cc: Linda Acevedo”

b) CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray’s unintelligent communications to Marc R. Stanley, (which I am grateful for because Counselor Rays’ foolishness motivated him to write the PETITION), were widespread in Texas. I, and no doubt, thousands of other wrongfully denied Grievance Complainants received impertinent “retorts” from her.

On March 17, 2014,29 I received an alarming letter from Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, RE: #20136925 Debbie Asbury – Chris McKeeman which gives hearty approval for Christine McKeeman’s continued, disgraceful failure to provide my Grievances which fully document misconduct, malpractice, barratry, and fraud to BODA because (in Ms. Ray’s peculiar viewpoint) there is no requirement in the State Bar rules that Christine E. McKeeman do so.

Special Administrative Counsel Rays’ March 17th, 2014 letter was an impudent response to my five (5) long year endeavor – at that time – to get an explanation why BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman had confirmed CDC’s Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, S.M. Beckage’s Denial and Dismissal of Grievances I filed against four (4)Comal County attorneys and Judge Gary L. Steel who conducted a fraudulent real estate scam against me. On December 27th, 2009, I received five (5) of BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notices” signed by Exec. Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman. I have been certain since that day when I first read that BODA Grievance “decision” which concurred with CDC’s Denial of my Grievance “writings” and dismissed them as

28 Attached is a letter from CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, dated August 25th, 2014, Re: #201402288 Marc Stanley – (redacted) which indicates that the CDC has no further information after receiving the August 18th, 2014 letter he wrote. Unapologetically, CDC’s Maureen E. Ray has NOTHING more to say in defense of CDC’s absurd dismissal of the Complainant’s Grievance. Again the finger of blame points at BODA, which “denied,” “completed,” “closed,” the “writing,” and gave improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” 29 Attached is a letter from CDC’s Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, dated March 17th, 2014, Re: #20136925 Debbie G. Asbury --- Chris McKeeman which indicates that the reason I was denied an Amendment is because I missed a BODA deadline “to file an Amendment.” Yet, BODA never gave any Notice of my Right to Amend my Grievance. BODA, instead, “denied,” “completed,” “closed,” my Grievances, and gave improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” Absurdly, CDC’s Maureen E. Ray notes in the same letter that there is “NO REQUIREMENT that Chris McKeeman, Executive Director of BODA,” need contact respondent attorneys to investigate a complainant’s claim.

86 |

Marc R. Stanley’s “Petition for Administrative Relief” dated September 29th, 2014, page 7, footnote 13 “Her “full explanations” appear to be a complete guess, rather than an actual explanation by the staff member who classified the incoming grievance. It has become apparent that Ms. Ray’s job is not to make an independent inquiry of whether the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office has acted properly; instead her job is to “after the fact” justify those erroneous decisions. Apparently, Ms. Ray has never found a single instance in which a grievance has been mishandled by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel --- which is a remarkable claim

“an inconsequential inquiries,” without any explanation to me (the Complainant) or further investigation of the Grievance; and a summary “Grievance dismissal” notification without any Provision of Due Process of Law, that NO SUCH GRIEVANCE PROCESS RULES WOULD EVER HAVE DISSEMINATED FROM The Supreme Court of Texas.

The Grievances I filed against four (4) Comal County attorneys and Judge Gary L. Steel, each dated December 27th, 2009, documented a gross scheme involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC.

“Debbie G. Asbury v. Carter Barron Casteel,” S0100922707; BODA Case No. 45638, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Acie Craig McAda,” S0100922703; BODA Case No. 45637, “Debbie G. Asbury v. John T. Dierksen,” S0100922702; BODA Case No. 45636, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Jonathan H. Hull,” S0100922700; BODA Case No. 45634, “Debbie G. Asbury v. Gary L. Steel,” S0100922701; BODA Case No. 45635

In 2013, I compiled a Grievance in which I described Christine E. McKeeman’s offenses which constitute Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, for example but not limited to: fraud, dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation. I received a “standard Appeal Denial Notice” Debbie G. Asbury v. Christine E. McKeeman, 201306925: BODA Case No. 53549, signed by Gayle Vickers, Deputy Director/Counsel, BODA dated February 13th, 2014, without any explanation or investigation.

I have written comprehensive Reports to CDC, BODA, GOC, CLD and various other agencies and THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, but, to date, I have never received any response to my letters fully describing and documenting the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. On April 11th, 2014, I provided a report30 to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) detailing the failures I had experienced, to that date, describing the Texas State Bars’ abject non-compliance with the statutory mandates provided by The Supreme Court. I will briefly summarize the report which depicts effrontery of the gross scheme, conducted against me by the Comal County attorneys and judge, involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC.

“….Clearly, it was the fault of the 274th District Judge, Gary L. Steel, that the fraud was never revealed in a Fair Jury Trial. Disgracefully, by failing to sanction Judge Gary L. Steel, The State Bar of Texas has opened wide the door to more fraudulent practices in Texas to be perpetrated by the mortgage broker, attorneys and the Title Insurance Company in conjunction with dishonest homebuyers who do not qualify legally for mortgage products….….In each case that (BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel), Ms. (Christine E.) McKeeman has responded to my Grievance with a standard dismissal form, the following attorneys, Barron Casteel; (20136919; BODA Case No. 53544), Gary L. Steel, (201306920; BODA Case 53545), Acie Craig McAda, (201306921: BODA Case No. 53546), John T. Dierksen (201306923; BODA Case No. 53547), Jonathan H. Hull (201306924: BODA Case 53548), have gone unsanctioned. In fact, their law firms reward them (not for legitimate legal service to Texas Citizens) but for their malpractice and barratry. I received an unsigned letter, dated February 21, 2014, from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct inauspiciously states “As a general rule, a judge’s discretionary decisions – even if they are wrong – are not examples of judicial misconduct.” Seanna Willing, Executive Director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct sent another letter on March 18th, 201431 expressing the same drivel that judges have unregulated, broad discretion in making rulings. On March 17th, 2014, I received an alarming letter from Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, Office of

30 Attached is a report, “URGENT: Enhanced Oversight and Controls Needed to Ensure the TEXAS STATE BAR’S Compliance With Applicable Regulations and Policies,” to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), dated April 11th, 2014.31 Attached are an unsigned letter from State Commission on Judicial Conduct to “Ms. Ashbury” dated February 21, 2014 which states an astonishing opinion that “As a general rule, a judge’s discretionary decisions – even if they are wrong – are not examples of judicial misconduct” and a letter dated March 18th, 2014, Re: CJC No. 14-0283-DI, from Seanna Willing, Executive Director, State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Also, same unsigned letter to Ben Lopez dated Feb 19th, 2016.

87 |

the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, RE: #20136925 Debbie Asbury – Chris McKeeman which gives hearty approval for Christine E. McKeeman’s continued, disgraceful failure to provide my Grievances which fully document misconduct, barratry, and fraud to BODA because (in Ms. Ray’s peculiar viewpoint) there is no requirement in the State Bar rules that Christine E. McKeeman do so……..…..On January 22nd, 2009, 274th Judicial District Judge Gary L. Steel, denied me a Fair Jury Trial, seized my home and placed it in the Jurisdiction of the Comal County Court; thereby violating my Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law. If I had been allowed a Fair Trial, the overt fraud would have been abruptly aborted. By forcing me to sell my home without a Fair Trial, Judge Steel enabled the Plaintiffs to purchase the property with Multiple Property Defects, fully documented by Physical Property Inspection Reports by Experts and contained in the voluminous files I have in my possession from Michael Morris, an attorney who filed a Motion for a New Trial; (also denied by Judge Gary L. Steel). Contained in those voluminous files are conclusive proofs of my earnest contention that I planned to proceed to a Fair Trial so I would not be involved in the fraudulent scam….…..The frivolous Lawsuit noted, not structural foundation deficiencies, but demanded that I must pay Plaintiffs Damages; such as $2,000 a month “in lost rents” that they suffered until (some date in the future that) I could be convinced to reduce the price of my home substantially and pay for Barron Casteel’s legal fees. Yet the Home Sales Contract we had signed on 3/18/2007 was not one that would apply for a sale of property intended as a Rental Property. The frivolous Lawsuit conflicted with the fact that we had executed a Home Sales Contract, when, in fact, the Plaintiffs made application for and were pursuing a low interest, federally insured Home Loan – which, by federal law, cannot apply to Rental property…..…..The Plaintiffs believed their allegations of serious structural foundation problems would get them a desired Sales Price Reduction. It was their miscalculation that the frivolous Lawsuit, which demanded, at least, $100,000…barratry in lost rents and attorney fees because I had (in the Plaintiff’s viewpoint) breached the Sales Contract by failing to Close on schedule, would intimidate me to reduce the Sale Contact Price and pay Barron Casteel for the frivolous Lawsuit. They did not ever intend to Disclose the structural foundation problems to the Title Company or the Lender. Barron Casteel either did not know or care that Buyers must abide by Disclosure Laws, as well as Sellers. Although I explained it to them many times, the Plaintiffs did not care that their failure to Disclose the deficiencies was a federal crime which could result in fines and possibly imprisonment…xxv

John T. Dierksen’s (my Defense attorney’s) course of action in 2008 after the first Mediation failed miserably, was to force the Plaintiffs to do a walk-thru, depicting any repairs that they still required done before they would accept the home’s condition as satisfactory. None of the Contractors that I hired would extend any warrantees to the Butts. However, I, as Seller, was satisfied with work my Contractors had done. Much to my chagrin, the Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel did a walk-thru but refused to make a written list of required repairs unless I FIRST agreed to lower the Contract Sales Price substantially, pay all his attorney fees for the frivolous Lawsuit, and pledge my Confidentiality in regard to the obvious fraud. In my defense, Johnathan Hull and I sought and were granted approval for a second Mediation (with Michael Scanio)….A walk-thru was completed by Kevin Butt but he relayed through Barron Casteel that not a single repair was lacking his approval. (Jasmine Butt was mysteriously missing in the 10/10/2008 walk-thru.) However, just a few days before the Closing Date mandated by the second Mediation, the Plaintiffs demanded yet another walk-thru. As it was outside the scope of the mediated terms, that second walk-thru was denied. ….…The Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel were frantic – and proceeded as though there had been no Mediated Settlement Agreement. Contemptibly, my own Defense Attorneys, the Plaintiffs’ Attorneys, the Title Company Insurer and the Lender pressured me to join into the fraudulent scam rather than do what would be required by honest attorney, i.e., require the Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel to produce alleged evidence of my homes serious foundation damage or obtain

88 |

new expert Foundation Reports (so that I could be protected from Disclosure Problems in my home’s sale).…..Judge Gary Steel denied my Civil Right to Due Process guaranteed to Americans by The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution. Although I clearly required and requested a new attorney when Judge Steel permitted my Defense Attorneys, Jonathan Hull and John T. Dierksen, to quit without my authorization …and without giving me Proper Notice, he also denied me the opportunity to obtain another attorney to represent me in his Court on the Matter.……Judge Gary Steel refused to allow me the Right to a Fair Trial to expose the fraudulent scam. Judge Steel’s decision on January 22nd, 2009 was to denigrate me because I “made no sense to him” in the Comal Court when he demanded that I “act as my own attorney” in a Hearing that was clearly discriminatory. When my Defenses Attorneys, Jonathan Hull and John T. Dierksen, had abandoned my defense in late December, 2008, Barron Casteel had secretly changed all the details in the Summary Judgment (e.g., that which had absurdly demanded “lost rents” as significant damages, etc.). I had no attorney to protect me; nor had I even seen the extremely detrimental and wrongful changes to the Summary Judgment before it was presented on January 22nd, 2009 to the Courtroom.….It did not matter to Judge Steel that one of the Plaintiffs, Jasmine Butt, had failed to sign the Affidavit pertaining to the makeshift Summary Judgment (which contained only lies); only Kevin Butt signed as the sole Plaintiff….(Judge Steel decided that I must pay what Barron Casteel falsely wrote that I owed as “damages” in the false Summary Judgment while I had no attorney representing me. The deceitfully revised Summary Judgment required that I pay thousands of dollars in damages for undisclosed repairs to my home (when the walk-thru by the Mediated Settlement had listed no necessary repairs) and for Barron Casteel’s attorney fees for the frivolous Lawsuit (when the second Mediation had called for me to pay only $760 to him)….…On the day of the forced Closing, March 22, 2009, Acie McAda, attorney for 1st American Title Company, knew well that the Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel had concealed information about the property’s serious foundation deficiencies, and the unrepaired “walk-thru” items that were never listed or shown to me, as the Seller, or acknowledged as repaired to my own satisfaction, as the Seller. ….The Wells Fargo Lender understood that there was a long-standing (costly) Lawsuit that had not been settled in a Court Setting but that my home was inauspiciously removed from my own possession. …Michael Morris signed at the Closing with my Power of Attorney but I have not ever given my pledge to Confidentiality in The Matter of the Fraud (and I will not do so). Mr. Morris carefully wrote into our Legal Services Contract, that although he noted the Misconduct and Malpractice in the actions of the attorneys and the Court, he further stated that I must not misconstrue that he would also purse those Matters for me, as well, if The Motion for a New Trial failed. Mr. Morris told me that his small firm could not afford to alienate a sitting judge or those named Comal County attorneys who he relied on for his business referrals…….The voluminous files that I have in my possession contain the Expert Foundation Reports that show clearly the Home’s Foundation is faulty and requires extensive, costly repairs and recommends they be done before the home can be sold. I was disturbed to find that it had been Jonathan Hull’s and John T. Dierksen’s unethical decision to “help” Barron Casteel and the Plaintiffs by lying to me and concealing those Reports from me, the Title Insurance Company, and the Lender. (When it was clear that I would proceed to Civil Court and those Documents could no longer be kept in secret from me, they abruptly withdrew their “legal services,” knowing I would pursue them for Malpractice.) Due to Misconduct and Malpractice, the Plaintiffs obtained a fraudulent Federally Insured Home Loan and possess only a Deficient Title to my Property. (The Plaintiff’s Property Title Insurance will not protect them in future Lawsuits because it is based on untruths.) Judge Gary Steel is clearly as guilty as Barron Casteel, John T. Dierksen, Jonathan Hull and Acie McAda in

89 |

proceeding with the forced sale of my property through their flagrant violations of Federal Truth in Lending Laws….

c) Certainly, Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray made thousands of absurd one page “answers” to Complainants which only served to anger Complainants (like myself) and which moved Marc R. Stanley to submit the PETITION to The Supreme Court of Texas requiring that:

Even worse than the fact that the State Bar of Texas’ Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures has denied Due Process of Law to Complainants for the last twelve (12) yearsxxvi or more, is the fact that it encourages Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation, enabling unethical and unprofessional attorneys to prosper at the expense of Clients and lawyers who are fair and just. While many attorneys I have conferred with are embarrassed by the State Bar; they refuse to speak out against unethical lawyers whose Professional Misconduct is routinely dismissed as inconsequential by the absurd “standard denial Notices” and “standard Appeal Denial Notices” of CDC and BODA which incredibly contend that Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are not Professional Misconduct as it is defined in TDRPC!

When a Complainant, even one so knowledgeable as Marc R. Stanley respectfully appeals to BODA, the only result is the ludicrous “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “denies,” “completes,” “closes,” Complainants’ Grievances, and gives improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” All Texas Citizens have been put through longstanding punishment by Texas attorneys who routinely and confidently misconduct themselves while never fearing any Disciplinary Action.

Had the State Bar of Texas sanctioned and disbarred Barron Casteel, Jonathan Hull, John Dierksen, Acie Craig McAda and Gary L. Steel in 2009 when I first began describing the gross real estate fraud in Grievances, thousands of Texans would have been spared the devastating effects of the multiple Lawsuits that these unethical attorneys and corrupt judge, who have banded together and conducted by practicing Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation and flagrantly violating Federal Truth in Lending Laws since 2009! If I must file my own Petition for Administrative Relief to The Supreme Court of Texas, I will do so in order to make certain that every single Texas State Bar official and appointee who has participated in the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures are investigated, sanctioned and disbarred.

Barron Casteel is so brazenly bolstered by the dysfunctional State Bar of Texas Grievance Process that he filed yet another absurd Lawsuit against me in 2014. Although the fraudulent Lawsuit did not involve the same lawyers; it did involve Judge Gary L. Steel and employed the same well-practiced techniques of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation.

My spouse, Clement W. Machacek, has repeatedly terminated Barron Casteel, Carter Casteel and Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attorneys), who has a Conflict of Interest with me. Clement:

1. presented a termination letter to Barron Casteel in person in August, 2014, 2. sent a Formal Termination Notice on March 23 rd , 2015 by Certified, Priority Mail ,

90 |

“The Supreme Court of Texas, on behalf of judicial department shall exercise administrative control over the state bar….” Further the Court “shall establish minimum standards and procedures” for attorney discipline, including, “classification of all grievances” and a “full explanation to each complainant on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint…” (Emphasis added by Marc R. Stanley)

Barron Casteel has been emboldened by State Bar of Texas’ Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures; and enabled to routinely practice in noncompliance to TDRPC and TRDP.

3. sent a Formal Notice of termination for Breach of Contract, Barratry and Malpractice by Certified, Priority Mail on October 12 th , 2015 and two Grievances to the State Bar of Texas, Re: Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel, dated December 17th, 2015. 32

However, Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel have steadfastly refused to terminate Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys’ contract with Clement. To date, Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys have refused to return $1,900.75 of Clement’s remaining Trust Fund Balance from last Invoice, #28562. Contemptibly, on

September 16th, 2015, and February 3rd, 2016, Barron Casteel billed Clement ($1,163.50) and ($138.90)33 for more “services” with no detail or explanation whatsoever.

Below are a few excerpts from an absurd and frivolous Lawsuit that Barron Casteel filed against me on June 6th, 2014 “IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CLEMENT WILLIAM MACHACEK AND DEBORAH WIDMER A/K/A/ DEBBIE ASBURY, NO. C2012-0973B, FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DIVORCE.” A discussion of the similar Professional Misconduct demonstrated by Barron Casteel in the frivolous Lawsuit (Kevin & Jasmine Butt v. Debbie G. Asbury – Cause #C2007-047A in Comal County, 274 th Judicial District, Judge Gary Steel) conducted by Barron Casteel from 5/1/2007 through 3/22/2009, reveals the pattern of Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation which Barron Casteel abuses Texas Clients and Public Citizens with --- which the State Bar of Texas has steadfastly refused to consider as a Complaint and investigate. Long ago, had the State Bar done so, I am certain that Barron Casteel could not have continued his long tenure as a Comal County attorney, known for absurd, frivolous Lawsuits. It is long past the time such unprofessional and corrupt behavior of Barron Casteel be recognized as Professional Misconduct worthy of disbarment.

I have compiled Grievances against each Barron Casteel (July 31st, 2014) and Carter Casteel (June 8th, 2015 ) but contemptibly the State Bar of Texas (CDC, BODA, GOC or CLD) has refused to read, or classify (as an Inquiry OR Complaint) either Grievance and disgracefully intends to continue to protect the two unethical and unprofessional attorneys from much deserved investigation and disbarment by disavowing that any Grievances have ever been filed against Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel!

The allegations in my Grievance “writings” against Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel raise some very serious questions concerning whether the Comal County attorneys have violated the fundamental rules that apply to all Texas lawyers, including but not limited to:

Disciplinary Rules 1.01, --- which prohibits a lawyer from fabrications and absurd falsehoods, or other conduct which exhibits incompetence, carelessness, or that the lawyer lacks fundamental skills.

Disciplinary Rules 1.02 (c) --- which prohibit a lawyer from failing to disclose the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and requires the lawyer to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

Disciplinary Rules 1.03 --- which prohibit a lawyer from withholding information from the client so that the client can participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience.

Disciplinary Rules 1.04 Fees --- which prohibit a lawyer from charging unconscionable fees in Barratry.

32 Attached is Clement W. Machacek’s and my letter to Barron Casteel, Carter Casteel and all others employed by Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys,” Your Bill, dated September 16th, 2015 -- NO C2012-0973 -- June 6, 2014,” Priority Mailed Oct. 12, 2015. Also attached are two Grievances to the State Bar of Texas compiled by Clement W. Machacek, RE: Barron Casteel & RE: Carter Casteel, dated December 17th, 2015.33 Attached is an undocumented bill from Casteel & Casteel, P.L.L.C., dated September 16th, 2015 which indicates a “previous balance” of $1,163.50. Clement has demanded to know what was charged on the noted Inv. #33344 but has received no response whatsoever from Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel. Also attached is an undocumented bill from Casteel & Casteel, P.L.L.C., dated February 3rd, 2016 indicating more fees ($138.90) are required to-be-paid.

91 |

Disciplinary Rule 1.05 Confidentiality of Information --- which prohibit an attorney from using Confidentiality Rules to protect a client’s information where the client seeks or uses the services of the lawyer to aid in the commission of a crime or fraud.

Disciplinary Rules 1.06 Conflict of Interest --- which prohibit a lawyer to allow subjective interests or need for income to overpower the attorney’s integrity.

Disciplinary Rules 1.14 --- which prohibit a lawyer from commingling funds which belong in whole or in part to a client with a lawyers funds. Such funds must be kept in a separate account, designated as a “trust” or “escrow” account, maintained in the state where the lawyer’s office is located.

Disciplinary Rules 1.15 (a) --- which prohibits a lawyer from accepting the Representation of a Client and demands the lawyer withdraw if the lawyer’s physical, mental or psychological condition materially impairs the lawyer’s fitness to represent the client; or the lawyer is discharged, with or without good cause.

Disciplinary Rules 2.01 --- prohibits an attorney from failing to render candid advice or unprofessional judgment based on the attorney’s bias.

Disciplinary Rules 3.01 --- which prohibit an attorney from bringing or defending a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous. The lawyer advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.

Disciplinary Rules 3.02 --- which prohibit a lawyer from the filing of frivolous or knowingly false pleadings, motions or other papers with the court or the assertion in an adjudicatory proceeding of a knowingly false claim or defense. A filing or assertion is frivolous if it is made primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring a person.

Disciplinary Rules 3.03 (a) (1) & (2) --- which prohibit a lawyer from knowingly: (1) making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) failing to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act;

Disciplinary Rules 3.03 (a) (3) (4) & (5) --- which prohibit a lawyer from knowingly:(3) in an ex parte proceeding, failing to disclose to the tribunal an unprivileged fact which the lawyer reasonably believes should be known by that entity for it to make an informed decision; (4) failing to disclose to the tribunal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (5) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

Disciplinary Rule 3.03, Comments 1 & 2 prohibits a lawyer from affirmative misrepresentation by failing to make a disclosure to the tribunal or making improper misrepresentations of facts or information that a lawyer knows to be untrue.

Disciplinary Rules 3.04---which prohibits a lawyer from unfairness or obstructive tactics in the judicial process and swearing to false oaths and offering/using evidence that the attorneys know to be false, especially in an ex parte proceeding. The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshalled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedures, and the like.

Disciplinary Rules 4.03 --- which prohibit a lawyer from stating or implying that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.

Disciplinary Rules 4.04 (a)---- which prohibit a lawyer from using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a

92 |

third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

Disciplinary Rules 4.04 (b) --- which prohibit a lawyer from presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present: (1) criminal or disciplinary charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil

matter; or (2) civil, criminal or disciplinary charges against a complainant, a witness, or a potential witness in a bar disciplinary proceeding solely to prevent participation by the complainant, witness or potential witness therein

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a) (1) --- which prohibit a lawyer from engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation or fraud or knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer relationship;

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a)(2) --- which prohibit a lawyer from committing a serious crime or other criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness in other respects.

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a) (3) --- which prohibit a lawyer from engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation or fraud.

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a) (5) --- which prohibit a lawyer from stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a)(6) --- which prohibit a lawyer from knowingly assisting a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a) (9) ---- which prohibit a lawyer from engaging in conduct that constitutes barratry as defined by the law of this state.

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (b) --- which prohibit a lawyer from committing a serious crime, which means barratry, any felony involving moral turpitude; any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to commit any of the foregoing.

Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (b), Comment 7 --- which prohibit a lawyer from holding public office if the lawyer demonstrates abuse of public trust, i.e. 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(b). Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust.

Rule 503 (a)(5) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, Lawyer-Client Privileges --- prohibits a lawyer from making communications of confidential information to third person, other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of rendition of professional legal services to the client.

Tex. PE CODE § 2812: BARRATRY (F) AND (G) --- prohibits a lawyer from any conduct involving coercion, duress, fraud, overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence; or promulgating documents which contain false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, or unfair statements or claims.

TX PENAL CODE, TITLE 8, OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICE, § 39.03, OFFICIAL OPPRESSION --- prohibits a judge or public servant from intentionally subjecting another to dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; or intentionally denying or impeding another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing that his conduct is unlawful.

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10, WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY --- prohibits an attorney from withdrawing from representation or a judge from accepting the withdrawal of the attorney until the party has been notified in writing of her right to object to the motion. It is unlawful for an attorney to withdraw and or a judge to allow a withdrawal without a corresponding delay of a Court Hearing, without Notice to a party so she can obtain competent attorney representation. It is disgraceful to attempt to force a party to “act as her own attorney” and take away her rights, privileges, powers, or immunities, knowing that such conduct is unlawful.

93 |

Barron Casteel’s noncompliance with Disciplinary Rules, 1.01, 1.02, 1.04, 1.03, 1.06, 2.01, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 3.04, 4.04, 8.04 (a)(1), 8.04 (a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04 (a)(5), 8.04 (a)(6), 8.04 (a)(9), 8.04 (b), Tex. PE CODE § 28.12: BARRATRY (F) and (G), and Rule 503 (a) (5) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, Lawyer-Client Privileges, The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10 WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY

Re: “IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CLEMENT WILLIAM MACHACEK AND DEBORAH WIDMER

A/K/A/ DEBBIE ASBURY, NO. C2012-0973B, FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DIVORCE.” Barron Casteel’s frivolous Lawsuit alleges “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” and “Actual Fraud.” The Damages for Actual Fraud, according to the absurd Lawsuit, is $100,000! I have not been able to ascertain what Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel were eluding to in this segment of the ludicrous Divorce Lawsuit, so I will just copy the peculiar missive below. It is my own Duty to be certain that when my Grievance is defined as a Complaint by CDC that I require Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel to state before BODA exactly what “reckless, false statements” and “plotted and carried out plan,” Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys are referring to because Clement and I have not a single clue what they might be “discussing” in the frivolous Divorce Document, which is supposedly a “valid, legal document.”

“Respondent, as Petitioner’s spouse, had a fiduciary relationship with and a fiduciary duty to Petitioner. As a result of their fiduciary relationship, Petitioner reposed a special confidence in Respondent, and Respondent had a duty in equity and good conscience to act in good faith and due regard for Petitioner’s interests.

Respondent, in violation of her duty to Petitioner, has breached her duty to Petitioner.a. Actual Fraud

Respondent plotted and carried out a plan to actually defraud Petitioner and Petitioner’s separate estate. Respondent made material representations to Petitioner that were false. Respondent knew these representations were false, or Respondent made them recklessly without knowledge of their truth and as a positive assertion. Respondent made these representations with the intention that Petitioner would act on them. Petitioner acted in reliance on these representations and as a consequence suffered injury and damage. Respondent, without the knowledge, consent, or approval of Petitioner, unfairly conveyed more than $250,000 in separate and community property of Petitioner for the primary purpose of defrauding Petitioner. That conveyance was unfair and in actual fraud of Petitioner’s rights.“a.” Constructive Fraud.

Respondent has defrauded Petitioner by breaching a legal and/or equitable duty owed Petitioner as a result of their fiduciary relationship. That breach is fraudulent because, irrespective of Respondent’s moral guilt, the breach had a tendency to deceive Petitioner and violate Petitioner’s confidence or injure the public interest.Respondent’s actions damaged Petitioner.“a.” Waste of Assets” Respondent has squandered community assets by making grossly excessive gifts of community and separate assets to $100,000.00, a person who is not the natural object of Respondent’s generosity. (??? The italics, emboldened sentence and underlining are my own in an effort to induce the CDC to hold Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel accountable for the blatant lies and deceptions that are contained in the frivolous Lawsuit against me.) Respondent has spent and wasted community funds and Petitioner’s separate assets on this person at a time when Respondent knew or should have known that Petitioner would have objected to these expenditures. These expenditures and gifts of property are in direct violation of the fiduciary responsibility placed on Respondent when entrusted with Petitioner’s separate estate and funds.”

Re: Kevin & Jasmine Butt v. Debbie G. Asbury – Cause #C2007-047A in Comal County, 274th Judicial District, Judge Gary Steel.

Barron Casteel’s absurd Lawsuit alleged damages of $100, 000 and much more (not for the serious foundation problems which the Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel were unlawfully concealing) but for Breach of Contract due to Barron Casteel’s fabrication of Plaintiffs “loss of rents” and the huge “attorney fees” accumulated by Barron Casteel over the two year period of the fraudulent Lawsuit. Barron Casteel did not ever Disclose the serious structural foundation problems to the Title Company or the Lender; but hid the

94 |

Inspection Company Reports (which his Clients procured) from me, the Title Company Insurer, and the Wells Fargo Lender. Barron Casteel either did not know nor did he care that Buyers must abide by Disclosure Laws, as well as Sellers. Although I explained it many times, the Plaintiffs did not care that their failure to Disclose the deficiencies was a federal crime which could result in fines and possibly imprisonment.

Barron Casteel’s Noncompliance with Disciplinary Rules: 1.03, 1.05, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 4.03, 4.04, 8.04(a)(1), 8.04 (a)(2), 8.04 (a)(3), 8.04 (a)(5), 8.04 (a)(6), 8.04 (a)(9), 8.04 (b), The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10 WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY, Rule 503 (a) (5) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, Lawyer-Client Privileges, Tex. PE CODE § Section 28.12: BARRATRY (F) and (G), The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10 WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY

Re: “IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CLEMENT WILLIAM MACHACEK AND DEBORAH WIDMER A/K/A/ DEBBIE ASBURY, NO. C2012-0973B, FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DIVORCE.”

Barron Casteel, Carter Casteel, and Adam Alden Campbell believed that – if they banded together in Barratry – I could be forced to “work with” incompetent, malpracticing attorneys; they would FORCE Clement and me to divorce; even if the divorce debacle left Clement endangered and without any care-giver which he requires due to his advanced age (nearly 80 then) and ill health; and EVEN IF I DID NOT WANT A DIVORCE. Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel, Clement’s attorneys for matters concerning a Divorce Lawsuit and Protective Order on June 6th, 2014 and Adam Alden Campbell, who I hired on June 18th, 2014 as an attorney for my Defense on the absurd matters but promptly discharged as incompetent on June 30 th, 2014, proceeded to conduct their absurd Lawsuit, without consulting either of their Clients on any Matters.

My Grievances against Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel clearly depict that they violated TDRPC, for example; but not limited to their repeated provision of Motions and Documents to attorney Adam Alden Campbell, when clearly Carter Casteel knew that such Professional Misconduct was clearly a Violation of my Right to Privacy, as well a Violation of Clement’s Right to Confidentiality in the Lawyer Client Relationship; and an insult to the integrity of the American Bar Association. From June 30th, 2014 through July 31st, 2014, Adam Alden Campbell, an incompetent attorney who I demanded withdraw from representation of me on June 30th, 2014, and Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys colluded together and conducted their “case against me” while I had NO ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION. It is my firm contention that the charges from the invoices these disgraceful attorneys provided to my husband, Clement, and to me is Barratry; litigation for the purpose of harassment or profit.

Contemptibly, Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel have refused to withdraw from “conducting a Divorce” although Clement has repeatedly terminated the firm’s “services.” Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel have steadfastly refused to terminate Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys’ contract with Clement. To date, Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys have refused to return $1,900.75 of Clement’s remaining Trust Fund Balance from last Invoice, #28562. Contemptibly, on September 16th, 2015 and February 3rd, 2016, Barron Casteel billed Clement ($1,163.50) and ($138.90) for more “services” with no detail or explanation whatsoever

Re: Kevin & Jasmine Butt v. Debbie G. Asbury – Cause #C2007-047A in Comal County, 274th Judicial District, Judge Gary Steel.

Barron Casteel, Jonathan H. Hull, John T. Dierksen, Acie Craig McAda and Judge Gary L. Steel believed that – if they banded together in Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation, that I could be forced to “work with” incompetent, malpracticing attorneys to sell my home to Barron Casteel and his corrupt Plaintiffs; even though the Forced Sale left the Plaintiffs with a worthless Home Title. The deficient Home Title will leave the Plaintiffs with no Title Insurance protection when I proceed with my Lawsuit against them due to the unlawful, Forced Sale of my home through inexcusable, flagrant violations of Federal Truth in Lending Laws.

Judge Gary L. Steel refused to allow me the Right to a Fair Trial to expose the fraudulent scam. Judge Steel’s decision on January 22nd, 2009 was to denigrate me because I “made no sense to him” in the

95 |

Comal Court when he demanded that I “act as my own attorney” in a Hearing that was clearly discriminatory. When my Defenses Attorneys, Jonathan Hull and John T. Dierksen, had abandoned my defense in late December, 2008, Judge Gary L. Steel had allowed them to officially withdraw in spite of my protests that I was in Oregon, attending to the welfare of my ward, Carl J. Hoch, and would require a month or more to obtain new Counsel. After Jonathan Hull and John T. Dierksen withdrew giving me no proper notice so that I could secure an attorney who would honestly deal with the fraudulent scam in the Comal County Court with a Jury Trial, opposing Counsel Barron Casteel had secretly changed all the details in the Summary Judgment (e.g., that which had absurdly demanded “lost rents” as significant damages, etc.). I had no attorney to protect me; nor had I even seen the extremely detrimental and wrongful changes to the Summary Judgment before it was presented on January 22nd, 2009 to the Courtroom. Judge Gary L. Steel approved the adverse Summary Judgment in full on January 22nd, 2009 although I earnestly protested that it contained not a single truth.

Barron Casteel’s Noncompliance with Disciplinary Rules: 1.03, 1.06, 3.02, 3.03, 4.03, 4.04, 8.04(a)(1), 8.04 (a)(5), 8.04 (a)(6).8.04 (a)(9), 8.04 (b), Rule 503 (a) (5) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, Lawyer-Client Privileges, Tex. PE CODE § Section 28.12: BARRATRY (F) and (G), and TX PENAL CODE, TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICE, Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION, The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10 WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY

Clement’s Right to Confidentiality in the Lawyer-Client Privilege was violated when Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel repeatedly emailed demands for Personal, Private and Confidential Information to attorney Campbell who had no authority to receive it by email or even to read it because he withdrew from representing me on June 30 th, 2014 and I accepted his withdrawal on that date. Contemptibly, Casteel and Casteel, Pllc Attys did not tell Clement that the demands for Personal, Private and Confidential Information from attorney Adam Alden Campbell were a Violation of both Clement’s and my Right to Privacy.

Instead of providing Clement with legal representation reflecting “allegiance, learning, skill and industry and employment of all appropriate legal means to protect and advance the client’s legitimate right, claims and objectives,” Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel entwined Clement in a conflicted torment of illegal actions, while Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys violated laws and rules on an unethical path of Barratry and Professional Misconduct. By obligating Clement on June 6th, 2014 to the absurd, frivolous Lawsuit and Protective Order without ever having investigated the allegations that I had “stolen away money” and to spite him, gave it to some other person Clement did not know, the malpracticing attorneys entangled Clement in a Civil Lawsuit against Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys, for their despicable professional misconduct in attempting to incite my elderly, ill husband to state untruths (under oath) for the purpose of Barron Casteel’s and Carter Casteel’s strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”) against me. Such an absurd “Divorce Lawsuit” would have cost Clement tens of thousands of dollars in Barratry and Professional Misconduct.

When I explained all of the disgraceful effrontery in Barratry and Professional Misconduct of Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel, Clement promptly took steps to terminate any further “Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys’ family legal services” of the corrupt attorneys in the absurd “Divorce Lawsuit” and dangerous Protective Order. In spite of Clement’s termination of Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel in August, 2014, March 23 rd , 2015 and October 12 th , 2015 , Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel have disgracefully continued to bill Clement for “services” of an invoice of September 16th, 2015 which they refuse to describe. On July 28 th , 2014 , Judge Gary Steel intentionally denied of my Right to Due Process by meeting in an ex parte conference with Barron Casteel, Carter Casteel and Adam Alden Campbell in which they disgracefully agreed that, by their gross scheme involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation and constituting Professional Misconduct, as defined by TDRPC, I could be FORCED to “act as my own attorney” in an official Court Proceeding on July 31 st , 2014 . I was never provided “proper notice and service” of Legal Documents, including my Right to a (competent) Attorney and to this date never notified of the July 28 th , 2014 ex parte conference, and/or the Comal County Court Proceeding on July 31 st , 2014 , and/or provided with any Right to Appeal.

96 |

Reprehensibly, Carter Casteel and Barron Casteel have for so long been allowed to earn unethical fees with their protocol of malpractice in the Comal County Court with no sanction from the State Bar of Texas, they can openly assert nonsense and lies in Orders and Motions, impede a Defendant’s Right to competent Counsel against them, and influence ineffectual attorneys, like Adam Alden Campbell, to go along with the harassment, Barratry and Professional Misconduct until the very date of the Comal County Judge’s agreement, July 31st, 2014 to award TEMPORARY ORDERS, and FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS to Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel, even while my elderly, ailing spouse requested they NOT proceed with the dangerous and absurd “Divorce Lawsuit.”

By Judge Gary L. Steel’s disgraceful OFFICIAL OPPRESSION against me in failing to accord me with Due Process of Law, Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel lied to the Comal County Judge that I had been served all Legal Notices as required by Law but that I had disrespectfully failed to attend the Hearing on July 31 st, 2014 that awarded Casteel & Casteel, Pllc with:1. TEMPORARY ORDERS, that order me: to pay $10,000 to Barron Casteel on or before September 1, 2014 but does not describe what interim attorney’s fees or expenses that large charge in barratry included.2. The FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS, by which I was prohibited from providing Care-giver services to my aged, ailing husband, Clement. Per the absurd FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS, I may not:1. go within 1,000 feet of Clement or near my home at 1711 Lone Oak Rd., New Braunfels, TX 78132.2. email or text Clement

I am required to attend a “battering intervention and prevention program” or will be fined $500 and confined in jail for six (6) months. I must pay $1,500 attorney’s fees for the “services” of Barron Casteel on or before August 15 th , 2014. I am ordered to pay a $16 protective order fee on or before August 15 th , “2014.”

In spite of the fact that Clement has repeatedly ordered Barron Casteel to remove the FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS and TEMPORARY ORDERS since he terminated “services” in August, 2014, he has been unable (to date) to force Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel to stop pursuing me for more than $11,516 due to those FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS and TEMPORARY ORDERS, which were unethically sworn to be true by Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel, and unlawfully filed in the DISTRICT COURT, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS.

As Barron Casteel’s prerequisite to the removal of the FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER and TEMPORARY ORDER against me, which were filed unlawfully on July 31st, 2014 and remain in the DISTRICT COURT, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS and per Barron Casteel’s most recent dictum, both Clement and I must sign two (2) more “legal documents” (a JOINT MOTION FOR NONSUIT and an ORDER FOR NONSUIT) and we must pay large fees in Barratry for Barron Casteel’s processing of those alleged “legal documents” through the COMAL COUNTY COURT.

Clement and I are vexed by the lack of integrity of Casteel & Casteel Pllc Attys, a firm which professes to be knowledgeable and responsible in its practice of Law, yet it can so overtly demonstrate disregard of Rules 8.04 (a)(5), 8.04 (a)(6) and 8.04 (a)(9) and Barron Casteel’s unethical notion that, while Clement has already been billed and paid Casteel & Casteel Pllc Attys an exorbitant sum ($4,599.25) for purported “legal services” which served no useful purpose to his own legitimate rights, claims, or objectives, Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel (on their own and against Clement’s demands that they stop) intend to continue to pursue me for $11,516, unless we agree to pay Casteel & Casteel Pllc Attys’ thousands of dollars more to file additional unethical and unlawful Motions and Orders with the Comal County Court.

Clement and I agree that it is absurd for Barron Casteel to proclaim, by his recently proffered bribe to us, the “NONSUIT MOTION and ORDER,” that he could possibly consider that Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys is performing a “fiduciary duty to protect Clement against countersuits from me.” Barron Casteel’s purported objective, claimed by the “NONSUITS bribe,” is to force me to give up “counterclaims” against the Lawsuit: IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CLEMENT WILLIAM MACHACEK AND DEBORAH WIDMER A/K/A/ DEBBIE ASBURY, NO. C2012-0973B, FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DIVORCE. Yet, I did not file a single, solitary Motion, request, or “counterclaim” at all because, ironically, from June 30th, 2014 until July 31st, 2014, Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel, through their dishonesty, fraud, deceit and

97 |

misrepresentation, and in opposition to the Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof’l Conduct 3.04, prohibited me from obtaining a competent attorney that I so desired so I would be able to file a “counterclaim.”

Re: Kevin & Jasmine Butt v. Debbie G. Asbury – Cause #C2007-047A in Comal County, 274th Judicial District, Judge Gary Steel.

Instead of providing Kevin and Jasmine Butt with legal representation reflecting “allegiance, learning, skill and industry and employment of all appropriate legal means to protect and advance the client’s legitimate right, claims and objectives,” Barron Casteel entwined the Plaintiffs in a conflicted torment of illegal actions, while Casteel & Casteel, Pllc Attys violated laws and rules on an unethical path of Barratry and Professional Misconduct. By obligating the Plaintiffs on 5/1/2007 (one day after the Home Sale’s Closing was aborted) to the absurd, frivolous Lawsuit without ever having investigated the allegations that I had “failed to make comprehensive REPAIRS TO MY HOMES FOUNDATION,” required by Foundation Expert Reports that the Plaintiffs had procured but never revealed to me, the American Title Property Insurer or the Wells Fargo lender, the malpracticing attorney, Barron Casteel, entrapped the Plaintiffs in a Lawsuit they could not win in a Court of Law.

Such an absurd Lawsuit alleged damages of $100, 000 and much more (not for the serious foundation problems which the Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel were unlawfully concealing) but for Breach of Contract due to Barron Casteel’s fabrication of Plaintiffs “loss of rents” and the huge “attorney fees” accumulated by Barron Casteel over the two year period of the fraudulent Lawsuit would have cost the Plaintiffs tens of thousands of dollars in Barratry and Professional Misconduct and, more heinously, a Jury may have found the Plaintiffs guilty on fraud charges and a judge sentenced them to imprisonment, had the Case had been decided by a Jury Trial. The Plaintiffs made the disgraceful mistake of continuing to perjure themselves on multiple Documents promulgated by Barron Casteel; so that they were fearful of failing to go along with Barron Casteel, and Judge Gary L. Steel in the Forced Sale of my Home in the fraudulent real estate scam.

It did not matter to Judge Gary L. Steel that one of the Plaintiffs, Jasmine Butt, had failed to sign the Affidavit pertaining to the makeshift Summary Judgment (which contained only lies); only Kevin Butt signed as the sole Plaintiff. The unethical Judge Steel decided that I must pay what Barron Casteel falsely wrote that I owed as “damages” in the false Summary Judgment while I had no attorney representing me. The deceitfully revised Summary Judgment required that I pay tens of thousands of dollars in damages for undisclosed repairs to my home (when the walk-thru by the Mediated Settlement had listed no necessary repairs) and for Barron Casteel’s attorney fees for the frivolous Lawsuit (when the second Mediation had called for me to pay only $760 to him).

On the day of the forced Closing, March 22, 2009, Acie McAda, attorney for 1st American Title Company, knew well that the Plaintiffs and Barron Casteel had concealed information about the property’s serious foundation deficiencies, and the unrepaired “walk-thru” items that were never listed or shown to me, as the Seller, or acknowledged as repaired to my own satisfaction, as the Seller. The Wells Fargo Lender understood that there was a long-standing (costly) Lawsuit that had not been settled in a Court Setting but that my home was inauspiciously removed from my own possession on January 22nd, 2009.

Michael Morris signed at the Closing with my Power of Attorney but I have not ever given my pledge to Confidentiality in The Matter of the Fraud (and I will not do so). Mr. Morris carefully wrote into our Legal Services Contract, that although he noted the Misconduct and Malpractice in the actions of the attorneys and the Court, he further stated that I must not misconstrue that he would also purse those Matters for me, as well, if The Motion for a New Trial failed. Mr. Morris told me that his small firm could not afford to alienate a “sitting judge” or those named Comal County attorneys who he relied on for his business referrals.

On the day of the forced Closing, March 22, 2009, the attorneys, Barron Casteel and Acie Craig McAda, removed the rules on the American Title Insurance Company Forms that Michael Morris required so that when I take the real estate fraud to a Civil and/or Criminal Trial in the future, there will be no requirement that we compromise out-of-court and without a Jury Trial. Although Barron Casteel and Acie

98 |

Craig McAda knew well that their unlawful actions to FORCE me to sell my home with a Deficient Title would be the basis for multiple, future Lawsuits, and possible threat of imprisonment for the Plaintiffs, (parents of young, twin boys) the two disgraceful lawyers sat silent in professional misconduct according to Michael Morris, the attorney who I had been forced to give my Power of Attorney to for the purpose of the Forced Sale of my home to the corrupt Plaintiffs and their malpracticing attorney, Barron Casteel. Because I would not be able to sit quietly in a proceeding which I knew would result in such great future harm to the Plaintiffs (who had the misfortune of trusting – to the point of perjury - such a corrupt attorney as Barron Casteel is), I did not attend the Forced Closing on March 22nd, 2009.

d) Subsequent to Ray’s resignation, no “Special Administrative Counsel position” exists at the State Bar of Texas - so no one is responsible for answering inquiries from Complainants who want to know why their Grievances were dismissed. Approximately the time that Mr. Stanley submitted the PETITION, BODA’s Jackie Truitt, in contempt of THE SUPREME COURT MANDATES that requires a Complainant must receive a full explanation on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint ” began conducting “secret conferences for BODA” which have a sole purpose of denying Grievance “writings” without explanation or investigation.

BODA’s Jackie Truitt (whose Texas State Bar Card number, if any, is unavailable), sends out “standard Notices of Appeal Received” to the Complainants and to Respondents, indicating that 3 BODA Members will meet in a “(secret) conference;” no hearing is held - to review the “writing” with no other information. Respondents do not receive a copy of the Grievance “writing” unless and until CDC determines “just cause.” Respondents are warned by BODA’s Jackie Truitts letter - “not send additional information concerning the grievance” – yet Respondents have no idea what the Grievance indicates!

It is apparent that BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman does know that BODA is NOT authorized to assemble a Panel of BODA Members in any concentrated effort to “deny,” “complete,” “close,” Complainants’ Grievances, and give improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.” But, that simple understanding does NOT humiliate BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman; she abstains from implicating herself in an act in opposition to The Supreme Court of Texas rules by ordering others, for example, Jackie Truitt, to act in contempt of The Supreme Court of Texas’ Mandates.

If the Grievance “writing” is DENIED and DISMISSED, per THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Rules, the Complainant deserves a full explanation of why the Grievance “writing” does not meet the CDC’s definition of attorney misconduct as described in the TDRPC. Disgracefully, BODA’s Executive Assistant, Jackie Truitt, under the supervision of BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman, disregards any directive from THE SUPREME COURT that demands a Complainant has a Right to Grieve Misconduct, amend any grievance denied by BODA, and appeal CDC’s re-determinations of Amendments.

Prior to CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray’s voluntary withdrawal of her license to practice law and from the TX State Bar on April 10th, 2015, she degraded public trust of the State Bar of Texas to an intolerable, low (opinion) by making incongruous and overtly untrue “answers’ to Complainants who wanted to know why their Grievance “writings” were DENIED and DISMISSED as “inconsequential inquiries” without any explanation or investigation. Subsequent to CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray’s hurried exodus as a Member of the Bar, State Bar employees who are Members of the Texas State Bar are fearful of making absurd “explanations” to Complainants and facing their own punishment of forced “voluntary withdrawal” from the Texas State Bar.

In fact, without the “protection” of Maureen E. Ray’s absurd, impudent “answers” sent to denied Complainants on State Bar of Texas Letterhead, CDC and BODA attorneys who are members of the State Bar of Texas, forgo any explanation; sometimes will not even sign their names on the “standard” letters they send out to deny Complainants and refuse to read, classify or make any record of Grievances sent to the CDC! I have received two Grievances back, my full packages of “writings” and conclusive documentation – never read – and with NO CLASSIFICATION. I have two (2) received CDC’s “Multiple Grievances” letter (without any Respondent Attorney’s name noted anywhere on CDC’s letter) in which CDC refuses to read, classify, or even make a record of the Grievance “writing!”

99 |

Although I have steadfastly returned the Grievances against Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel, and complained to Claire Mock, spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas; CDC’s Linda A. Acevedo, BODA Executive Director & General Counsel Christine E. McKeeman; BODA Chair Marvin W. Jones; GOC Chair Catherine Wylie, CLD Chair Guy Harrison, many CDC employees; and to THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS’ Nina Hess Hsu, General Counsel; and The Honorable Jeffrey V. Brown, Texas State Supreme Court Liaison; to date, both Grievances (against Barron Casteel and Carter Casteel) have gone UNCLASSIFIED.

(i.) Under the “authority” of Marvin W. Jones, BODA’s Chair for 2014-2015, and per “BODA’S REPORT FOR 2015” a “new PROCEDURE FOR AN APPEAL FROM A GRIEVANCE DISMISSAL” defies Constitutional statutes.

The “new procedure” is administered by Jackie Truitt, Executive Assistant, BODA who is an office manager and not a member of the State Bar of Texas. BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman orders BODA’s Executive Assistant, Jackie Truitt, to send out “standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members.” The assemblage will purportedly review a Grievance “writing” DENIED and DISMISSED by CDC as “an inconsequential inquiry,” for accuracy of CDC’s Inquiry classification. Preposterously, CDC Truitt- led examinations are held in “(secret) conference” and – do NOT allow any input from the Respondent Attorney who has not even read the Grievance “writing,” NOR PARTICIPATION from the Complainant other than the contribution of the Grievance “writing,”(alone).

BODA’s Executive Assistant Truitt’s “standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members” misspells the word “Disciplinary” in the phrase “Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas” and insists that the three (3) Member BODA team will “decide” whether the “appeal alleges” a violation of the TDRPC; no hearing is held.” Ms. Truitt absurdly cautions the Grievance Complainant to send no more information because “only material that CDC already reviewed” when CDC denied the Grievance as an “inconsequential inquiry,” will be reviewed – AGAIN - by three (3) BODA Member. The “standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members” states in bold type: “Please do not send any additional information concerning the grievance to the Board.

BODA’s Executive Assistant Truitt’s “standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members” does provide a “courtesy copy” to the Respondent Attorney. However, because the Grievance “writing” has only been classified as an “inconsequential Inquiry,” and not ever a “Complaint,” the Respondent Attorney must be very bewildered because the attorney has not ever been provided with a copy of the Grievance “writing.” Dishonorably, in the first paragraph, BODA’s Executive Assistant Truitt’s official notice on BODA Letterhead declares in bold print: “The attorney does not need to respond or take any action at this time unless contacted to do so.”

If the attorney had any fear of discipline for professional misconduct by the State Bar of Texas, it might be alarming to the Respondent Attorney that three (3) anonymous BODA members will consider only the Complainant’s Grievance “writing” and, then, make a decision whether the Grievance “writing” describes professional misconduct per the definition of the TDRPC. No doubt in all cases, the disgruntled Client has explicitly told the lawyer all about the contents (involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation) of the Grievance “writing” previously over the telephone or in face-to-face meetings and has discharged the attorney in anger in many cases.

BODA’s Executive Assistant, Jackie Truitt’s and the three (3) BODA members purport an unconstitutional “endorsement from the Supreme Court” to make a “FINAL DECISION” – whether or not an attorney will be disciplined for professional misconduct as defined in the TDRPC - only upon the Grievance “writing” with no other information; and can send a FINAL DECISION NOTICE to both the Complainant and Respondent Attorney after their “(secret) conference.” Providing no Due Process of Law to either the Complainant or the Respondent Attorney, BODA’s Executive Assistant Truitt’s “standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members” (with the word disciplinary spelled wrong in the first paragraph), ridiculously commands in the last sentence of the two (2) paragraph letter: “We will notify both parties in writing of the Board’s decision.”

100 |

(ii.) On October 15th, 2014, I received my first “Notice of Appeal Received” letters, RE: “Debbie G. Asbury v. Adam Alden Campbell, 20145100; BODA Case No 5513534 noting on the top “The BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS – APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS” and signed by Christine E. McKeeman’s Executive Assistant, Jackie Truitt, whose Texas State Bar Card number (if any) is unavailable.

Before October 15th, 2014, the Respondent Attorney, Adam Alden Campbell, may not have known that I had filed a Grievance on August 19th, 2014, (although I told him explicitly I would do so on June 30th, 2014 when I officially discharged him). But, CDC denied my Grievance “writing,” giving no explanation of the DENIAL and DISMISSAL. I had been advised by the CDC that there would be no further investigation of the “inconsequential inquiry.” Attorney Campbell had not even received a copy of the CDC “standard Denial Notice” dated September 4th, 2014. Respondent Attorney Campbell did not know that there was an Appeal of the Grievance DENIAL and DISMISSAL until the October 15th, 2014 letter from BODA’s Executive Assistant Jackie Truitt (who is not an attorney and member of the State Bar).

It must have really been confusing to attorney Campbell to get the October 15th, 2014 “Notice of Appeal Received” when attorney Campbell had never been sent a copy of the Grievance “writing” before. However, perhaps he knew he did something unprofessional because just after I discharged attorney Campbell “for cause” on June 30 th , 2014 , he was forced to leave his position at the firm, “Jodie Head Lopez and Associates, P.C. and went “solo” out of his home in Marion, TX.

iii. The January 8th, 2015 “Notice of Appeal Received” may be in regard to an Amendment I filed to the Grievance “writing” on December 8th, 2014 which was never reviewed by CDC because BODA had already DENIED and DISMISSED the Grievance “writing” (i.e., irrevocably denied “denied”, “complete,” “closed” and “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision”) on November 19 th , 2014 . I am only guessing that BODA’s Ms. Truitt required the BODA three (3) Board Member Panel to read the Original Grievance of August 19 th , 2014 “writing” against Adam Alden Campbell AGAIN because CDC had steadfastly refused to consider the December 8th, 2014 Amendment.

The “Notices of Appeal Received” are exactly identical except for the Dates and BODA’s categorizing information; October 15th, 2014 indicates “201405100; BODA Case No. 55135” but the January 8th, 201535 Truitt letter indicates “201407486; BODA Case No. 55572.” The “Notice of Appeal Received” letters are in complete opposition to Regulations emanating from The Supreme Court of Texas and, even more absurdly, conflict with Constitutional Rights of both Complainants’ and Respondent Attorneys’ Rights to Due Process of Law. Is it not preposterous that – in the three (3) months since the October 15 th, 2014 – neither BODA’s Truitt or the BODA (who are charged with determining whether my “writing” describes professional misconduct per the TDRPC for necessary Discipline per the TRDP ) members had noticed the misspelling of the word “disciplinary ” on the “standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members” - and sent me a second identical letter! I am certain that any Respondent Attorney who has received just one of these letters just disregarded it. Respondent Attorney Campbell – upon receiving the second such letter - must have laughed and thought he need not have any concern about discipline from the dysfunctional State Bar Grievance System.

In simple terms, Christine E. McKeeman, Executive Director & General Counsel of BODA, has asserted “an authority” that BODA has not been provided by The Supreme Court of Texas, i.e., to make any secret adverse determination against my Grievance against Adam Alden Campbell filed on August 19 th , 2014 and the Amended Grievance filed on December 8 th , 2014. Additionally, Executive Director & General 34Attached is BODA’s Executive Assistant’s Jackie Truitt’s ““standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members,” dated October 15th, 2014, RE: Debbie G. Asbury v. Adam Alden Campbell, 201405100; BODA Case No. 55135 which was mailed to me five (5) days after BODA’s receipt (October 10th, 2014) of my Notice of Appeal of CDC’s classification of my Grievance as an “inconsequential inquiry.” Note the misspelling: “disciplanary” counsel.35 Attached is BODA’s Executive Assistant’s Jackie Truitt’s ““standard Notices of an assembly of three (3) BODA Members,” (misspelling disciplinary - as “disciplanary”) dated January 8th, 2015, RE: Debbie G. Asbury v. Adam Alden Campbell, 201407486; BODA Case No. 55172 a “Notice of Appeal Received” signed by BODA’s Executive Assistant to Christine E. McKeeman, Jackie Truitt, although I had filed an Amendment to case --- not a “new Grievance;” as indicated by the January 8th, 2015 “standard Notice.”

101 |

Counsel McKeeman absurdly contends that BODA, can lawfully make clandestine pronouncements about the respondent attorney Campbell’s Professional Misconduct without respecting Due Process of Law, including: Proper Notice; for example; a full copy of my Grievance against Adam Alden Campbell filed on August

19 th , 2014 and the Amended Grievance filed on December 8 th , 2014 must be provided to the respondent attorney.

An opportunity for respondent attorney Campbell to deliver his response to both CDC and to me (the Complainant) within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice after having read my Grievance filed on August 19 th , 2014 and the Amended Grievance filed on December 8 th , 2014 ,

( iv.) With no further notices from Executive Assistant Jackie Truitt and the three (3) BODA Members,BODA’ s Executive Director & General Counsel, Christine E. McKeeman, FINALLY “denied,” “completed,” “closed,” and gave improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision,” after each of the “(secret) conferences.”

The violations of THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Rule are clear to any reasonably intelligent and prudent person to comprehend:

BODA’s “standard Appeal Denial Notice,” dated November 19 th , 2014, does NOT provide me with information describing my Right to file an Amendment. However, my letter to BODA’s Executive Director & General Counsel, dated December 8th, 2014, expressed my notification of my filing of an Amendment within the 20 day time limit provided by TRDP, Section 2.10.

CDC REFUSED review of my Amendment; irrevocably DENIED by BODA on November 19th, 2014. BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel McKeeman apparently back-dated the improper “Appeal

Denial Notice” to a the prior year (February 13th, 2014)” because the first part of the Denial Notice states: “Dear Ms. Asbury: On February 12 th , 2015 , the Board of Disciplinary Appeals appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas considered your appeal from the dismissal”…the Board affirms the dismissal….. “denied,” “complete,” …“closed,” … “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.”

Without any explanation , investigation, Right to Amend, and Appeal BODA’s obviously wrong “ determinations, ” a Complainant is sent a BODA Notice and EACH “inquiry classification” becomes FINAL (denied,” “completed,” “closed,” and given improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision”) without the Texas State Bar ever conducting any investigation based on the “writing,” and never providing any explanation to the Complainant why Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation are not a violation of the TDRPC.

102 |

September 29th, 2014, “PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF,” Marc R. Stanley, page 12 …. “It is puzzling why the one body charged under the Court’s Rules with being the check on the Chief

Disciplinary Counsel in this crucial respect has gone along with the same unwritten exceptions in the Rules. That is, regrettably, the definition of a systemic failure. The current grievance system has been in effect, with some modifications, since 1991. As often occurs, institutions and the people who managed them become complacent over time and the rules that once meant something are gradually degraded as those institutions and people realize no one is watching.

Under the “authority” of offensive State Bar Officials and Appointees, the atty disciplinary system has broken down irretrievably. Violation of THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS’ Rules renders the lawyer discipline system unconstitutional and discriminatory; without any purpose but to conceal Misconduct.

Statutory Rules provide Complainants with Grievance & Amendment Rights, Proper Notice & Appeal Rights.

CDC and BODA inanely “misinterpret” Statutes which pertain ONLY to “preliminary screening decisions.”

Complainants and Respondents have a Right to Appeal CDC’s “determinations” to BODA, except for the case of preliminary screening dismissals (which were never appealed by Complainants within 30 days after “intake.”) Such “writings” were never provided to Respondent for a reply. Therefore, it would be senseless to APPEAL to BODA. “Preliminary screening dismissals, i.e., “Inquiry Dismissals” have no res judicata effect. If a Complainant files a new Grievance after a 30 day Appeal Period has ended, the original Grievance has no res judicata effect. A Grievance “writing” alleging barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or other Misconduct must be classified as a Complaint. Per TRDP 2.10, Respondent is sent a copy and given notice to respond in writing to Complaint allegations. Respondent must deliver the response to both CDC and the Complainant within 30 days. 1. If no “just cause” is determined by CDC after an investigation of both sides of the Complaint, CDC must provide a full explanation to each Complainant on dismissal of Complaint per TX GV. Code, Section 81.072 (b) (2). CDC’s Proper Dismissal Notice must provide a Complainant’s Right to Appeal to BODA within 30 days of receipt of CDC’s Notice of Dismissal of a Complaint. If a Complainant Appeals, a district grievance committee panel shall conduct a hearing, inclusive of Complainant and Respondent Atty. A panel can dismiss the Complaint to CAAP with judgments (if any); or find Misconduct occurred and impose sanctions, and/or compulsory discipline. A Complaint cannot be FINALLY DISMISSED by CDC until Complainant has been fully accorded Right to Due Process: adequate notice, hearing, and judge who will NOT discriminate against either side.

If a biased CDC investigator “determines” there is not sufficient evidence provided by Complainant,” CDC wrongfully “determines” there is “no just cause.” By CDC’s own “exception to The Court’s Rules” in TX GV. Code 81.072 (d),” CDC’s Summary Dispos. Panel “votes” to dismiss the Complaint (void of Sanctions or Discipline), disregarding that the Grievance which was determined by CDC and BODA as a Complaint; i.e., describes barratry, dishonesty; i.e., Misconduct. Per a misguided notion, CDC purports that a “Summary Disp. Panel” is “allowed” by its own “authority” to DISMISS DISCIPLINE in cases “DENIED” due to “insufficient evidence unwritten exceptions.” CDC calls for a biased ex parte CDC Summary Dispos. Panel conference (closed to the Complainant and Respondent) to summarily dismiss cases. By tagging Files “Confidential,” and nonconforming ex parte CDC “DISMISSALS,” CDC contends “an authority” to supersede Due Process! CDC’s “Summary Disp. Panel” does NOT provide a full explanation on Dismissal; nor does it obey Statutes that require CDC’s provision of Notice of Complainant’s Right to Appeal Dismissals to BODA (other than screening dismissals which were never appealed by Complainants within 30 days after “intake”- because such “writings” were never provided to Respondent). Contemptibly, CDC provides a false “Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notice” that FINALLY “denies,” “completes,” … and misstates “there is no Appeal from Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.” Pointlessness of CDC’s investigation for “Summary Disposition Panels” is exemplified by CDC’s & BODA’s “classification of a writing” alleging barratry, dishonesty, fraud, etc. as a Complaint; but

103 |

If the Complainant chooses NOT to Appeal to BODA within 30 days of CDC’s Proper Notice of Dismissal, CDC assembles a Summary Disposition Panel to consider “FINAL DISMISSAL” at a closed hearing without Complainant or Respondent present. 2. If “just cause” is determined by CDC’s investigation, per TX GV. Code, Section 81.075, a Respondent can Appeal to BODA within 30 days; or choose a CLD Evidentiary Panel; or District Court.

subsequently applying an “arbitrary exception” that CDC need not provide Discipline if the Complainant has NOT provided “sufficient evidence” as defined by a discriminatory CDC.” One-sided CDC “FINAL DISMISSALS” occur without either Sanction or Compulsory Discipline of Respondent Atty, while at the same time, CDC advises the Respondent how to have any and all Record of the Complainant’s Grievance EXPUNGED.

a) CDC’s “investigations” of Complaints (in which Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation described in the Grievance “writing” have been determined by CDC’s classification process to constitute Professional Misconduct as defined in TDRPC) are required by Statute, TX GV. Code, Section 81.072 (b) (1); but CDC’s one-sided “investigations” are mockery of justice, with compulsive prejudice toward discharging the Respondent from any sanction or discipline. While at the same time advising the Respondent how to have any and all Record of the Grievance EXPUNGED, CDC improperly asserts that a Complaint can be “FINALLY DISMISSED” at CDC’s arbitrary discretion, (with the full collusion of CLD, BODA and GOC) without:

A full explanation, and provision of Notice/Right to Appeal to BODA adverse determinations - other than preliminary screening decisions made without ever sending the Grievance to Respondent.

A Hearing inclusive of the Complainant and Respondent (using procedural rules under Texas Law.) Any Provision for Judgment, Sanction or Compulsory Discipline of the Respondent Attorney per

Mandate in TX Govt. Code, § 81.072. GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES.

CDC’s misconstrues a “reference” which CDC purports permits CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel to make a FINAL DETERMINATION that a Texas State Bar member (who has a Complaint filed against him/her for Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation or other professional misconduct), can go without any sanction, discipline of any kind or disbarment. CDC purposely misinterprets TRDP 2.13.xxvii CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, and GOC’s obviously erroneous confusion is in direct opposition to the intent of The Supreme Court of Texas Mandate that the State Bar of Texas provide Disciplinary Authority. CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, and GOC’s absurdly blatant error renders the rule governing a Summary Disposition Hearing, which are conducted without the presence of the Complainant or the Respondent Attorney, as unconstitutional.

Within the paragraph of TRDP 2.13 “Summary Disposition Setting” are three sentences that CDC seizes upon which CDC disgracefully concludes allow CDC’s “authority” to make judgments and determinations that are in complete opposition all other statutory mandates and rules dictating nondiscriminatory and just Grievance procedures.

TRDP 2.13. “…..At the Summary Disposition Panel docket, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel will present the Complaint together with any information, documents, evidence, and argument deemed necessary and appropriate by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, without the presence of the Complainant or Respondent. The Summary Disposition Panel shall determine whether the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed. If the Summary Disposition Panel dismisses the Complaint, both the Complainant and Respondent will be so notified. There is no appeal from a determination by the Summary

104 |

....”Petitioner asked specific questions, including… “Is the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office applying a standard for reviewing grievances that is other than that provided by Texas Law (i.e., the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure)? For example, is the Chief Disciplinary Counsel taking the position that it gets to “guess” about the ultimate outcome of a grievance rather than follow the procedural rules under Texas Law? If so, under whose authority has that important decision been made? Marc R. Stanley, Petition for Administrative Relief, dated September 29th, 2014, page 8.

Disposition Panel that the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed….”

CDC’s attorneys evidence double-dealing in “investigations” that are a humiliation to The State Bar of Texas and The Supreme Court of Texas. While CDC’s attorneys have given their Lawyers Oath to support The Constitution of the United States and The Texas Constitution; CDC’s Executive Attorneys, staff attorneys, and appointees and State Bar Officials have banded together in a profoundly unconstitutional effort to prohibit Grievance Complainants from their Constitutional Right to Due Process: adequate notice, hearing, and a neutral judge who will NOT discriminate against either side.

CDC disgracefully ignores the contextual meaning of TRDP 2.13, and misinterprets that CDC can “use three sentences in the Rule” as their “authority” that CDC attorney can conduct one-sided investigations and make “DISMISSAL DETERMINATION” (behind closed doors) that FINALLY “deny,” “complete,” “close” and give improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.”

The duplicitous CDC attorneys mock The Constitution of the United States and The Texas Constitution by obtusely reading TRDP 2.13 to allow that CDC can proceed to dishonestly FINALLY DISMISS Complaints. The State Bar of Texas’ noncompliant group of Appointees, State Bar Officials, Executive and staff attorneys, allow a “guess” about the ultimate outcome of a grievance while evidencing an extreme bias favoring the Respondent Attorney; and without provision of Due Process of Law or any rightful protections accorded to Grievance Complainants by The Supreme Court of Texas.

(i.) CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, and GOC’s desperation to keep the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney from each presenting their cases, including information, documents, evidence, and argument deemed necessary and appropriate, at an Evidentiary Hearing with a neutral judge is confirmation of the State Bar’s efforts to conceal Attorney Misconduct and which stands starkly in contrast to The Lawyer’s Oath provided in each annual Report of the CLD.

(ii.) CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, and GOC’s abject failure to provide Due Process of Law to Complainants before a FINAL DISMISSAL of a Complaint and the State Bar’s anxious fixation – above all else - to discharge Respondent Attorneys from sanction or discipline is certainly a divergence from The Oath of Grievance Oversight Committee (GOC) Members and BODA Members.

(iii.) CDC’s unregulated, desultory Complaint “investigations” and prohibition of Complainant’s Constitutional Rights by CDC’s lawyers are a mockery to the laudable remarks regarding CDC’s “critical role

105 |

The Lawyer ’s Oath “On my oath I will support the constitutions of the United States and this State; honestly demean myself in the practice of law; discharge my duty to my client to the best of my ability; and conduct myself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.” — V.T.C.A., Government Code §82.037

Oath of Grievance Oversight Committee Members and BODA Members: As soon as possible after appointment, each newly appointed member of a Committee shall take the following oath to be administered by any person authorized by law to administer oaths:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute my duties as a member of the District grievance committee, as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Texas. I further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will keep secret all such matters and things as shall come to my knowledge as a member of the grievance committee arising from or in connection with each Disciplinary Action and Disciplinary Proceeding, unless permitted to disclose the same in accordance with the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, or unless ordered to do so in the course of a judicial proceeding or a proceeding before the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. I further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have neither directly nor indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed any money or valuable thing, or promised any public or private office to secure my appointment. So help me God." TRDP 2.05 — and TRDP 7.04

in the discipline system…..Professional responsibility and public protection are priorities of the State Bar of Texas…” made on Page 2 of The 2015 Report of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (6/1/14-5/31/15).

b) CDC’s jumbled disorder in misinterpreting TRDP 2.13 can be explained by CDC’s thinly veneered main goal: to obstruct justice in the Disciplinary Program; by conducting one-sided CDC “FINAL DISMISSALS”, resulting in neither Sanction nor Compulsory Discipline of Respondent Atty, while at the same time, advising the Respondent Atty how to have any and all Record of the Complainant’s Grievance EXPUNGED.

(i.) To demonstrate the deleterious effects of CDC’s improper denials of Complaints to proper administration of justice, I refer to CDC’s unlawfull DENIAL and DISMISSAL of the Complaint Donald R. Courtney – Scott Harold James ,36 I have attached:

copies of Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M Beckage’s “standard denial Notice” dated March 12th, 2015, and BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman’s notice dated May 14th, 2015 that Mr. Courtney’s Grievance alleges “a possible violation” of TDRPC Rules 1.03 and 1.14,

CDC’s “standard Denial Notice/Summary Disposition Panel,” dated December 17th, 2015, signed by CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Rebecca (Beth) Stevens, which was provided to the

36 I have attached copy of Assistant Disciplinary Counsel S.M Beckage’s “standard denial Notice” dated March 12th, 2015, which exhibits an “unwritten exception” that a Grievance can be DENIED and DISMISSED for “not enough evidence.” Also, BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman’s notice dated May 14th, 2015 that Mr. Courtney’s Grievance alleges “a possible violation” of TDRPC Rules 1.03 and 1.14 and (attached is) a “standard Denial Notice/Summary Disposition Panel” from CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Rebecca (Beth) Stevens, provided to Donald R. Courtney, dated December 17th, 2015, Re: 201501048 - DENYING and DISMISSING the Grievance for “not enough evidence” provided (by Complainant) of violations of TDRPC Rules 1.02 and 1.14. Yet, Mr. Courtney presented conclusive evidence and full documentation that was disregarded as “inconsequential” to the Respondent Attorney by Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Rebecca (Beth) Stevens.

Attached is the Grievance Form – Amendment, RE 201501048 – Donald R. Courtney – Scott Harold James, dated January 5th, 2016. The Complainant is appealing CDC’s unjust and unexplained determination that CDC can find no just cause that Scott Harold James committed professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC. Also attached is the Grievance Form for Donald R. Courtney – Richard A. Dodd, dated January 8th, 2016. Richard A. Dodd never signed the Contract with another attorney, Scott Harold James, but there is evidence that the two attorneys are currently equally sharing the proceeds from the unauthorized sale of Donald R. Courtney’s property..

106 |

“The Commission provides oversight to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and administers the attorney discipline system. The Commission works closely with the State Bar Board of Directors and makes quarterly reports to the board on the administrative functions…issues affecting the grievance process. State Bar directors play a critical role in the discipline system as they recommend both lawyers and non-lawyers to the State Bar president for appointment to local grievance committees. Professional responsibility and public protection are priorities of the State Bar of Texas, and oversight, funding, and support of the disciplinary system is in the best interest of all Texas attorneys as they provide ethical representation to their clients…..”

Marc R. Stanley’s “Petition for Administrative Relief” dated September 29th, 2014, page 10, footnote 20 “It is unclear whether Ms. Ray understands the difference between compulsory discipline imposed when a lawyer has been convicted of a “serious crime” and the operation of the regular review process that imposes sanctions for violating Rules, such as Rule 8.04. Ms. Ray is a long-time employee of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office so it is doubtful that this difference is not well-known to her; however, if it is not, then her training for this job has been

Complainant, Donald R. Courtney, DENYING and DISMISSING “201501048 – Donald R. Courtney – Scott Harold James due to insufficient evidence because:

“there is no just cause to believe that the above named lawyer has committed professional misconduct”

Respondent Scott Harold James defrauded Mr. Courtney in a scheme of gross fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation. Without consulting with Mr. Courtney, attorney James obtained property appraisals and sold off property owned by Mr. Courtney for much less than he would accept and without his approval or authority. When Mr. Courtney refused to accept a sum for a pittance offered to him as a “settlement,” attorney James kept funds and refused to return phone calls of Mr. Courtney.

Law firm partners of Scott Harold James refused to accept Mr. Courtney’s calls, telling Mr. Courtney that Scott Harold James left the law firm and began a “solo” practice. Scott Harold James no longer has a phone number listed on the Internet at which he can be reached; one must contact him by email.

The attorney, Scott Harold James, lied about Mr. Courtney in statements made to the State Bar of Texas’s CDC investigator. Respondent Attorney James failed to communicate with Mr. Courtney about his case and deceived a Courtroom Judge that he had Mr. Courtney’s agreement to sell the property. Scott Harold James failed to hold funds in a separate account and has stolen as much as $60,000 from Mr. Courtney. Scott Harold James made misrepresentations and stole his land away. Mr. Courtney has repeatedly described Barratry, Fraud, Misrepresentation and Malicious Representation in his Grievance and to Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Rebecca (Beth) Stevens who disregarded Mr. Courtney’s responses to the lies told by Respondent Attorney James.

Mr. Courtney has never signed Documents of the Sale; or agreed to allow (Scanes, Routh & James) SRJ or (Cappolino, Dodd & Krebs) CDK to charge him the contingent fee – described in the Legal Contract that was not ever signed by Richard A. Dodd. Mr. Courtney contends that, currently, SRJ and CDK are charging off expenses (“for long distance telephone use, photocopying, court costs, certified copies, mileage and other travel expenses and other expense items”) that they may have incurred in connection with their misrepresentation. However, Mr. Courtney has never seen any “proof” of expenses, for example; invoices; he has never agree to pay either SRJ or CDK for any “services” that resulted in his loss of his real property and great financial loss.

Mr. Courtney explained to me that, while he provided comprehensive evidence and documentation that Scott Harold James’ Contract did not allow that Respondent attorney James could accept any “settlement offer” without presentation of an appraisal of the property and the signed approval of Mr. Courtney, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Stevens told Mr. Courtney over the telephone that Scott Harold James (and James’ wife) told CDC that Mr. Courtney gave verbal approval to accept the settlement offer. Mr. Courtney was never given any explanation of why the evidence and documentation, for example; but not limited to a copy of the SRJ and CDK contract fee agreement dated February 3, 2011;37 that he provided was NOT a consideration of CDC when CDC presented evidence of “NO JUST CAUSE” to the Summary Disposition Panel; but that attorney James’ unproven statements that he had “verbal approval to accept a settlement offer” were sufficient to the Summary Disposition Panel so that the Complaint was dismissed with no disciplinary consequence to Scott Harold James.

On December 17th, 2015, CDC’s “standard Denial Notice/Summary Disposition Panel,” summarily removed all Rights to Property that had been in Mr. Courtney’s family for generations. Contemptibly, the CDC asserts:

“In accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, following this determination by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel your complaint was presented to a Summary Disposition Panel of District 8 Grievance Committee. The Panel has voted to dismiss the complaint. Please know that the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel maintains confidentiality in the grievance process as directed by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

37 Attached is a fee arrangement dated February 3rd, 2011 with SRJ and CDK and letter signed by Donald Russel Courtney and notarized on February 7th, 2011

107 |

Although there is no appeal of the Panel’s decision to dismiss your grievance, the State Bar of Texas maintains the Client-Attorney Assistance Program (CAAP),…. CAAP is not a continuation of the attorney disciplinary process, and participation by both you and your attorney is voluntary.”

(ii.) Donald R. Courtney would have been better off in pursuing SRJ and CDK without any “help” from CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Rebecca (Beth) Stevens but the Respondent is rewarded by being completely exonerated of any “wrongdoing” by the DENIAL and DISMISSAL of Mr. Courtney’s Complaint.

Although SRJ and CDK are holding perhaps as much as $60,000 from the ONCOR Electric Power Line Easement/Condemnation Matter, Mr. Courtney has been denied Due Process of Law on the Matter and has been deceived by the contemptible “standard Denial Notice/Summary Disposition Panel,” that he has NO Appeal Rights. CDC has FINALLY DENIED and DISMISSED his case (regardless of the fact that CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Stevens knows well that SRJ and CDK still have perhaps as much as $60,000 from the malpractice). CDC’s only offered explanation to Mr. Courtney is that the “(secret) conference” was made by a Summary Disposition Panel that Mr. Courtney has not provided “sufficient evidence of the crime” that was committed against Mr. Courtney; but will not explain why the Contract dated February 3 rd, 2011 is NOT “sufficient evidence.”

Appallingly Donald R. Courtney’s only civil remedy against the Respondent Attorney has been lost to him in the unfair Grievance process but Scott Harold James, SRJ and CDK have gotten away with Misconduct as defined by TDRPC and will continue to deceive Texas Clients at will. The Respondent can apply for EXPUNCTION of the very fact of the Grievance filing. Scott Harold James will experience no effect whatsoever from Mr. Courtney’s Complaint filing. EXPUNCTION is described in TRDP 2.13:

“The fact that a Complaint was placed on the Summary Disposition Panel Docket and not dismissed is wholly inadmissible for any purpose in the instant or any subsequent Disciplinary Proceeding or Disciplinary Action. Files of dismissed Disciplinary Proceedings will be retained for one hundred eighty days, after which time the files may be destroyed. No permanent record will be kept of Complaints dismissed except to the extent necessary for statistical reporting purposes.”

I have helped Donald R. Courtney file an Appeal to BODA within thirty (30) days of improperly the improperly DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance. I have also helped Mr. Courtney to file a Grievance against Richard A. Dodd of CDK (attached per footnote 36). Per #10 of the SRJ Client Retention Policy, Mr. Courtney has requested his ENTIRE File from SRJ and CDK.

c) How absurd it is that the State Bar of Texas’ CDC speculates by their promulgation of the “Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures,” that statutory laws would be inclined to favor a Respondent Attorney’s “verbal allegations” denying Professional Misconduct over the Complainant’s demonstrated loss of important rights, and/or assets and property which the Complainant’s allegations contend were due to the Respondent Attorney’s Professional Misconduct in a Complaint!

CDC’s conception of the “supremacies of a Summary Disposition Panel” evidence CDC’s oblique misinterpretation of TRDP 2.13 to mean that CDC (upon no statutory authority but their own “unwritten exception”) can be excluded from any provisions of the Due Process of Law Clause and need NOT call for a Hearing including the presence of both the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney prior to the “FINAL DISMISSAL of a Complaint.”

Disgracefully, CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel are called by CDC to “VOTE” to DENY and DISMISS Complaints without the presence of the Complainant or the Respondent Attorney. Each standard “standard Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notice” warns the Complainant that a DISMISSAL is FINAL and contains an ominous WARNING of stringent application of CDC’s misperception of “Rules of Confidentiality.” CDC’s “standard Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notice” claims an “authority” to obstruct justice by concealing evidences in a (“secret” confidential CLOSED FILE) until EXPUNGEMENT.

CDC’s false “standard Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notice” that FINALLY “denies,” “completes,” “closes,” and gives improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Summary Disposition Panel’s decision” is nothing but an unlawful ruse of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial

108 |

Procedures. Any such misconception by CDC that the TRDP can or would EVER provide a “safe harbor” for CDC’s impropriety of failing to provide a full investigation of and compulsory discipline to attorneys who misconduct themselves can be immediately struck down by reading TRDP 1.03.

“ Construction of the Rules: These rules are to be broadly construed to ensure the operation, effectiveness, integrity, and continuation of the professional disciplinary and disability system. The following rules apply in the construction of these rules: A. If any portion of these rules is held unconstitutional by any court, that determination does not affect the validity of the remaining rules.”

In complete opposition all other statutory mandates and rules dictating nondiscriminatory and just Grievance procedures, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC use a “jointly applied misinterpretation” of TRDP 2.13, to make Complainant-adverse Decisions, violating the Complainant’s Right to Due Process of Law.a) Per statutory procedural Rules, CDC’s “investigations” are required to just collect evidence of Professional Misconduct from accusers (on the Complainant’s side) and rebutters (on the attorney’s side).

CDC is called upon to make a simple “just cause” determination. Or, failing that, CDC can DENY and DISMISS a Complaint, giving an explanation of why CDC cannot establish “just cause,” and give the Complainant Notice of Right to Appeal to BODA. It is CLD, not CDC’s or a Summary Disposition Panel , which is charged with the determination of sufficient evidence and proof of attorney misconduct to require Discipline. Per Rules, conclusive DETERMINATIONS of atty misconduct and disciplinary action is left to an Evidentiary Hearing.

Procedural Rules under Texas Law Assure Due Process of Law

CDC’s Misinterpretation of TRDP 2.13 is a Humiliation to The Supreme Court Mandate.

TX GV Code, Section 81.072 (b) (1)xxviii requires CDC to provide an investigation of all Complaints to determine (per TRDP 1.06) “Just Cause.”xxix

TRDP 1.05xxx requires CDC to sensibly investigate acts of attorney misconduct, per TDRPC definitions. TRDP: 2.12. Investigation & Determination of Just Cause provides that - with a Respondent Attorney’s Response to a Complainants Grievance in hand, CDC make a reasonable investigation into whether or not the Respondent Attorney may have intentionally committed Professional Misconduct per TDRPC. A finding of “Just Cause” is applied after reasonably intelligent and prudent CDC staff attorneys formulate a belief that atty misconduct per TDRPC definitions occurred. CDC assembles proof of attorney misconduct to provide to an Evidentiary Hearing, conducted by CLD (CDC’s Client).

CDC oversteps its assigned duty of investigation by DENYING and DISMISSING Complaints. After failing to make an “adequate investigation,” CDC makes an abrupt determination that there is “insufficient information.” CDC abuses Complainants by a disgraceful demand that the burden of proving that atty misconduct occurred is solely upon Complainant. By concealing information, documents, evidence and argument that are indicative of barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or professional misconduct as defined in the TDRPC, CDC shamefully conceals attorney misconduct. In each case, CDC fails its Duty is to provide a full explanation to Complainant. CDC’s meaningless “determinations” only offer that CDC is “unable to establish just cause” to believe the Respondent Attorney has committed acts of Professional Misconduct requiring a Disciplinary

109 |

When CDC’s investigation finds “Just Cause,” CLD is charged with the burden of proof; i.e., to determine if there is sufficient evidence and proof. Conclusive DETERMINATIONS of atty misconduct and disciplinary action is left to an Evidentiary Hearing (TRDP 2.17 Evidentiary Hearingsxxxi ). A finding of “NO Just Cause” requires CDC to make a full explanation to Complainant of a DENIAL and DISMISSAL and Proper Notice including Right of Complainant to Appeal to BODA. CDC can present a Grievance for Dismissal for “NO Just Cause” to the Summary Disposition Panel only AFTER the Complainant is provided a Right to Appeal to BODA; i.e., Due Process of Law on a Complaint DENIAL and DISMISSAL Decision.

Sanction be imposed. CDC never provides a Proper Notice of DENIAL and DISMISSAL of the Complaint and Appeal Rights, giving Complainant 30 days to file an Appeal to BODA, prior to a FINAL DETERMINATON, DENYING and DISMISSING the Complaint. CDC’s “standard Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notices” contend that a “vote” of an anonymous Panel is all that is necessary to DENY and DISMISS a Grievance with NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE RESPONDENT ATTY. Summary Disposition Panels FINALLY DISMISS; “DENY,” “complete,” “close,” a “(secret) “confidential file” on a Grievance. The Panel Notice insinuates falsely that “there is no Appeal from the Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.”

The Complainant-adverse Changes on 1/1/2004, provided a “new rule” that CDC Summary Disposition Panels could be assembled for a case in which “no just cause” could be established by CDC’s investigation. The legislative changes to the State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]) could never be misconstrued by competent State Bar officials and appointees by The Supreme Court to be a keynote for Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. However, since 1/1/2004, the incompetent CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV officials and appointees use their misconception of the purpose of Summary Disposition Panels to DENY and DISMISS Complainants without Due Process of Law.

b) Statutory Procedural Rules provide that CDC give a full explanation (and accord the Complainant Notice of a Right to Appeal the DENIAL & DISMISSAL to BODA) BEFORE assembling a Summary Disposition Panel.

If CDC provides a Proper Notice of “no just cause” with Rights to the Complainant to Appeal the decision to BODA, and the Complainant does not Appeal within thirty (30) days, CDC can assemble a Summary Disposition Panel to determine if dismissal (without any consequence to the Respondent Attorney) can be made. Or, CDC can find that there is “just cause,” a consideration that the attorney has acted dishonorably. CDC can provide Notice of a Decision to Proceed to an Evidentiary Hearing or a District Court for a FINAL JUDGMENT of attorney misconduct and appropriate disciplinary action.

Statutes assure system of Compulsory Discipline Disgraceful misinterpretation of TRDP 2.13 TX GV Code, Section 81.072 (b) (8) xxxii requires administration of a system of compulsory discipline. TX GV Code, Section 81.071 (b)(10) authorizes all parties to an attorney disciplinary hearing to be present at all hearings when testimony is being given. TRPC 5.02 xxxiii charges CDC with authority to actively investigate Grievances, and reject Matters not constituting a Complaint, giving a full explanation to Complainant. CDC staff investigators are held to highest standards of professional conduct per TDRPC 8.04. xxxiv Upon Dismissal, CDC must provide Proper Notice of Dismissal to Complainant and Respondent, noting the Right of Complainant to Appeal. If Complainant chooses NOT to Appeal the “NO just cause” CDC determination within the thirty (30) day time limit, per TRDP 2.13, a Summary

There is no language anywhere in Texas Law that – if the CDC’s investigator “determines” there is NOT “sufficient evidence” from the Complainant to make a “conclusive DETERMINATION of atty misconduct and disciplinary action,” CDC can falsely “assume an authority” to decide that the Respondent needs no further scrutiny in the CDC investigation for barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or any other professional misconduct as defined in TDRPC. Disrespectful CDC investigators reject Complainants’ valid evidences, giving false testimony that information, documents, evidence, and argument provided in the Complaint’s CDC investigation are insufficient to prove “just cause.” Complainant is given no explanation or Notice of why evidences gathered in the investigation are “insufficient,” no Appeal Rights, no hearing, nor a

110 |

Disposition Panel will be called by CDC. CDC’s staff attorney will present the Complaint together with any information, documents, evidence, and argument deemed necessary and appropriate by CDC, without the presence of the Complainant or Respondent. The Summary Disposition Panel shall determine whether the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed. TRPC 7.08 C xxxv authorizes BODA to affirm or reverse a determination by CDC that a Grievance constitutes an “inquiry with NO DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCE to the Respondent atty” rather than a Complaint. Per TRPC 2.13 xxxvi All Complaints presented to the Summary Disposition Panel and not dismissed shall be placed on the Hearing Docket.

neutral judge. By CDC’s own “arbitrary unwritten exception,” CDC decides there is NO DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCE to the Respondent atty; no matter what the Grievance describes and documents. The Summary Disposition Panel arbitrarily decides that the Respondent has been unjustly accused. By lying to the Complainant in order to shield the Respondent from Discipline; CDC not only obstructs justice (which can be charged outside of trial; CDC staff investigators need not be a party to the case to be charged with obstruction); but defeats the purpose of the CDC investigation: to determine Disciplinary Action to be imposed upon a Respondent when barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or Misconduct as defined in TDRPC are described in a Grievance.

c. An out-of-control, petulant CDC, with CLD’s, GOC’S and BODA’s complicity, applies an intolerable, discriminatory “exception” that a Complaint can be “FINALLY DISMISSED” without a Hearing inclusive of the Complainant and Respondent and without any Sanction or Compulsory Discipline, while at the same time advising the Respondent Atty how to have any and all Record of the Grievance expunged!

Assembling Precedents For Discipline Authority Noncompliance Provides a Total Systemic Failure. Per TRDP 3.08 D,xxxvii unwillingness or neglect of a Complainant to assist in prosecution of a Disciplinary Action, or a compromise and settlement between the Complainant and the Respondent, does not alone justify the abatement or dismissal of action. Per TRDP 7.08 (G),xxxviiiis authorized to hear and determine Discipline. Only after providing the Complainant Due Process, can CDC assemble a Summary Disposition Panel to request a FINAL DISMISSAL. Per TRDP 2.13, the Panel, in private conference without attendance of either Complainant or Respondent, determines whether the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed. If the Summary Disposition Panel dismisses the Complaint, both the Complainant and Respondent will be so notified. After all avenues of Appeal through BODA have been exhausted, there are no Appeals to The Supreme Court (per IPR 10.01) from a determination by the Summary Disposition Panel that a Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed. All Complaints presented to the Summary Disposition Panel and not dismissed shall be placed on the Hearing Docket. Per TRDP 2.14 xxxix, CLD is the client of the CDC for every Complaint not dismissed by the Summary Disposition Panel. Disciplinary Precedent Files must be formulated, TX GV Code, Section 81.072 xl requires, upon Grievance Complaint Disposition, that CDC and CLD

CDC and CLD participate in willful and grossly negligent violations of The Supreme Court Rules for the express purpose of expunging Respondent Attorneys’ Records of Grievances. An unethical CDC, with complicity of CLD, FINALLY DISMISS valid Complaints that should proceed further in the Grievances process; no matter that Grievances describe Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation. Complainants are misled to believe that Rules, such as TX GV Code,§ 81.071 (b)(10), which authorizes all parties to an attorney disciplinary hearing to be present at all hearings when testimony is being given - do not apply - to conduct of CDC’s Summary Disposition Panels. Complainants are subjected to grave financial loss and loss of important rights due to atty Misconduct, but are deprived by CDC and CLD’s insolence of their Constitutional Right to Appeal. CDC and CLD insinuate statutes exist by which CDC can circumvent Confidentialityxliv Rules; and purport CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel’s ex parte “decisions” with no disciplinary consequence to the Respondent Atty, be held in a “secret” Confidential File” for 180 days, after which evidences in those Files are destroyed. CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel’s decisions end any possibility of an Evidentiary Panel. Respondent Attorneys, freed from even the potential of disciplinary action, are encouraged to repeat

111 |

compile reports of misconduct and discipline. To aid in establishing fair and equal disciplinary standards among Texas Attys, TRDP 2.11xli assigns separate Venues for hearings of Summary Disposition Panels than for Evidentiary Panels. Per TRDP 2.17 xlii an Evidentiary Panel must prepare a judgment in any disciplinary proceeding in which Misconduct occurs. An Evidentiary Panel can dismiss a Complaint with judgment to CAAP or find Misconduct and impose Sanctions. TRDP 2.21 Notice of Decisionxliii requires the Complainant, the Respondent and CLD to be notified of any judgment of the Evidentiary Panel. After appeals, CDC must disclose all documents relating to the Disciplinary Proceeding to Complainant upon request.

misconduct infinitely and unconditionally. Disgracefully, CDC’s “standard Summary Disposition Panel’s Dismissal Notice” purports that such “confidentiality” in FINAL DISMISSALS is directed by the TRDP. Yet, CDC and CLD know well that TRDP contends that, had Respondent had a trial by an Evidentiary Panel, most final judgments (unless ruled Private) become public records from date a judgment is signed. CDC and CLD, avoiding TRDP 2.18, Imposition of Sanctionsxlv assure that those who seek future legal services will be assaulted with atty Misconduct; unreported and reprehensively concealed. BODA has chosen to abuse authority entrusted to it to protect Complainants and routinely rubberstamp CDC’s, CLD’s and GOC’s erroneous decisions.

If the State Bar, an attorney Licensing Agency, cannot and will not enforce discipline among its’ members, what need is there for a Licensing Agency that allows for accreditation of attorneys that insult the public with Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation and whose law practices within the State of Texas are unethical?

The State Bar’s CDC, BODA, GOC and CLD have completely lost sight of the intention of The Supreme Court by entrusting a public corporation with the purpose and duty: to protect Complainants from attorney misconduct; which might otherwise be accorded to a publicly regulated state agency. It is a mockery of The Supreme Court of Texas that State Bar of Texas Attorney Discipline Process, has promulgated its “unwritten exceptions” and defends habitual professional misconduct of Texas lawyers. The State Bar’s apparent motives to aid and assist Texas attorneys in their corruption is self-defeating: why must any Texan be required to support a public corporation that functions adversely to the public, providing consultations and classroom training to allow dishonest attorneys to evade any Disciplinary Action due to their professional misconduct; stealing money, property, and important Rights of Texas Clients. The Supreme Court of Texas has for too long condoned (by Its silence) the unruly corruption of the State Bar of Texas Officials and Appointees by The Supreme Court.

When Complainant’s Grievances have been DENIED and DISMISSED as either an “inquiry” or a “complaint,” each of the Respondent Attorneys, not only evades punishment; but inflicts a virulent infection of improper, illegal, or negligent professional activity or treatment on each and every part of the Attorney Discipline Process.

a) An unethical CDC, with complicity of CLD, BODA, and GOC, FINALLY DENY and DISMISS valid Complaints that should proceed further in the Grievances process; no matter that Grievances describe Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation.

CDC inanely pardons itself from any further “investigation of attorney misconduct of a Complaint” when a Complainant has (in CDC’s arbitrary opinion) failed to provide evidence of “just cause.” Instead of providing a Notice of the Constitutional Right to Complainant to Appeal to BODA within 30 days of CDC’s

112 |

(Petition for Administrative Relief, September 29th, 2014, Marc R. Stanley), Page 2 When the State Bar of Texas and the Court’s Board of Disciplinary Appeals consistently fail to carry out the Orders of the Texas Supreme Court, the Court has the inherent power to compel the State Bar’s and the Board’s immediate and unconditional compliance with its Orders and to remove any obstacles within the State Bar and the Board to the compliance.

“no just cause” determination, CDC assembles an anonymous Summary Disposition Panel to review, in a “secret” conference, CDC’s request to DENY and DISMISS for “no just cause.”

By CDC’s discriminatory and unauthorized penchant to DENY and DISMISS a Grievance Complaint without according the Complainant Due Process; the Complainant is unduly punished by CDC which forgoes any explanation and Notice (including Appeal Rights) of CDC’s determination of a “finding of no just cause.” CDC always relieves the Respondent Attorney of even the possibility of Disciplinary Action; no matter that Grievances describe Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation. The State Bar of Texas’ Attorney Discipline Process, in reality, encourages and proliferates acts of attorney misconduct.

Ignoring all decorum of ethical attorney conduct described and defined in the TDRPC, CDC inanely insists that TDRP 2.13 can be appropriately applied by CDC to insinuate that “special unwritten exceptions” exist to favor the result of the Attorney Disciplinary Program and to alleviate the Respondent Attorney from any adverse effect of Disciplinary Complaint - in either case that a Complaint is:

→ summarily DENIED and DISMISSED by Summary Disposition Panel or → set on an Evidentiary Panel Docket for a Hearing.

(i.) “Special unwritten exceptions” exist for maladministration of Complaints which are summarily DENIED and DISMISSED by Summary Disposition Panel.

CDC applies an “authority” to Summary Disposition Panel’s determination, that is provided to no other person or agency in the United States of America: to deny Due Process to Complainants. Unbelievably, CDC insists CDC can pick and choose information, documents, evidence, and argument as CDC deems necessary and appropriate to prove there is “no just cause” to believe that an attorney whose misconduct aggrieved a Complainant so much as to cause a written Grievance Complaint alleging Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation to be formally filed with the State Bar of Texas. Disgracefully, CDC gives itself permission to assemble an anonymous panel of decision-makers, without the presence of the Complainant or Respondent. After CDC’s biased presentation of all documents, statements, and other information relating to CDC’s “investigation” (without the presence of the Complainant or the Respondent Attorney), CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel “votes” to DENY and DISMISS a Complaint for “no just cause.” The Complainant is provided an improper and false Notice that the Complainant’s Grievance has been FINALLY “denied,” “completed,” “closed” and is given improper notice that “there is no Appeal from the Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.” CDC conceals the Summary Disposition Panel’s File. Disgracefully, CDC’s “standard Summary Disposition Panel’s Dismissal Notice” purports an untruth (yet another CDC special “unwritten exception”) that such “confidentiality” in FINAL DISMISSALS is directed by the TRDP.

CDC inanely asserts that an anonymous Summary Disposition Panel can determine whether the Complaint should be DISMISSED and DENIED without any consequence to the Respondent Attorney or should proceed to an Evidentiary Hearing – without provision of Appeal (Rights) to BODA by either the Complainant or the Respondent Attorney! Contemptibly, CDC demands it has “an authority” to conceal the contents of the Summary Disposition Panel’s determination in a “(secret, confidential) file.”

Of course the TRDP 2.13 does not provide language to support CDC’s misconception that CDC can tag Files as “Confidential” or conduct ex parte CDC “DISMISSALS” in order to “lawfully supersede” Right to Due Process of Law. CDC burdens the State Bar of Texas’ Attorney Discipline Process, with an absurd “unwritten exception” that (“with the approval of the Supreme Court”) CDC can hide all evidences presented to the Panel’s “(secret) conference” from the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney in Summary Disposition Panel files.

CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC absurdly maintain that, The Supreme Court of Texas with the implementation of the Complainant-adverse Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]), those “quasi-state agencies” under the primary oversight of The Supreme Court, have been provided support for CDC’s and BODA’s unconstitutional DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Complaints. By CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, and GOV’s blatant noncompliance, CDC unlawfully DENIES and DISMISSES Complaints, acting solely for the defense of the Respondent Attorney that has been rightly accused of barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The idea that an Attorney who has violated Rules

113 |

of Professional Conduct can be protected by Confidentiality Rules is outrageous and incorrect per TDRPC, Rule 1.05 Confidentiality of Information, (c) (4).

Despicably, CDC shields all attorney misconduct by hiding it under an unjust mantle of “(secret)” confidential Summary Disposition Panel Files.” Certainly State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees have noted the Confidentiality Rules in TRDP, 2.16, profoundly conflict with CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s “(secret) confidentiality unwritten exceptions.” Per Rules, Confidentiality can apply while a Complaint is being investigated and adjudicated. If specific conditions are met, Confidentiality is maintained after a Respondent Attorney is determined by fair and just Disciplinary Process and Procedures to HAVE NOT conducted acts of attorney misconduct and, therefore, is NOT deserving of Disciplinary Action.

By absurd “unwritten exceptions” the dysfunctional State Bar of Texas Grievance Process, CDC is routinely obstructing justice by CDC’s unlawful DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Complaints, hiding acts of barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation within illegal actions of CDC’s noncompliant “investigations,” and “improper determinations by ex parte Panels,” which would rightfully have been presented to either BODA (in an Appeal) or to a neutral judge in an Evidentiary Hearing. CDC with complicity of BODA, GOC and CLD, outrageously tag deceitful Summary Disposition Panel Files, as “(secret) and private” in a prejudicial manner in order to “protect” the discovery of the Respondent Attorney’s professional misconduct.

If CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC would comply with statutes rather than obsessively strive to absolve Respondent Attorney of all professional misconduct and hide the fact that the Grievance was ever filed against the State Bar dues-paying attorney, CDC would NOT improperly dictate wrongful, summary DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Complaints. Complaints would proceed through the Evidentiary Panel and a judgment against the Respondent Attorney would be applied. In that case Confidentiality would no longer be applicable; TDRP 2.16 directs that an Evidentiary Panel’s final judgment is a public record from the date the judgment is signed. Per TRDP 2.15, Confidentiality.

“….2. if the Evidentiary Panel finds that professional misconduct occurred and imposes any sanction other than a private reprimand; a. the Evidentiary Panel's final judgment is a public record from the date the judgment is signed; and b. once all appeals, if any, have been exhausted and the judgment is final, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall, upon request, disclose all documents, statements, and other information relating to the Disciplinary Proceeding that came to the attention of the Evidentiary Panel during the Disciplinary Proceeding; …”

CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC absurdly insinuate statutes exist by which CDC (per TRDP 2.13) can circumvent Confidentiality Rules; and purport CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel’s ex parte “decisions,” with no Disciplinary Consequence to the Respondent Atty, can be held in a “(secret) Confidential Files” for 180 days, and then CDC’s “investigation” of both sides including documents, statements, and other information relating to the Complaint and the Respondent Attorney in those Files are destroyed!

(ii.) “Special unwritten exceptions” exist for maladministration of Complaints which are set on an Evidentiary Panel Docket for a Hearing.

While “Special unwritten exceptions” exist to favor the result of the Attorney Discipline Process and to alleviate the Respondent Attorney from any adverse effect in cases which are set for an Evidentiary Hearing due to a “finding of just cause,” CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOV has provided a “time-saving trick” for themselves, too, in cases set for an Evidentiary Hearing.

Contemptibly, CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel violates Due Process of Law by CDC’s refusal to give the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney a Constitutional Right to be in attendance at the ex parte assemblage, an anonymous Summary Disposition Panel of decision-makers. Subsequently, CDC outrageously applies TRDP 2.13 as its reference when asserting in the Notices to the Complainant and to the Respondent Attorney: “There is no appeal from a determination by the Summary Disposition Panel that the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed.” Because CDC is so biased in favoring the Respondent Attorney, there are very few or no cases that a Complaint is placed on the Evidentiary Panel

114 |

Docket in which a Respondent Attorney would become contentious that documents, statements and other information in the CDC’s “(secret) confidential Summary Disposition Panel files” have resulted in an unfair decision and, therefore, the Respondent Attorney need be afforded his/her Right to Appeal to BODA.

The advent of the Complainant-adverse Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]) brought about “time-saving changes” that deprive the Respondent Attorney of a Right to appeal the classification of a “Complaint.” Per TRDP 2.14, CLD is the client of CDC for every Complaint NOT dismissed by the Summary Disposition Panel: CLD has the burden of determining and proving the validity of the Complaint. Therefore, in any case in which the CDC has compiled documents, statements, and other information in a manner that has led a Summary Disposition Panel to set a Grievance on an Evidentiary Panel Hearing, the Respondent Attorney has been deprived (due to changes eff. 1/1/2004) of his/her Right to Appeal the “Complaint” classification to BODA.

CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel exhibits an overt bias toward the Respondent Attorney even in cases in which the decision is to set the Complaint on Evidentiary Panel Docket. Should the Complainant pursue other legal remedies while the Complaint sits on the Evidentiary Panel Docket, a Complainant is met with discouragement from even ethical attorneys who do not dare to become involved in Complaints yet-to-be- decided by the State Bar of Texas, the attorney licensing agency.

Should a Complainant attract members of the Media to a valid Complaints sitting on an Evidentiary Panel Docket for a Hearing, describing barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, while the Respondent Attorney proceeds to act unprofessionally involving more Clients in fraudulent scams, in that case, CDC disgracefully presents TDRP 2.13 as an alibi for CDC’s withholding admissible evidence for the Complainant that is in pursuit of other legal remedies and from the perusal of the Media. Per TDRP 2.13,

“All Complaints presented to the Summary Disposition Panel and not dismissed shall be placed on the Hearing Docket. The fact that a Complaint was placed on the Summary Disposition Panel Docket and not dismissed is wholly inadmissible for any purpose in the instant or any subsequent Disciplinary Proceeding or Disciplinary Action.”

b) Attorneys that have valid Complaints filed against them receive the wrong message; loud and clear: the Texas State Bar will not pursue any “investigation” – no matter if a Complaint is valid and documented - and will overtly conceal the very existence of the Complaint.

When Complaints are contemptibly summarily DENIED and DISMISSED, as inconsequential, by CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel without provision to the Complainant Due Process, the ensuing repercussion of rampant and widespread attorney misconduct is an omnipresent albatross to the dysfunctional State Bar of Texas’ Grievance System. Every unethical attorney in Texas knows that, even if a Complainant files a valid, documented Grievance, no Disciplinary Action will result, immediately, or at any time in the future.

When Complaints are summarily DENIED and DISMISSED by the Summary Disposition Panel, CDC is acting as if in defense of the malpracticing attorney, in opposition to TDRP 2.13 which requires a Summary Disposition Panel to place Complaints describing professional misconduct as it is defined in the TDRPC on the Evidentiary Hearing Docket. By failing to disclose CDC’s investigation of both sides including documents, statements, and other information relating to the Complaint, CDC is obstructing justice – for the chief purpose of influencing the Summary Disposition Panel to DENY and DISMISS the Complaint. When a Complaint is DENIED and DISMISSED by CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel, there is no disciplinary consequence to the Respondent attorney and all Summary Disposition Panel Files are contemptibly held by CDC which purports such “(secrecy) and confidentiality” is allowed per TRDP.

The finale of CDC’s endeavor to deceive the Complainant (in opposition to The Supreme Court’s mandate that Complainants be protected by the Grievance Process and unethical lawyers be disciplined), is that, while the Complainant is left reeling from the devastation inflicted by professional misconduct of the Respondent Attorney, CDC advises the Respondent Attorney how to proceed to “wipe clean” his/her Record with the State Bar. Expunction of the very fact of any Grievance can occur within days of a DENIAL and DISMISSAL of a Grievance on a Classification Decision, per TX GV Code, Section 81.072 (O), which allows that whenever a grievance is dismissed as an Inquiry or Complaint – the Respondent Attorney may

115 |

thereafter deny that a grievance was pursued and may file a motion with the tribunal seeking expunction of all records on the Matter.

c) The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures has inflicted a virulent infection of improper, illegal, or negligent professional activity or treatment, debilitating each and every part of the Attorney Discipline Process; causing a systemic failure of the current lawyer-discipline system with respect to The Supreme Court Mandate for provision of an Attorney Discipline Process to regulate conduct of Texas attorneys. Only swift action to curtail the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures current morass in the “intake” of Grievances, improper DENIALS and DISMISSALS and improper Notices which give No Provision of the Complainant’s (or Respondent Attorney’s) Right to Appeal to BODA, can alleviate the present pain and suffering of Texas Grievances. However, as the imposition of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures becomes known to Media, and the fact that the Texas State Bar has practiced deception against the public since, at least, 1/1/2004 is recognized by all Texans, there will be a public outcry resulting in a Class Action Lawsuit against State Bar Officials and Appointees of The Supreme Court of Texas. When The Supreme Court issues an administrative order to investigate a remedy for the systemic failure of the current lawyer-discipline system; an Order must begin by abolishment of the Complainant-adverse Changes, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.], eff. 1/1/2004 , which initiated such improprieties as:

→ absurdly contemptuous assertions by the State Bar of Texas that the Client-Attorney Assistance Program Client-Assistance (CAAP) that Complainants who are DENIED a valid Grievance must conduct their own “Disciplinary Hearing” against a Respondent Attorney to have his or her Grievance heard – if that attorney will volunteer to attend a CAAP conference!

→ the “precedents” established by the CDC, BODA, CLD and GOV practitioners of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

(i.) The absurdly disrespectful assertion by the State Bar of Texas that the Client-Attorney Assistance Program Client-Assistance (CAAP) is applicable to Complainants whose Grievances are DENIED and DISMISSED is an abomination of justice; and is just one of many peculiar contentions that are made by the State Bar of Texas in procedural manuals for the Grievance Program.xlvi

After the implementation of the Complainant-adverse Changes (eff. 1/1/2004), CDC’s Jennifer A. Hasley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel provided classroom instruction to attorneys – which stated “new Rules” applied to Grievances filed by Complainants which described and documented unethical practices: dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation but which were summarily DENIED and DISMISSED by CDC as inconsequential to the Respondent Attorney. Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Hasley preposterously advised in a State Bar of Texas, TEXAS MINORITY ATTORNEY PROGRAM, on May 20th, 2005 that:

“Throughout the disciplinary process, all dismissals must be referred to a voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure – CAAP.”

CDC’s “standard Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notice” refers the Complainant to the Client-Attorney Assistance Program (CAAP) – a VOLUNTARY program that the Respondent Attorney can choose NOT to attend - in order to “settle the dispute” over the DENIAL and DISMISSAL of the Grievance and to aid the Complainant to retrieve money, property, or important Rights unjustly taken from the Complainant due to attorney misconduct described and documented in the Grievance! Without any mention of Complainants Right to an Appeal of the DENIED and DISMISSED Complaint, CDC’s “standard Summary Disposition Panel Dismissal Notice” the suggests that the Complainant can have CAAPS, “mediate the dispute” in a face-to-face conference with the offensive attorney, if he/she will appear voluntarily.

It is bizarre that CDC’s Assistant Disciplinary Counsels assert that a Grievance Complainant DENIED and DISMISSED without a fair Hearing or notice of a Right to File an Appeal to BODA might be encouraged to “mediate a dispute” - with the assistance of a CAAPS attorney from The State Bar – while the

116 |

Respondent Attorney has previously demonstrated such professional misconduct that the Complainant already wrote a Grievance against that same Respondent Attorney.

It is implausible that any Respondent Attorney who is relieved of any Disciplinary Action by the unlawful DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Complainant’s valid Grievances will attend a “face-to-face” meeting with an extremely disgruntled Complainant who has lost money, important Rights or even his/her Liberty due to the professional misconduct of the Respondent Attorney. How absurd it is to imagine that any attorney would ever jeopardize his/her license to lie, steal or cheat Texas Clients afforded by the State Bar of Texas “trade association” charged with attorney licensing! Each Respondent Attorney is told by CDC that – within days of DENIAL and DISMISSAL of a Complaint – the Respondent Attorney can apply for expunction. Per the TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.072, GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY, TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH, SUBTITLE G. ATTORNEYS, CHAPTER 81. STATE BAR, SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(o) Whenever a grievance is either dismissed as an inquiry or dismissed as a complaint in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and that dismissal has become final, the respondent attorney may thereafter deny that a grievance was pursued and may file a motion with the tribunal seeking expunction of all records on the matter, other than statistical or identifying information maintained by the chief disciplinary counsel pertaining to the grievance.

(ii.) An independent inspector general must remove all unbearable remnants of any “precedents” (whether written or unwritten) established by the CDC, BODA, CLD and GOV practitioners of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

I contend that each and every Complainant who was sent an Improper Notice of DENIAL and DISMISSAL of Grievances classified as either Inquiries or Complaints must be sent a Proper Notice that he/she can refile the Grievance for a Trial de Novo. It is appropriate that Complainants, tens of thousands of us – as far back as such Improper Notices have been sent out - be provided with Due Process of Law accorded by The Constitution(s) of Texas and The United States. Lists of Respondent Attorneys will emerge from the Trials de Novo and each attorney must be properly assessed Disciplinary Action commensurate with the damages he/she caused to past Clients. All Clients, who were affronted by Respondent Attorneys over years they were allowed to prosper off the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, can file Grievance Complaints to be certain a clear messages is sent to all Texas Attorneys that attorney misconduct per the TDRPC will NOT be tolerated.

A revamping of “past precedents” will be an extremely cumbersome task. Any attempt to keep “precedent files” detailing the imposition of Sanctions per TRDP 2.18 to assure that those who seek future legal services are not assaulted with Attorney Misconduct; will be nearly impossible because, currently, Attorney Misconduct is unreported and reprehensively concealed. TRDP 2.11 relegates separate Venues for hearings of Summary Disposition Panels than for Evidentiary Panels. Therefore, it is certain that “past precedents” reflecting all the “arbitrary exceptions” established by the CDC, BODA, CLD and GOV practitioners of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures differ radically among counties in Texas.

117 |

By administrative order, The Supreme Court of Texas must establish a task force to comprehensively assess the extent to which the CDC, CLD, GOC, and BODA are failing to follow The Court’s Rules in handling classification decisions, BODA Appeals and Evidentiary Judgments.

A Task Force to Disband CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC CDC’s, CLD’s, GOC’s, & BODA’s Info Blockage The Supreme Court of Texas must appoint a Task Force, which can apply The Texas Public Information Act, “the Act,” to compel the State Bar of Texas officials and Supreme Court appointees to capitulate to public demands for information about the Texas Grievance Discipline System. Spelled out in Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code, “the Act” states that: “government is the servant and not the master of the people…..The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” Per The Government Code, Title 2, Subtitle G, Chapter 81, Subchapter A, Chapter 325 - Texas Sunset Act, Section 81.036, INFORMATION ON CERTAIN COMPLAINTS,xlvii the State Bar must maintain a file on each written criticism, other than a grievance against an attorney, filed with the State Bar. Critics must receive notification of the State Bar’s investigation, at least quarterly until final disposition of the written criticism. I (personally) have provided more than thirty-five (35) Criticisms/Reports, - thousands of written pages and documents – depicting the unlawful “unwritten exceptions,” that I have deemed: Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. I have fully described and documented the unconstitutional and discriminatory disgrace to CDC’s Linda A. Acevedo,

Asserting an unjust “authority” (claimed to be indisputable) to block any and all requests for information about the Grievance System and Atty Discipline Process requested through the Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the GVT Code, CDC’s Counsel Acevedo, BODA’s Counsel McKeeman, GOC Chair Wylie, CLD Chair Harrison, and Claire Mock, spokeswoman for Texas State Bar, are immersed in a “(secret) confidential code of unethical conduct” – repeating the same mantra: “only in those circumstances in which there is a public sanction against an attorney may the CDC provide information related to the disciplinary proceeding.” Contemptibly, CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOV know that no matter how reprehensible the attorney misconduct, all Complaints are unconstitutionally and discriminatory determined to have NO “just cause” and NO sanction is ever applied to any Respondent Attorney. Complaints are DENIED and DISMISSED with NO Due Process of Law: NO adequate notice, NO fair hearing, and NO neutral judge (nor using procedural rules under Texas Law). By abusing Confidentiality Rules meant to protect attorneys unjustly accused, CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOV, in complete opposition to the State Bar’s purpose, conceal attorney misconduct; thrusting each and every unsanctioned Respondent Attorney back into the public domain to continue unethical practices: dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

118 |

BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman, GOC Chair, Catherine N. Wylie, CLD Chair Guy Harrison (and others) requiring that a response be made in accordance with TX GVT Code § 81.035, The Texas Sunset Act. I have never received a single, solitary response. The Supreme Court of Texas has a Duty and Responsibility to all Texans to appoint a Task Force to fully review the State Bar’s Texas Sunset Act Files before publicly sanctioning and disbanding CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC.

misrepresentation. It is ironic that the State Bar conceals professional misconduct by lying. An AG’s April 20th, 2004 letter,38 is absurdly used as a “precedent” for denials of all requests for information through “the Act;” although the letter simply points out that until after the accused is accorded Due Process, information requested per TRDP 15.10 and TX GVT Code § 81.033(a) is Confidential and cannot be subject to disclosure through “the Act.”

a) As a first step to protect the public, a task force must expose to the public and The Supreme Court of Texas, the fact that ALL MEMBERS OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS, have a huge vested interest in DENYING and DISMISSING valid Grievances and having all records of those Grievances summarily EXPUNGED.

The Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Premium Costs for “solo lawyers” and Law firms increase annually with the number Evidentiary Judgments filed against Texas Respondent Attorneys. Some Texas State Bar Members who pay premiums for malpractice insurance through TX Bar Member owned companies like the Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange (TLIE) benefit greatly financially from each and every improperly DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance. For example, TLIE has returned over $41,550,000 in profits to its members insureds over the past 19 years. Per http://www.tlie.org/about/:

“Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange is the tried and true source of reliable, responsibly priced legal malpractice insurance for Texas lawyers and judges. TLIE began operations in 1979 under the sponsorship of the State Bar of Texas Insurance Trust at a time when Texas lawyers were having difficulty obtaining legal malpractice coverage at reasonable rates. Since that time, commercial carriers have come and gone from Texas, but TLIE has been a consistent and stable source of high quality professional legal malpractice liability coverage at financially responsible rates for Texas lawyers and judges. TLIE is owned by its member insureds and is operated by a member-elected board of directors. TLIE currently provides over 5,500 Texas lawyers and judges with legal malpractice coverage. Through superior underwriting and claims practices, TLIE has returned over $41,550,000 in profits to its member insureds over the past 19 years.”

The State Bar of Texas has been grossly negligent of Complainants’ Rights, causing severe financial and emotional damages, with the chief motive being that, contemptibly, the State Bar of Texas membership benefits financially from artificially lowered Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Premium Costs. The Texas State Bar advertises that:

“As a State Bar of Texas member, you have access to discounts on insurance for your home, car, health, pets, practice and more!”

38 Attached is a letter, dated April 20th, 2004 to Maureen E. Ray, Special Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, from James W. Morris, III. Assistant Attorney General, Open Records Division.

119 |

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. The Supreme Court has the inherent power to regulate the practice of law in Texas. The State Bar of Texas is an administrative and regulatory arm of the Court. The Court appoints and oversees BODA. When a problem exists with the Court’s agents not enforcing the Court’s Rules, only the Court can address those deficiencies and non-compliance. Ultimately, the buck stops with this Court and whether the Court is satisfied with its agents’ adherence to its directives should be of paramount importance.

Marc R. Stanley’s “Petition for Administrative Relief” dated September 29th, 2014.

Professional Liability Insurance Companies – like The USI Affinity's plan, - toutxlviii that the liability insurance organization is a “State Bar of Texas Preferred Provider.” It must be determined by a Supreme Court ordered task force exactly what inducement that the Texas State Bar is receiving in order to advertise among the 96,912 active members State Bar Membersxlix that USI Affinity’s Professional Liability Insurance Plan as “Preferred Provider.”

The task force must examine The Client Security Fund- a budgeted expense of the dysfunctional State Bar Grievance System - to compare it to the more than $41,500,000 in profits that TLIE has returned to its member insureds over the last 19 years! The Client Security Fund holds more than $3 million in its corpus, including an annual $1 Million dollars in appropriation through the Texas State Legislature, plus financial restitution collected by CLD’s Evidentiary Hearing. Yet, only a paltry amount ($519,800) of “restitution” was paid out in FY 2014-2014 per CLD’s Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 . It is an intolerable travesty of justice that the State Bar of Texas has a “huge financial vested interest” in lowered and/or returns of Malpractice Insurance Premiums while the State Bar’s misadministration (per the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedure) provides for the routine DENIAL and DISMISSAL of Complainants’ valid Grievances without explanation or investigation.

b) A task force must publicly denounce the prevailing antipathetic attitude toward Complainants which is at the core of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedure; CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC have an unmistakably misguided notion of “loyalty,” to attorneys, even those who conduct barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The State Bar of Texas, as “trade association” with an inherent, self-defeating bias toward Texas attorneys cannot be expected to discipline attorneys. Since, at least 1/1/2004, dishonorably, State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees have knowingly and willingly conducted a Grievance System that supports and encourages professional misconduct among Texas attorneys to the extreme detriment of Complainants. The time is now long overdue for The Supreme Court of Texas to take action to:

Mitigate effects of undue personal hardships caused to DENIED & DISMISSED Complainants and; Compensate them for ruinous financial expenses caused them by the Improper Notices Procedure

and Grievance Denial Procedure.

Absurdly, CDC, CLD, BODA, GOC mismanage the Grievance System as a discourteous confrontation in which Complainants must be forced to “mediate their disputes” with attorneys,” no matter the effrontery: barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation involved. Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees inappropriately act as “public relations agents” for lawyers. The direct result of Dues and Tax payments to the State Bar is a palpable bias which favors attorneys over the Complainants in Grievances; making certain that NO “just cause finding” or sanction is every applied against a Respondent Attorney. CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC lie, cheat, and conceal evidences; and proclaim Grievance Files as “(secret) and confidential” until they can be EXPUNGED --- within days of improper DENIALS and DISMISSALS of valid Grievances!

Most humiliating to The Supreme Court of Texas is that CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV purport their misconception that no lawful disclosure need be made per The Texas Public Information Act as long as:

120 |

Marc R. Stanley’s “Petition for Administrative Relief” dated September 29th, 2014, page 3 “STATEMENT OF FACTS. Rule 8.03(a), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, requires that ‘[e]xcept as permitted in paragraphs (c) or (d), a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate disciplinary authority.” Under Texas law, the “appropriate disciplinary authority, is the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar

Complainants’ Grievances are DENIED & DISMISSED without Due Process by adherence to “unwritten exceptions” emanating from Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, All Bar members and employees fully participate in the falsification of Complaints against the Respondent Attorney, secreting attorneys’ professional misconduct , i.e., barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and All agree with omissions from Texas attorneys’ State Bar Disciplinary Records.

Since April 20th, 2004, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV have clung tightly to a misinterpretation of a response from Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office as “authority” to block (deny) any and all request for information about the Grievance System and Attorney Disciplinary Process. The AG’s April 20th, 2004 letter, does not say that only in cases of public sanction against an attorney can the CDC provide information related to the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with The Texas Public Information Act! It simply informs the State Bar’s Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray, of the most obvious fact that the administration of justice requires application of Confidentiality Rules as well as each party’s right to Due Process: adequate notice, a fair hearing, and neutral judge (using procedural rules under Texas Law). Individuals who are accused of wrongdoing must be found guilty in a Court of Law and not in the realm of the Media and/or public opinion.

CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV have long reckoned that the AG’s April 20th, 2004 Response “gives” a savvy trick to conceal attorney misconduct: determine absolutely every request for information can to be denied until and unless there is a Public Sanction applied to an attorney! The cadre of DENIERS and DISMISSERS have insulted tens of thousands of Grievance Complaints with inconsequential “inquiry” classifications, findings of NO “just cause,” and provided NO Disciplinary Sanctions to Texas attorneys; yet, apparently to date, none of the State Bar officials or BODA appointees considered their Misconduct to be obstruction of justice. While protesting that all requests for information per The Texas Public Information Act were banned per “(secret) confidentiality rules;” State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees were actually perpetrating a “Disciplinary” System with a purpose of covering-up of attorney misconduct – like “public relations agents” who manipulate what the public need to know and what is not good for the public to know and conceals the truth.

The AG’s April 20th, 2004 letter succinctly points out: ≈ (per previous version of TRDP 2.15) when there is a finding of “just cause” and a sanction other than a private reprimand (which may include restitution and payment of Attorneys’ Fees) imposed by agreement of the Respondent, all of the information, proceedings, hearing transcripts, documents, statements, and other information coming to the attention of the investigatory panel shall be, upon proper request, made public.≈ (per previous version of TRDP 15.10) “All communications, written and oral, and all other materials and statements to or from the Commission [for Lawyer Discipline], Chief Disciplinary Counsel, the Complainant, the Respondent, and others directly involved in the filing, screening, investigation, and disposition of Inquiries and Complaints are absolutely privileged.” It is clear that the AG’s April 20th, 2004 letter was meant to apply to one specific Texas Public Information Act request which sought names of four members of the District Grievance Committee that resolved a case in favor of a named attorney – who (of course) was absolved of any wrongdoing by the District Grievance Committee Summary Dismissal Panel and relieved of any sanction. However, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV have touted all governances of the State Bar Attorney Disciplinary Process to be out of the realm of The Texas Public Information Act – in any case unless there is a finding of “just cause” and a non-private Disciplinary Sanction applied. Since the Complainant-adverse changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]), CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC have led the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures and ethical attorneys (until the presentation of Marc L. Stanley’s PETITION to The Supreme Court of Texas) have followed silently along, like sheep to the abattoir, allowing that honor and veneration in the Profession of Law to be trounced!

The Supreme Court, by administrative order, must appoint a task force stat to establish that per TX GVT Code § 81.0752,l Grievance proceedings are Confidential but the statutory intention of the Rule do not pertain as a “loophole” as the State Bar of Texas insinuates, i.e., Complaints unfairly DENIED and

121 |

DISMISSED without Due Process cannot be hidden from the public and Media purview by the fact that Confidentiality Rules are being abused by willful and gross violations of The Court’s Rules.

c) By Order of The Supreme Court of Texas, Maureen E. Ray’s, Special Administrative Counsel, license to practice law in the State of Texas and bar card number was canceled on April 10th, 2015; a task force must discern why one CDC member is discharged from “duties” and not all of CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC. For more than ten (10) years before her abrupt departure (at least since 1/1/2004 ), Special Administrative Counsel Ray’s “mission” was to do the impossible: explain to Complainants why barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, as explained in “writings,” were not, per the TDRPC, attorney misconduct worthy of discipline by the Grievance System. Without question, her non-explanations were combative and condescending. It is puzzling why Ms. Ray continued for more than ten (10) years to accept the work (and pay) of a Special Administrative Counsel, when in fact, she was forced to commit violations against her professional oaths, e.g., abuses of TDRPC, VIII. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRETY OF THE PROFESSION, Rule 8.03(a) and Rule 8.04 Misconduct, as a routine “duty” of her job.

While Special Administrative Counsel Ray has vanished, an elephant remains in the room: the State Bar of Texas requires each and every staff attorney and Supreme Court appointed attorneys who serves on various Panels (such as the District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panels and Evidentiary panels District Grievance Committee and Committees and members of CLD, BODA, and GOC) to be grossly negligent and fully violate The Court’s Rules. Attorneys and officials must pledge “(secret) confidentiality” in regard to the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures which: DENY and DISMISS valid Grievances; giving NO APPEAL RIGHTS to Complainants, no matter the injury and damages caused to Complainants by the Respondent Attorney. Flouts TDRPC §8.03 Reporting Professional Misconduct (a)li and requires CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC to conceal attorney misconduct and abandon any Disciplinary Duties to Respondent Attorneys; no matter how shocking the Professional Misconduct.

(i.) GOV and CLD mindlessly repeat the same refrain in Reports: the CDC must be independent from the Office of the State Bar’s General Counsel which has a vested interest, as a “trade association requiring monetary dues from attorneys.” GOV and CLD force feed conspicuously blatant, obvious lies to The Supreme Court that CDC staff (who routinely DENY and DISMISS valid Complaints with no explanation, investigation or application of Complaints right to Due Process) are impartial advocates for the Complainants.

In monotonous, repetitive Reports, GOV and CLD uniformly espouse that Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, is a more than adequate, one-person resource office and not overwhelmed with her job of helping 14,906 (Reports’ acknowledged number of Grievances received in CDC’s “intake” procedure during 2013 and 2014) Grievance Complainants learn about the grounds for the DENIAL and

122 |

“Ms. Ray’s non-explanations are a problem because they fail to comply with the Bar’s legal obligation, under the Texas Government Code, to provide “full explanations” to complainants; however, the larger systemic problem is that others within the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel are apparently routinely dismissing grievances that should proceed further in the process--and then Ms. Ray is stuck with trying to provide some rationalization about why the intake staff is misfiring. To say that Ms. Ray is the problem is to ignore the fact that she is presumably not making the original classification errors--if those are errors, rather

DISMISSAL of their valid Grievance! GOV and CLD Reports chirp how the State Bar of Texas is “protecting the Public from attorney misconduct” by “protection dollars: $12,423.516. (FY 2013-2014) and $11,594,087. (FY 2014-2015).”

The tedious GOV and CLD Reports do not acknowledge Marc R. Stanley’s PETITION, my own numerous well documented TX GVT Code § 81.035, The Texas Sunset Act written criticisms, as well as many other denigrations of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures exist. GOV and CLD Reports “streak” by (without any mention of) the obvious, hideous stark-naked fact: CDC lawyers and staff are routinely DENYING and DISMISSING Complainants’ valid Grievances without explanation or investigation, and are violating The Court’s Rules purposely.

Contemptibly, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC have mistaken conceptions that they are “helping” the State Bar of Texas by concealing attorney misconduct. In fact, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC are the chief champions for all attorneys in Texas who routinely participate (without fear of discipline) in barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, against the very same Texas Citizens that The Supreme Court of Texas serves and is obligated to protect.

*a) GOC’s (Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas) Biennial Report June 1, 2014 by (prior) Chair Stan Serwatka hoodwinks The Supreme Court in regard to the crux of the real problem of the implicit concealment of rampant attorney misconduct. In the 2014 GOC Report, he absurdly suggests that Complainants will be satisfied with DENIED and DISMISSED Complaints of no consequence to the Respondent Attorney IF ONLY CDC could be allowed an INDEPENDENT Grievance Reviewer that can explain to Complainants who have lost money, property and valuable Rights, that barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation as defined in the TDRPC, is differently determined by CDC as unimportant to the State Bar of Texas and “inconsequential to TX attorneys.”

In other words, should CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s incongruous “DENIED and DISMISSED” Classifications of Inquiries and Complaints be investigated and explained by someone other than Maureen E. Ray, Special Administrative Counsel, who relied on her continued employment with the State Bar of Texas and, therefore, (presumably) could not be INDEPENDENT, Complainants would readily agree that NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION NEED BE TAKEN against Respondent Attorneys that had conducted that barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation as defined in the TDRPC! Astonishingly, the 2014 GOV Report recommended that only an INDEPENDENT “part-time” position was needed to attend to thousands of explanations or investigations necessary annually to Complainants whose valid Grievances were DENIED and DISMISSED as inconsequential!

A Biennial Report from GOV is due out after June 1, 2016. No doubt, Chair Wylie (reappointed lii through August 31st, 2018) will recommend that – CDC scour the ranks of its staff to determine if there is any other attorney willing to sacrifice his/her law license to take the place of Maureen E. Ray who suddenly and seemingly inexplicably gave up her license to practice law on April 10th, 2015. I am certain that Chair Wylie will AGAIN nonsensically recommend a “solution” that an “INDEPENDENT Special Administrative

123 |

From The Grievance Oversight Committee Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas Biennial Report June 1, 2014, pg. 3 “Ombudsman and/or Special Administrative Counsel. The GOC addressed the office of Ombudsman in its 2010 and 2011 Reports….Because of issues concerning the objectivity and independence of the Ombudsman, the GOC recommended the office be reorganized…. The CDC still has the same staff person performing the valuable function of investigating a complainants’ questions after dismissal of a complaint. The current title for the person performing the function is Special Administrative Counsel…. under the current structure, no one outside the system is investigating calls and inquiries by complainants dissatisfied with the process. The GOC has received substantial input concerning the negative reactions of disciplinary complainants whose grievances are dismissed and who then do not understand what happened or why. Not surprisingly, those complainants tend to have a very negative impression concerning the disciplinary system….. Recommendations: An independent position, outside of and independent from the CDC, should be established to investigate calls and inquiries from complainants dissatisfied with the process……”

Counsel” can report to BODA, GOC or directly to The Supreme Court of Texas! I hope that – before June 1, 2016 - The Supreme Court of Texas will discern that the difficulty is that no one can plausibly explain the wrongful “DENIED and DISMISSED” Classifications – except by admitting that the State Bar functions only as “a trade association” and does not serve any good or necessary purpose to the Texas public. In opposition to The Supreme Court of Texas mandate to protect Texans from attorney misconduct, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC work in tandem to DENY and DISMISS valid Complaints and conceal attorney misconduct.

The Grievance Oversight Committee Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas Biennial Report June 1, 2014 by (prior) Chair Stan Serwatka affably chit-chats that “training” is all that is necessary to upgrade the functioning of the Attorney Disciplinary Process. Presumably, Chair Serwatka found worthy of comment that

“some CDC lawyers appeared to be unfamiliar with basic rules of evidence. For example, in some hearings the CDC lawyers did not know how to overcome simple hearsay objections from respondents’ counsel.”

However, Chair Serwatka decided that such “training responsibilities” were not in the realm of GOC’s decision-making.

I predict that the Biennial Report from GOV (June 1, 2016); will tediously add to prior Chair Stan Serwatka’s woefully tottering “insights like the litigation skills boot camp” and will fail to mention anything encouraging for Texans who must rely on a Grievance System to accord their Constitutional Right to Due Process; for example:

What about the rapid exodus of the condescending Maureen E. Ray on April 10 th, 2015, when she abandoned her TX State Bar Card, from her “valuable function” of Special Administrative Counsel, in charge of investigating complainants’ questions after dismissal of a complaint; as well as her “second job” as CDC staff attorney responsible for conducting investigations on applications and presenting recommendations to the Client Security Fund?

What about the deferential Marc R. Stanley, PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF, dated September 29th, 2014, which stimulates thoughtful consideration of alternatives to the dysfunctional Grievance Process maladministered by CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC?

*b) The State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline — Annual Report — June 1, 2013 – May 31, 2014 by Chair Guy Harrison preposterously asserts that CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen Ray is effectively carrying out TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.072 CLASSIFICATION OF

124 |

From The Grievance Oversight Committee Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas Biennial Report June 1, 2014, pg. 11 … “One lawyer who serves on a grievance panel suggested that CDC should develop a “litigation skills boot camp” for all new lawyers, and perhaps develop video materials with mock hearings demonstrations of how to handle the typical evidence and procedural issues that arise during hearings. However, the GOC believes that CDC is best able to make the assessment of current staff skill levels, and if further training is necessary or appropriate, CDC is fully capable of developing the most suitable training opportunities for CDC lawyers.”

Petition for Administrative Relief, September 29th, 2014, Marc R. Stanley, pg 12….. “…Petitioner cannot envision the full range of possible recommendations to remedy this apparently widespread noncompliance, but the possibilities include:…………. *Institute a study concerning whether Texas should create a new discipline system, independent of the Bar---such as transferring the investigatory and adjudicatory function to the Office of the Attorney General; or creating an independent Bar Court Hearing Judges, appointed by the Supreme Court, as in California, where those Judges are accountable to the Supreme Court.

GRIEVANCES, which requires that a Complainant must be given a full explanation on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint.

The CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 , indicates (pg. 27)liii that in there were more than 14,906 Grievances received in CDC’s “intake” procedure during 2013 and 2014! CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015, page 27

Grievances Rec’d 2014 7,394 Grievances Rec’d 2015 7,512 TTL 2014 - 2015 14,906

Analysis of Chair Harrison’s PROTECTING THE PUBLIC SNAPSHOTS to Quantify Number of Complaints DENIED and DISMISSED in 2013 – 2015 without investigation, or explanation of “grounds for dismissal” by Ms. Ray.

14,906

PROTECTING PUBLIC SNAPSHOTliv 2013-2014 PROTECTING PUBLIC SNAPSHOTlv

2014-2015 Fy 2014

Ttl Grievances Acknowledged 7,394 Ttl Grievances Acknowledged 7,512Total Complaints Resolved 403 Total Complaints Resolved 416 (819)TTL DENIED and DISMISSED - NO EXPLAINATION 2013-2014

6,991 TTL DENIED and DISMISSED - NO EXPLAINATION 2014-2015

7,096 14,087

One would be led to think by that large number that CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen Ray would be overwhelmed with her job of helping 14,087 Grievance Complainants learn about the grounds for the DENIAL and DISMISSAL of their valid Grievances; but Special Administrative Counsel Maureen Ray only conducted 37 investigation and fielded 81 calls from complainants (before she voluntarily gave up her license to practice law in 2015).

Since CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen Ray has been forced to give up her license to practice law on April 10th, 2015; she must be severely missed because she has left CDC with NO ONE TO EXPLAIN to the tens of thousands DENIED and DISMISSED Complaints what the grounds were for failing to DISCIPLINE attorneys that conducted barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation as defined in the TDRPC – or, accomplish a plethora other duties Special Administrative Counsel had (as noted below).

On page 13 of the CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2013-May 31 st , 2014 Chair Harrison exalts that “The Client Security Fund” is administered through CDC:

“Maureen Ray, serves as the administrator and legal counsel to the fund. Ray is responsible for conducting investigations on applications and presenting recommendations to the subcommittee.”

However, on the subsequent CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015, Chair Harrison makes no mention of CDC’s position as “Special Administrative Counsel which he had lauded the prior year, i.e., (Special Administrative Counsel Maureen Ray conducted 37 investigation and fielded 81 calls from complainants.) However, he mentions that The Client Security Fund is (subsequent to Maureen E. Ray’s sudden departure from CDC – unexplained in the CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 ) administered by Claire Mock who serves as the administrator and legal counsel to the fund.

125 |

The Commission for Lawyer Discipline — Annual Report — June 1, 2013-May 31 st , 2014 , indicates (pg. 12) “CDC’s special administrative counsel is Maureen Ray. In this role, Ray provides an information resource to complainants who are dissatisfied with the results or processing of their grievances. Upon the dismissal of a grievance following the denial of an appeal or later in the process, the complainant may seek Ray’s help in learning the grounds for the dismissal. Ray’s investigation into the dismissal results in a letter to the complainant setting forth the basis for the determination. During 2013-2014, Ray conducted 37 investigations of this type and fielded 81 calls from complainants. Ray is also available to discuss with complainants the grievance process in general and the rules governing it. Based upon her interactions with complainants, Ray also serves as an internal adviser to CDC on issues affecting the accessibility and transparency of the disciplinary system. In addition, Ray acts as public information coordinator for CDC. For this function, she responded to 58 information requests this year, and requested one attorney general opinion related to information requests.”

I have provided many of my letters/reports to Claire Mock but she has never answered a single, solitary question or made any comment; but I (associatively) remember her name, “Mock.” I have found many instances (on Internet) that writers for Newspapers or Media articles have detected the unfairly DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances of Complainants when the Respondent Attorney has gone unsanctioned. However, whenever the State Bar has been required to make comment; a general disclaimer is presented:

“Claire Mock, spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which represents the CFLD, didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline.”

Perhaps Claire Mock needed the extra work as The Client Security Fund administrator and legal counsel to fill her work time. An Article, http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-03-31/state-bar-denies-grievance-against-da , posted on March 31st, 2015 would lead one to believe that her “spokeswoman” duties in regard to answering legal questions about the plethora of DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances or disgruntled Complainants who are denied any explanation or a legal right to Appeal unjust Grievance classifications are limited to just an occasional few words.

The Amarillo Globe-News Article describes that a Grievance was filed by the Texas Coalition on Lawyer Accountability (TCLA) against James Farren, which claims the Texas attorney violated the TDRPC by concealing evidence to “negate the guilt of the accused.” The Grievance against attorney Farren claims that he concealed evidence, coerced testimony and threatened key prosecution witnesses in the Brittany Holberg capital murder case. However, the TCLA Grievance against attorney Farren was DENIED and DISMISSED with no explanation and NO APPEAL RIGHTS.

Spokeswoman Claire Mock was contacted by the Amarillo Globe-News for comment as the accused and convicted Brittany Holberg sits on DEATH ROW because James Farren concealed exculpatory evidence. With just a few words, Claire Mock, dispelled her duties as spokeswoman. Why would it worry a “spokeswoman” that the State Bar DENIED and DISMISSED a Grievance (with no consequence to attorney Farren) that contended the Grievance “writing” evidence - which could overturn a murder conviction - was concealed by attorney Farren, professional misconduct per the TDRPC Rule 3.04 Fairness in Adjudicatory Proceedings!

I am appalled (and I am certain that all taxpayers to the CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC PUBLIC PROTECTION DOLLARS” will be, too, when the tax-paying Public becomes aware) that CLD Chair Harrison might possibly consider that Claire Mock’s “spokeswoman job” is accomplished with “PUBLIC PROTECTION DOLLARS!” Is it “protection” for the Public to allow an attorney to conceal evidence that would “negate the guilt” of a woman on DEATH ROW, allowing the attorney to go undisciplined and to continue to punish the public with professional misconduct?

(ii.) GOV and CLD must be provided with incentive from The Supreme Court’s task force to provide informative reports aimed at the repeal of the State Bar’s Grievance Complainant-Adverse Changes, (eff. 1/1/2004).

Another CLD Annual Report is due to be published for the period from June 1, 2015-May 31 st , 2016 . The last two thirty three (33) page missives are much like what a “trade association” might provide as brochures, with several pages of large color photos of the most esteemed members of the State Bar of Texas, to entice dues paying lawyers to join a private society club. I detest that CLD will accept tax-payers dollars to produce yet another ineffective degradation to The Supreme Court of Texas which (certainly) need not provide a social society club for Texas State Bar Members; but has a duty to “exercise administrative control over the state bar…” and further “establish minimum standards and procedures” for attorney discipline, including “classification of all grievances” and a “full explanation to each complainant on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint..”

126 |

The Amarillo Globe-News Article, “State Bar denies grievance against DA,” dated March 31st, 2015 states: “Claire Mock, an attorney with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, said the organization “cannot confirm even that a grievance was filed in the case unless it is filed in a state district court.”

I pray that The Supreme Court will act during 2016 to appoint a new discipline system independent of the State Bar of Texas; transferring the investigatory and adjudicatory functions to the Office of the Attorney General. The CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 presents a table on page 29, entitled “STATE BAR OF TEXAS PUBLIC PROTECTION DOLLARS ACTUAL EXPENDITURES, (UNAUDITED) FY2014-2015.”lvi I assert it would be much more beneficial to spend the $85,125 worth of “public protection dollars” budged for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, in a Short Version, without any photos. I suggest the main topic of the CLD Annual Report - June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 to be how to spend CLD’s remaining budget to protect the public by providing a full explanation to each complainant on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint; giving Proper Notice of rights to Appeal to BODA through Amendments as provided for by Statute, i.e., The State Bar Act, §81.011(a) of the Government Code and disciplining lawyers for acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Some ancillary topics for the CLD Annual Report for 2016 (for the short term until the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, and its adjuncts; CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC are removed from the Texas Grievance Disciplinary System) are presented below. I recommend immediate acknowledgement and repeal of any discriminatory and/or unconstitutional TRDP Sections and/or gross misinterpretations of the TRDP or TDRPC which disadvantage the Complainant in the Grievance System, for example; but not limited to: →

*a) TRDP Sections, e.g., TRDP, §2.07, lvii discriminates in favor of the Respondent Attorney and against the Complainant in the Grievance Procedure.

TRDP’s PART II. THE DISTRICT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES provide that quorum votes decide whether or not a Grievance will proceed to a Trial that both the Complainant and Respondent Attorney can attend in order to both present and hear testimony. In the case of a majority vote for the Complainant, the Grievance Complaint will proceed to an Evidentiary Panel or District Court and can, therefore, result in Attorney Disciplinary Action. A quorum’s majority vote for the Respondent Attorney, relieves the prospect of Disciplinary Action and clears the “pathway” for exculpation of the very “fact” that the Grievance was filed against the Respondent Attorney.

TRDP, §2.07, discriminates against the Complainant in the case of a quorum tie: “Any tie vote is a vote in favor of the position of the Respondent.” Such a rule, favoring the Respondent Attorney is discriminatory and unconstitutional; and is, therefore, fodder for the domain the CLD Annual Report that is due to be published for the period from June 1, 2015-May 31 st , 2016 . It can be pointed out that in the United States, a tie vote results in a mistrial and a case must be retried. A hung jury does not imply either the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

*b) Confidentiality Rules have been promulgated for the chief purpose of establishing Fair and Just Trials of accused persons and cannot ever be used to conceal evidence to “negate the guilt of the accused .”

Duties in regard to answering legal questions about the plethora of the disgracefully DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances or demands for answers from disgruntled Complainants who are denied any explanation or a legal right to Appeal unjust Grievance classifications cannot lawfully be abated by the mere mention of the word, “Confidentiality,” or any summary reference to Confidentiality Laws. It is an elitist Spokeswoman Mock who only offers her obstructive, obligatory impost that the State Bar of Texas “cannot confirm even that a grievance was filed in the case unless it is filed in a state district court .” Disturbingly Spokeswoman Mock (after the disappearance of Maureen E. Ray) appears to have the only State Bar position still relegated to be available to discuss with Complainants the grievance process in general and the rules governing it.

Vows of “secrecy” as an attorney or as a member of a grievance committee are not (in anyway) related to dishonesty of holding in confidence the acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation of Tx State Bar members so that an attorney can escape Discipline. All attorneys must abide by Rule 8.03 Reporting Professional Misconduct which compels attorneys, knowledgeable of another lawyer’s violation of applicable Rules, to inform appropriate disciplinary authority. TDRPC, Rule 1.05 Confidentiality of Information obliges attorneys to take action to reveal confidential information (conditionally):

TDRPC, Rule 1.05 Confidentiality of Information“…..(c) A lawyer may reveal confidential information:

127 |

(1) When the lawyer has been expressly authorized to do so in order to carry out therepresentation.(2) When the client consents after consultation.(3) To the client, the client’s representatives, or the members, associates, and employeesof the lawyers firm, except when otherwise instructed by the client.(4) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to complywith a court order, a Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law…”

*c) TDRPC, Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities, (8) requires that every lawyer comply with the State Bar’s minimum disciplinary standards and aid in securing their observance by other lawyers:

“8. The legal profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulation is undertaken in thepublic interest rather than in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar, andto insist that every lawyer both comply with its minimum disciplinary standards and aid insecuring their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises theindependence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.”

Subjects and matters relative to the domain the CLD Annual Report, which is due to be published for the period from June 1, 2015-May 31 st , 2016, should spotlight that the purpose of the State Bar Grievance System is to protect the public by:

Pinpointing in TDRPC the acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which an attorney trespassed that led to loss of money, property or important Rights of the Complainant so that restitution can occur.

Determining sanctions and/or Disciplinary Action to prevent the reoccurrence of such acts of Misconduct to encourage all Texas attorneys to conduct themselves honestly and ethically.To DENY and DISMISS valid Grievances as inconsequential to the Respondent Attorney and

dishonestly conceal evidence of attorney misconduct corrupts BODA’s Mandate from The Supreme Court of Texas to hear and make the final decision regarding the acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by the Respondent Attorney and deprives the Complainant’s Right to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas (per IPR, SECTION 10: APPEALS FROM BODA TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, Rule 10.01 Appeals to the Supreme Court).

Tens of thousands of DENIED and DISMISSED GRIEVANCE Complainants , Victims of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures; for example, Mark R. Stanley (and other Complainants) lost a most important duty of his profession to report Attorney Misconduct per TDRPC Rule 8.03(a) and $1,170,654 PLUS. I, myself, lost my Right to a Fair Trial and more than $353,000. Donald R. Courtney lost rights to his Home Property and claims to Eminent Domain and an undetermined amount of money. Brittany Holberg lost her liberty and sits on Death Row while the State Bar of Texas conceals exculpatory evidence. We have ALL been deprived by CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC of our Right to Appeal the FINAL DECISION regarding the acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation to The Supreme Court of Texas. We have only now to rely on the aftermath of Mr. Stanley’s PETITION to relieve the chokehold that grossly negligent CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC officials and appointees have had on all of our lives, since, at least, 1/1/2004.

Hundreds of thousands of Texas Citizens have been (and continue to be) assaulted by reoccurrence of acts of professional misconduct due to the abject failure of the State Bar of Texas to provide “minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system” per TEX GV. Code Section 81.072. In Texas, it is CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC officials and The Supreme Court appointees who reprehensively advocate for obstruction of justice, and conceal all evidence of attorney misconduct by an improper procedure of expungement of records of Grievances within days of improper DENIALS and DISMISSALS of valid Grievances.

*d)Fodder for the domain the CLD Annual Report which is due to be published for the period from June 1, 2015-May 31 st , 2016 should be the legal profession’s responsibility to assure that its regulation is undertaken in the public interest, rather than in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.

128 |

A staple of the prior CLD Annual Reports are subtle references to “alternative methods” that CLD perceives it has “an authority” to offer instead of proper Sanctions and Discipline. Noncompliant discipline procedures, CLD asserts, can relieve the prevalence of attorney misconduct WITHOUT the institution of disciplinary standards as an aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. It seems as though Chair Harrison appears to believe CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC have a “discretionary choice” of whether or not a Grievance need to be classified as a Complaint but can DENY and DISMISS the Grievance if the Respondent Attorney “self-reports his professional misconduct.” Can CLD Chair Harrison truly believe that if an attorney is allowed to lie, steal and cheat Clients out of hundreds of thousands of dollars – just by stating his/her contrition to the State Bar of Texas and paying his/her member dues, the attorney will not lie, steal and cheat more Clients – (for perhaps millions of dollars) with complete confidence that the State Bar will not sanction or disbar the attorney?

The following excerpt from Marc R. Stanley’s PETITION explains that certain attorneys, for example; “Atty J,” are on such familiar terms with the State Bar of Texas Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel that they expect to be relieved from Discipline just by self-reporting, even in the case in which more than $1,170,654 was stolen from investors in a fraudulent scam!

If there is another CLD Annual Report, perhaps Chair Harrison can forgo sly references to “self-reporting” or “alternative dispute mediation methods – which do NOT involve Discipline of attorneys,” for the sake of those Texans not on “familiar terms” with State Bar official’s and Supreme Court appointee’s smiling faces on the glossy photos of the CLD Annual Reports. Texans have been deceived: DENIED and DISMISSED our valid Grievances; lost large sums of money, our property and, our Liberty (as well as other Rights); and deprived of our Right to take our case to The Supreme Court of Texas, if not satisfied with BODA’s FINAL DECISION, while attorneys that “self-report professional misconduct” are patted on the back and given a free pass to continue to practice unethically by the CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC.

*e) Chair Harrison’s final CLD Annual Report must be aimed at the more than 14,087 Grievances Complainants, at least since 2013 and continuing relentlessly – that have been DENIED and DISMISSED without DUE PROCESS. We have been deprived of any investigation, or explanation, insulted by Special Administration Counsel Ray’s superior arrogance and angered by Spokesperson Mock’s dismal, repetitive observances that she “cannot confirm even that a grievance was filed in the case.” What can Chair Harrison, the bastion of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, do to begin to repair all the damage done to Texans in the misadministration of justice and the diminishment in the eyes of all Texans of the respect for the legal profession in Texas?

Per TRDP, Part V. Chief Disciplinary Counsel, CLD has had a choice of whether or NOT the General Counsel of the State Bar of Texas will continue to hold the function and to serve as Chief Disciplinary Counsel for CLD. Had Chair Harrison been compelled by an honest sense of duty and responsibility to protect the public, he would have discerned that CDC has, since 1/1/2004, mocked The Supreme Court of Texas by directing an Improper Grievance Procedure that Denies Texas Complainants and Respondent Attorneys Due Process of Law. Certainly I have Priority Mailed many Reports directly to Chair Harrison,

129 |

Petition for Administrative Relief, September 29th, 2014, Marc R. Stanley, page 5 “Armed with this starling new information about what was apparently a scheme of gross fraud, dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation, Petitioner confronted Attorney J. Attorney J admitted he had defrauded Complainants. He stated that he would “self-report” himself to the State Bar of Texas. Petitioner is aware of no indication that Attorney J “self-reported” himself and the State Bar has certainly not disclosed any such “self-report” to Complainants. (footnote) Had Attorney J self-reported his professional misconduct and the State Bar disclosed that self-report to Complainants, that fact would have certainly explained what the State Bar did; however, the Bar’s explanations have not mentioned any alleged “self-report” by Attorney J.

marked as requests per The Government Code, Title 2, Subtitle G, Chapter 81, Subchapter A, Chapter 325 of The Government Code - Texas Sunset Act, Section 81.036, INFORMATION ON CERTAIN COMPLAINTS. I have never received a single, solitary response to even one request.

Per TRDP, §5.01,lviii if CLD Chair Harrison had rightly determined that CDC was offending the public with the dysfunctional Grievance System and promulgating a chaos among lawyers and clients of the Texas Justice System that will be difficult (perhaps impossible) to repair and very costly, Chair Harrison could have petitioned the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas (for example in January or February [odd years] 2013 – or 2015) to provide funds to select and hire a lawyer, sufficient deputies, and assistants, to replace the biased and unethical CDC offered to CLD by the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas. It appears Chair Harrison has forever “kicked the can” down the road, instigating the formulation of a Class Action Lawsuit of all DENIED and DISMISSED Complainants that have been deprived of Due Process of Law (since, at least, 1/1/2004) against the State Bar of Texas.

Per TRDP, §5.03, “On disciplinary and disability matters, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel is accountable only to the Commission (for Lawyer Discipline).” One must ask why Chair Harrison recluses himself and all members of CDC and CLD from the wreckage of CDC in the aftermath of Marc R. Stanley’s PETITION. Will Chair Harrison expect that no more repercussions after the loss of CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Maureen E. Ray along with her license to practice law? Will he continue to blissfully ignore the fact that CDC continue to send out improper “standard Grievance Denial Notices,” unsigned Notices without any Respondent Attorney’s name in the Reference, and even fail to read, classify and record Grievances against attorneys that I have filed and send them back to me as though they are allowed to do so by CDC, and routinely DENY and DISMISS valid Complaints without Due Process of Law?

Marc R. Stanley suggests (on Page 12 of the PETITION) that: “To say Ms. Ray is the problem is to ignore the fact that she is presumably not making the original classification errors—if those are errors, rather than policy.”

(iii.) CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV must be fully and publicly exposed for degrading The Supreme Court of Texas by implying that The Court, which is entrusted by Texas Citizenry to fairly and honestly administer justice, would stand behind the State Bar of Texas’ DENIAL and DISMISSAL of a Grievance against Randall County Criminal District Attorney James Farren, which described and gave evidence that Farren had threatened several witnesses during and after Brittany Holberg’s trial to obtain false testimony.

GOV and CLD inanely repeat the same catchphrase in Reports: the State Bar Grievance System is a “fair, honest and transparent procedure” but nothing could be further from the truth. Neither GOC nor CLD work in harmonious tandem with other agencies to “protect the public.” Being deadlocked with CDC, CLD, BODA’s and GOC’s union of noncompliance, (the endorsers and promoters of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures); advocates and non-profit agencies (which actually do protect the public) have gained much motivation for their inspiration and formation in order to object to and rectify the contemptible DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Grievance Complainants of valid Grievances without respect to Due Process.

*a) GOC, (Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas) Biennial Report June 1, 2014 by (former) Chair Stan Serwatka misrepresents that GOC has made “substantial contributions to successful disciplinary cases.” Yet, a task force will find that GOC disregards criticisms, and always fails to apprise The Supreme Court of Texas of the absurd DENIALS and DISMISSALS of valid Grievances, and resulting derogatory censures by Press and publicly minded individuals and agencies. Then GOC Reports falsely insinuates (as Chair Serwatka did in the Biennial Report June 1, 2014) that GOC was in some way associated with “successful disciplinary case.”

I have written many critiques to both Chair Serwatka and Chair Wylie describing the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures in accordance with The Government Code, Title 2, Subtitle G, Chapter 81, Subchapter A, Chapter 325 of The Government Code - Texas Sunset Act, Section 81.036, INFORMATION ON CERTAIN COMPLAINTS. I have never received a single, solitary response. In my one meeting with GOC Chair Catherine N. Wylie in February, 2015, I was well prepared for, at least, a three

130 |

hour conference with the GOC members. But, after only 25 minutes of my presentation, I was rudely ushered out and told by Chair Wylie that I was not to expect another invitation to any GOC conference. I asked for but never received any minutes report from the GOC meeting. Perhaps, Wylie is too busy.39

GOC is not concerned with the image of the State Bar presents on the Internet: CDC, CLD and BODA serve only as obstacles to overcome for advocates and agencies pursing Discipline against Texas attorneys that flagrantly flout The Court’s Rules. In early 2015, Julie Oliver, Executive Director of the Texas Coalition on Lawyer Accountability (TCLA), an Austin-based watchdog group, filed a Grievance against Randall County Criminal District Attorney James Farren. The Grievance claimed Farren had threatened several witnesses during and after Brittany Holberg’s trial to obtain false testimony, violating a professional conduct rule that bars “engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The valid Grievance was summarily DENIED and DISMISSED.

TCLA’s Executive Director Oliver was provided BODA’s incorrect “standard improper Appeal Denial Notice,” i.e., BODA’s standard denial letter fails to give any Notice whatsoever of the Grievance Complainant’s Right to Amend a Grievance. BODA “denies, “dismisses,” “closes,” and wrongly states on the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s decision. According TCLA’s letter containing misinformation from BODA, the DENIAL and DISMISSAL finding cannot be appealed and the State Bar will take no further action.

Prior to January, 2015, I had armed GOC with all-encompassing Written Critiques and overwhelming proof of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Unabashed by the specter of public humiliation that the State Bar would attract in the DENIAL and DISMISSAL of TCLA’s Grievance against James Farren, GOC’s Chair did not bother to intervene with the disturbing fracas that was presented to the public by the Media on January 10th, 2015:

The State Bar of Texas’s “spokeswoman” Mock denied any knowledge of the existence of the DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance filed by TCLA.

GOC’s Chair was mute (altho GOV’s Chair Wylie had become aware that CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel Ray would be forced to give up her law license on April 10 th, 2015),

the Media espoused (truthfully!) that the Texas State Bar had rejected Executive Director Julie Oliver’s Grievance – without any explanation to TCLA or investigation of Farren – leaving Brittany Holberg on DEATH ROW - when exculpatory evidence had been presented to the State Bar Grievance System in TCLA’s valid Grievance.

A California Law firm was denied a writ filed on Holberg’s behalf by TX Court of Criminal Appeals. Farren’s comments to the Amarillo Globe-News, January 10th, 2015 were not in sympathy for the

DEATH ROW inmate Holberg; nor contrite about TCLA’s Grievance’s claims (which had been raised by the Courts for years) that Farren threatened several witnesses during and after Brittany Holberg’s trial to obtain false testimony. Farren appeared to the public and Media to be more concerned with concealing and covering up prosecutorial wrongdoing and preventing any possible adverse publicity for his office than in discovering the truth or seeing that justice was done.

Farren gleefully conjectured to the Press as though it is an imposition to him that he be held accountable for attorney misconduct: “What it is, she’s carrying water for the writ attorneys out of California who are trying to find any way they can to overturn the death penalty decision in Brittany Holberg’s case…” Farren’s cocky speculation in the Amarillo Globe-News was that Farren could file a Grievance against TCLA for leaking “confidential documents filed in the Grievance Process.” (Farren seems to be taking his “(secret) confidentiality” cues from “spokeswoman” Mock and GOC Chair Wylie.)

The Amarillo Globe-News article by Jim McBride on January 10th, 2015 indicated: “The grievance claims Farren threatened several witnesses during and after Holberg’s trial to obtain false testimony, violating a conduct rule that prohibits “engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”….further claims that Donald Ray Owens, a cab driver who gave Holberg a ride to Princess Apartments in Amarillo where Towery lived, gave an affidavit in which he claimed Farren threatened him.

39 Wylie’s appt. letters to Grievance Oversight Commission and to The Commission on Judicial Conduct.131 |

Specifically while preparing Mr. Owens for trial, Mr. Farren presented Mr. Owens with a copy of his rap sheet, implying that if Mr. Owens did not cooperate, he could be prosecuted again. Mr. Farren then told Mr. Owens the ‘facts’ he should testify,” the grievance said. “Mr. Farren used similar tactics on the other declarants (Ms. Kirkpatrick, Ms. English, Ms. Burnett and Ms. Roach) whose statements show that they falsely testified that Ms. Holberg had bragged about the crime, had confessed to violent offenses against older victims or other incriminating statements.” Farren scoffed at the claims listed in the grievance and said they are not new to his office or the Texas courts. All I can tell you is that since someone has revealed to you that a grievance has been filed — which is an ethical violation for them to reveal that — ethically, all I can tell you is that every single issue raised in their grievance has been litigated over and over and over through the various appellate courts in appeals and writ hearings for the last 12 to 15 years. And every one of them has been rejected by the courts as false, having no evidence to support it — no reliable evidence — to support it,” Farren said. The courts have held over and over again that these people are not credible, are not believable, and their story is not believable, and I have been exonerated by the appellate courts.”I insist that neither I or any of the multitudes of Texans who read the Amarillo Globe-News, January

10th, 2015 Article would agree that the State Bar of Texas has authority from Texans or The Supreme Court of Texas to summarily DENY and DISMISS Executive Director Julie Oliver’s Grievance – without any explanation to TCLA or investigation of Farren. It is disgraceful that GOC (by fervent adherence to its’ approach of keeping mum in matters which concern the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures) is standing as an obstacle to those Petitioners like Marc R. Stanley, advocates like me, and non-profit agencies like TCLA, that simply request The Supreme Court regulate the practice of law in Texas; addressing deficiencies and non-compliance.

Followers of CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s, and GOC’s “(secret) confidentiality,” would certainly advise against a “leak of confidential documents,” except under the sole condition that James Farren had assessed a Judgment in an Evidentiary Trial or District Court. Yet, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC have disgracefully blocked TCLA’s Grievance by absurd claims to have “authority” from The Supreme Court of Texas to irrevocably deny, complete, close and command “there is no Appeal from the Board’s decision.”

In March, 2015, disgracefully GOC Chair Wylie was taciturn, unwilling and or unable to inform Linda A. Acevedo, CDC’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel; Guy Harrison, CLD Chair; Christine McKeeman, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel & Marvin W. Jones BODA’s Chair, Spokeswoman Claire Mock, or The Supreme Court of Texas Chief Justice Nathan Hecht that CDC, CLD, BOA and GOC had DENIED and DISMISSED a Grievance without any explanation to TCLA or investigation of Farren .

While Farren had flippantly threatened to sue TCLA for “releasing confidential Grievance information,” the State Bar of Texas was quoted by Media as “unable to even admit that TCLA had filed a Grievance.” Spokeswoman Mock was projecting an image in the Media to “protect Farren,” and - to “avoid adverse publicity at all costs” – undermining both justice and public safety. GOC Chair Wylie could not be shamed by her ethical vows to divulge her “confidential secret” that in the Biennial Report June 1, 2014, by (prior) Chair Stan Serwatka, GOC had claimed credit for uncovering Prosecutorial Misconduct right alongside of Julie Oliver of TCLA in a case with very obvious similarities to TCLA’s DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance against James Farren. Ironically, the GOC Biennial Report June 1, 2014 provides recommendationslix for a three (3) hour training course on such topics as prosecutorial and defense ethics in criminal cases and Disciplinary Rule 3.09 issues – which provides a PROHIBITION of a private reprimand for a prosecutor found to have violated Special Responsibilities by failing to disclose “all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the defense.” Instead of speaking out of both sides of her mouth, GOC Chair Wylie obtusely chose to be voiceless on the subject of the State Bar’s dysfunction Grievance System which (on one side) promotes training on Disciplinary Rules but (on the other side) is deliberately advocating for attorneys

132 |

accused of Prosecutorial Misconduct by DENYING and DISMISSING Grievances without any explanation to Complainants, like TCLA or investigation of attorneys like James Farren. By reading the GOC June 2014 Report – Pages 4 – 6, it might appear to someone with no knowledge of the dysfunctional Grievance System of the State Bar of Texas that GOC had worked with Julie Oliver of TCLA and as a result had been instrumental in prosecuting Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson for “concealing evidence, coercing testimony and obstruction of justice” in the Michael Morton case. In 2014, GOV Chair Serwatka seemed to revel in the passage by the Texas Legislature of the Michael Morton Act, S.B. No. 1611, which provides for open discovery process in criminal cases, including an open-file policy. Also passed by Legislature was S.B. 825, amending Tex Gov Code § 81.072, to require prohibition of a private reprimand for a prosecutor found to have violated TDRPC §3.09(d) Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor by failing to disclose “all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the defense.”

The truth is that CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV were resistant to Disciplinary Action against Ken Anderson (who presented a statute of limitations defense to CLD causing delay) but CDC, CLD, BODA, GOV’s and Ken Anderson’s “defenses” were overcome in an exemplary cause led by courageous advocates, Julie Oliver of TCLA, pro bono lawyers and the Innocence Project, which initiated disciplinary action against Ken Anderson, subsequent to exonerating Michael Morton after he spent 25 years in jail for a murder he did not commit. The Michael Morton case and the Anderson proceedings received national attention and led to statutory and rule changes. Well-known documentary filmmaker Al Reinert wrote and directed an award-winning film on the case, entitled “An Unreal Dream.” CNN repeatedly broadcast an abridged version of that film. See http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/. lx

The Supreme Court of Texas amended applicable rules and procedures to implement those legislative directives. By Order on October 14, 2013, The Supreme Court of Texas:

Approved amendment of CLD Internal Operating Procedure 13 to prohibit such private reprimands. See Misc. Docket No. 13-9150.

Amended TRDP 15.06 to extend the limitations period for a wrongfully convicted person to file a grievance. (In the past complaints filed by imprisoned, convicted defendants only rarely proceeded very far through the disciplinary system while the complainant was still in prison). Amended Rule 15.06C now provides that a prosecutor may be disciplined for violation of TDRPC 3.09(d) that occurred “in a prosecution that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of a person” if the grievance is received by CDC within four years after the wrongfully imprisoned person is released from a penal institution. That change allows persons who are wrongfully convicted to pursue discipline for prosecutorial misconduct after release from imprisonment.

*b) CLD’s Chair Harrison purports that the purpose of CLD is to “protect the public ; ” but the CLD Annual Reports projects a rather different single-mindedness: CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC are led by a band of State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees that have perversely “enacted unwritten exceptions within State Bar’s Internal Operating Rules” which are in opposition to Statutes, for the purpose of concealing attorney misconduct and the promulgation of Expunction Orders for the “benefit” of their dues-paying State Bar Membership.

CLD’s Internal Operating Rules stand as an obstacle to advocates and agencies like TCLA and the Innocence Project. Laudable, public-spirited efforts of TCLA and the Innocence Project, seek to impeach Prosecutors, charged with attorney misconduct (e.g., concealing exculpatory evidence), that are propelled to the reluctant attention of the State Bar of Texas by the intense scrutiny of the Media in “high profile” cases, e.g. Michael Morton who spent 25 years in jail for murdering his wife although, contemptibly, Ken Anderson, John Bradly and Michael Davis had exculpatory evidence at the time of the Trial but concealed it, covered up prosecutorial wrongdoing, and prevented any possible adverse publicity rather than discovering the truth and seeing that justice was done.

The Grievance for Ken Anderson stood in abeyance for several years while Anderson was supported by CLD in his claims that the Statute of Limitations had run out on his wrongdoing in the Michael Morton Trial. In order to impeach Ken Anderson, The Supreme Court of Texas was compelled by TCLA and

133 |

the Innocence Project to revise TRDP 15.06 (c) to extend the Statute of Limitations for a wrongfully imprisoned person to file a grievance against a prosecutor accused of professional misconduct until four years after release of the wrongfully imprisoned person from a penal institution. Rule 13 of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline Internal Operating Rules lxi were also revised by The Supreme Court to provide that if a prosecutor is found to have committed Misconduct for failing to disclose exculpatory or mitigating evidence to the defense for the accused, the Disciplinary Action must be public and not a private reprimand.

Chair Guy Harrisons’ CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2013-May 31 st , 2014 and CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 do not convey any interest in the rights of law abiding citizens but do evidence CLD’s interests in measures to exonerate State Bar of Texas Bar Members from any Discipline from Grievances filed by Complainants. Contemptibly, just those same Grievances describe that the practice of law of the Respondent Attorney includes barratry and misrepresentation, dishonest and deceitfully acts and perpetration of fraudulent schemes. The Table – pg. 29 - from the CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014- May 31 st , 2015 indicates a Total State Bar Public Protection Dollars Actual Expenditures as $11,594,087. Yet, it can be argued that the “STATE BAR OF TEXAS PUBLIC PROTECTION DOLLARS” budget only goes to protect attorney misconduct from being uncovered in the Grievance Process.

(iv.) An important purpose of the task force established by administrative order of The Supreme Court of Texas, is to propose Legislation to protect, as a Class, all Grievance Complainants, those Deprived of Appeals of Attorney Misconduct Determinations (hereafter “DAAMD”) who have been subjected to attorney misconduct as defined in TDRPC but had their valid Grievances irrevocably “denied”, “completed,” “closed” and were given false notice that “there is no Appeal from BODA’s or the District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.”

Tens of thousands of Complainants have suffered intolerable monetary and property losses, lost important rights accorded by the US Constitution for protection of individuals and families, and/or even liberty, through the Barratry, Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation of undisciplined Texas attorneys. CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s DENIALS and DISMISSALS of valid Grievances have demonstrated contempt of The Supreme Court Rules meant to protect Texans from attorney misconduct. The irredeemable cadre discriminated against Complainants by depriving Complainants of Due Process, failing to investigate Grievances and concealed the evidence of wrongdoing in order to shield Respondent Attorneys from Discipline.

The State Bar of Texas, a “trade association,” has mismanaged the Grievance System since, at least, 1/1/2004. Disgracefully, as State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees have noticed that no one is watching, the Grievance System has become engrained with gross negligence of Complainants’ Rights, and caused severe financial and emotional damages by DENYING and DISMISSING valid Grievances with no Disciplinary Consequence to the Respondent Attorney.

By their “work” in opposition to The Supreme Court of Texas statutes, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOV have provided a privilege of Texas State Bar members to be unfettered by any fear of Disciplinary Action while freely exploiting the trust of Texans who must rely on the Texas State Bar for the administration of justice. Unethical Texas attorneys, with a Median Income of $113,291,lxii give vows to deferentially serve Texans who have only a Median Household Income (in 2014) of $53,035;lxiii but as long as those attorneys continue to pay dues to the State Bar for “membership” they can maintain a license to “lie, cheat, and steal” even those small amounts of money or meager properties that low income households may have. Without any Disciplinary constraints, unethical attorneys can and have filed huge numbers of frivolous Lawsuit breaking State and Federal Laws without sanction, directed improper Motions in Texas Courts without Due Process of Law, stolen millions of dollars in barratry from Texans and deprived UNPROTECTED Texans of liberty and freedom. Unethical attorneys pillaged and plundered their way through The Courts, unrestrained in their dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures has directly financially benefited each and every one of the 96,912 State Bar of Texas active members by failing to discipline Respondent Attorneys in even the most obviously valid Grievances describing dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

134 |

misrepresentation, and by concealing the most heinous attorney misconduct by a process of EXPUNGEMENT of Grievances.

(v.) A Class of Complainants, DAAMD, have been severely injured by the State Bar’s dysfunctional Grievance System

A group of Complainants have a common thread, hereafter, “the DAAMD class,” tens of thousands who have been deliberately DENIED our Right to Appeal injustices and have been forced to endure attorney misconduct with NO APPEAL and NO DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCE to the Respondent Attorney. While Complainants are Denied Appeal of Attorney Misconduct Determinations (DAAMD); the State Bar of Texas commands all Texas attorneys pay membership dues and taxes determined by the profit they achieve by lying, cheating and stealing from DAAMD Complainants. In addition, all Texas State Bar members are required to attend (or be disbarred per TRPC, Rule 8.04. Misconduct, (a) (11)lxiv) State Bar of Texas’ Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs, CLE educational seminars, which indoctrinate attorneys about:

how Grievance “writings” and Complaints can be unconstitutionally DENIED and DISMISSED by defiant bands of CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC officials and appointees, maladministering a dysfunctional Grievance Process,

the impudence of a BODA Grievance Panel or District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panel.While State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees have devastatingly mishandled the Texas

Grievance system, promoting self-interests over justice; thereby gaining large financial discounts and millions of dollars in profit returned to State Bar member owned TLIE insurance premium payers, the DAAMD class lost millions of dollars (and more), homes and valuable property, abilities to protect Complainants and their families, and Complainants’ liberties due to The State Bar of Texas’ dysfunctional Grievance System. The DAAMD class were given improper Notices that the State Bar of Texas Grievance classifications of determinations of those in the DAAMD class were closed with no Appeal Rights.

CDC and CLD concealed and failed to disclose all evidence or information known that tends to affirm the guilt of the accused attorney in improper Grievance determinations, and instead of investigating Complaints Grievances, defended the unethical acts of the Respondent Attorney. BODA and GOC DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances depriving Complainants of DUE PROCESS. As a result, DAAMD Complainants cannot find ethical Texas attorney, even in the most obvious cases of fraud and attorney misconduct, because principled attorneys are most often fearful of confronting the State Bar of Texas, their licensing agency. DAAMD Complainants, DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances, are debilitated by inability to help fellow Texans as Complainants with valid Grievances while irrefutable evidences referenced in the Grievances, are discarded. Respondent Attorneys just go free without remorse and maintain “spotless Disciplinary records” because the CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC help the Respondent Attorneys EXPUNGE all evidences of the DAMMD Complainants who have not been provided any explanation, investigation, or DUE PROCESS of Law on a “FINAL GRIEVANCE CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION” resulting in loss of money, property and/or important Rights.

I have envisioned a range of possible recommendations to help the DAAMD class of Complainants who have been burdened by the self-interests of The State Bar of Texas, a “trade association” which has greedily shielded attorneys who conduct themselves unethically, concealing professional misconduct as a “privilege of membership” in the State Bar of Texas, and by perpetrating massive injustices harming tens of thousands of Texans.

(vi.)Recommendations that can be implemented by legislation to make reparations and pay damages to the DAAMD Complainants Class due to the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures – for past DENIED and DISMISSED Inquiries and Complaints with NO Explanation and NO Due Process. All of the information (below) must be ordered disclosed to the new Disciplinary authority (e.g., the independent inspector general) to conduct a comprehensive review of all Grievances. Lawful disclosure requests, by other than the independent inspector general, need be made to the Office of the Attorney General in accordance with The Texas Public Information Act on a case-by-case basis unless or until there is

135 |

a finding that professional misconduct occurred and a sanction other than a private reprimand is imposed against the respondent attorney (in which case the information may be made public).

By Order of The Supreme Court per TX Govt Code, Sec. 81.0752. CONFIDENTIALITY, Disclosure of info pertaining to Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures; e.g., Grievances and Grievance Notices with addresses of Complainants from CDC and BODA, Letters by CDC’s Special Administrative Counsel, Maureen E. Ray Proceedings - provided as “an explanation” to Complainants why the Grievance’s described attorney misconduct did not qualify as professional misconduct per TDRPC, CDC’s Summary Disposition Panel File Notes, BODA’s and GOC’s District Grievance Committees Files, CLD’s Evidentiary Panel Notes and Files, Evidentiary Panel judgments, hearing transcripts, and statements presented to the CDC or by the CDC to panels of the district disciplinary counsel, expungement records relating to Respondent Attorneys, etc.

Complainants have been DENIED and DISMISSED Grievances by a humiliating misinterpretation of TRDP 2.10: in opposition to The Supreme Court Rules; BODA has abjectly failed to provide Proper Notice of Complainants’ Rights to file Grievance Amendments and Appeal of Amendment decisions to BODA, since, at least, 1/1/2004. Both Complainants and Respondent Attorneys are deprived of their Right to file an Appeal to The Supreme Court by BODA’s IPR 10.01, which restricts “Inquiries or Complaint classification decisions” from qualifying for an Appeal to The Supreme Court. Below are recommendations that can be implemented to immediately terminate the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.a) A simple change to BODA’s IPR would jolt CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s recall of Discipline Purpose and Rules, e.g., TX. Govt Code, Sec. 81.072. GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES.

Appeals of Classification to The Supreme Court DENIED & DISMISSED Appeals to The Supreme Crt Grievance Classifications were limited from Appeal to The Supreme Court for the reason that Statutes exist, pertaining to the Attorney Disciplinary Process, with ample provision of Due Process of Law through BODA, i.e. Amendments and Amendment Appeals. BODA has contemptibly acted in opposition to The Supreme Court Mandate to provide explanation, investigation, Proper Notices and Appeal Rights. While a Task Force determines the exact extent of the State Bar’s violation of applicable Rules, The Supreme Court can enact legislation allowing that a final Classification Decision by BODA may be appealed to The Supreme Court of Texas. The Court issues stern notice to the State Bar that It intends to apply Disciplinary Sanction against officials and appointees who have participated in violation of The Court’s Rules, i.e. If the Complainant’s “writings” describe Professional Misconduct per the TDRPC, he/she can ask the question; for ex.: “Why was the attorney allowed to defraud me in a scheme of fraud, dishonesty, deceit, & misrepresentation in violation of TDRPC 8.04 (a) (3); my Grievance was DENIED and

Would State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees be so reprehensive as to continue to maladminister a program concealing attorney misconduct if the final Grievance Classification Determination by BODA could be appealed to The Supreme Court of Texas? The Supreme Court can enact Rules to provide that a final Classification Decision which is adverse to either the Complainant or Respondent Attorney (after he/she has been provided Amendment and Amendment Appeals), can be appealed to The Supreme Court. It is assumed by The Court that attorneys who receive Proper Notice of the classification of a Complaint with a Right to Appeal to BODA, can discuss the Professional Misconduct directly with BODA. OCDC is sorely remiss in sending the Complainant to CAAPS to “be one’s own lawyer to mediate a dispute.” BODA must directly observe that a $1,170,654. property was secretly sold in a fraudulent scam, while Respondent misled the Complainant, charging him for maintenance and upkeep; BODA must take steps to disbar the attorney. CDC and BODA (or a new discipline system that can be created which will operate

136 |

DISMISSED and was inconsequential to the Respondent Atty? The Court is humiliated by the unconstitutionally DENIED and DISMISSED Grievance of a woman who is on DEATH ROW, Brittany Holberg, because a Respondent Attorney has concealed evidence of her innocence. The Court can issue austere warning to attorneys/judges to be wary of attorneys who conceal evidence or lie on Court. When a Complainant’s Grievance reveals Misconduct; sanctions will apply to ALL those involved. The Grievance System’s Purpose is to provide Disciple to attorneys who act in opposition to TDRPC and not to define a “favorable outcome” of a Grievance depicting barratry, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, as “dismissal.”

independently from the Texas State Bar) will perform their Duty in Grievance System and will NOT burden The Supreme Court with the Disciplinary Mission. Under proper Rules which provide Due Process, few UNJUST “FINAL DECISIONS” should remain. However, for those few, the final decision by BODA may be appealed to The Supreme Court. During the interim before transfer to a new discipline system, OCDC, CLD, BODA and GOC must carefully observe that - because TDRPC, Rule 1.05 (c )(4 )obliges attorneys to reveal confidential information to comply with TDRPC, - no member of the State Bar or appointee by The Supreme Court of Texas CDC can absurdly insist their “secrets are entirely confidential.”

b) Legislation to revise BODA’s IPR, 10.01. Appeals to the Supreme Court – to remove the exception of “determinations that a Grievance (statement) constituting an inquiry or complaint” from inclusion as cases that can be Appealed to The Supreme Court.

Although establishment of a new discipline system, e.g., transferring investigatory and adjudicatory function to the Office of the Attorney General, may take a year or more, The Supreme Court of Texas can remove the phrasing that is causing such discomfiture to CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC by their misinterpretation that BODA has “authority” from The Supreme Court of Texas to DENY and DISMISS Grievances, with NO explanation and NO Due Process of Law on determinations adverse to the Complainants and providing NO disciplinary consequence for attorney misconduct. Currently, Complainants are unlawfully denied APPEAL RIGHTS and are deprived of any recourse against the damaging effects of the wrongful Classification “decision.” Unfairly, very few of Complainants’ Grievances against Respondents are “determined” to demonstrate “just cause” and are set on a Roster for an Evidentiary Hearing or District Court. However, due to a misinterpretation of Statutes, eff. 1/1/2004, CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC, DEPRIVE Respondents of a Right to Appeal a CDC’s “just cause decision” to BODA. Due to a misconstruction, those “decisions” of CDC and a Summary Disposition Panel that a Complaint demonstrates “just cause” are made by fledgling attorney/employees of the Bar after reading a “writing” of a NON-ATTORNEY Complainant! Such complete chaos is caused by the misinterpretation because a Respondent is required to make a reply to (usually) a NON-ATTORNEY, who (generally) has no knowledge of TDRPC or TRDP. To save themselves time, CDC staff attorneys and Summary Disposition Panels routinely “find” NO JUST CAUSE – after an “investigation” except if the Respondent refuses to make a REPLY to a “writing” from a Complainant which can, no doubt, appear nonsensical to an attorney. Prior to the Complainant-adverse Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, Respondents could APPEAL the fact of a Classification as a Complaint to BODA – BEFORE HE/SHE HAD TO MAKE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINANT! Clearly, the advent of a Summary Disposition Panel, eff. 1/1/2004, is unconstitutional (because it disregards a Respondent’s Right to Due Process) and must be REPEALED IMMEDIATELY! There are innumerable inequities caused by “misinterpretations” of Changes, eff. 1/1/2004, related to State Bar Act [Texas Gov’t Code §81, et seq.]). For example but not limited to: Complainants are DEPRIVED OF A RIGHT TO APPEAL AN EVIDENTIARY PANEL DECISION due to CDC’s, CLD’s BODA’s and GOC’s inane misinterpretation. However, (on the other hand), if a Judgment is rendered after an Evidentiary Proceeding, a Respondent Atty can APPEAL to BODA (per TRDP, 2.21. Notice of Decision,lxv) so that it does not affect the Attorney’s Disciplinary Record with the State Bar.

137 |

To immediately stop the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures today, BODA’s IPR, 10.01. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be revised to provide Complainants Appeal Rights on equal basis with Respondents in the Attorney Disciplinary process. By revising BODA’s IPR 10.01, both Grievance Complainants and Respondents, not satisfied with BODA’s adverse classification determinations, after provision of adequate notice, a fair hearing, or neutral judge (using procedural rules under Texas Law), could take the Appeal of BODA’s FINAL CLASSIFICATION DECISION to The Supreme Court.

Adjustment of BODA’s IPR, 10.01. Appeals to the Supreme Court would provide a renewal of interest in the TRDP and TDRPC among attorneys in that ALL FINAL DENIAL DECISIONS pertaining to Complainants’ Grievances describing Professional Misconduct as defined by the TDRPC which have been (previously) improperly classified, DENIED and DISMISSED and disregarded by the State Bar Grievance System, could be appealed to The Supreme Court. For example, any Grievances which described Professional Misconduct but that were:

reprehensibly disregarded and classified as a Inquiries (inconsequential to the attorney), or classified as Complaints and “investigated” but the District Grievance Committee Summary

Disposition Panel (in “secret,” confidential seclusion) determined there was NO “just cause” to believe that a Respondent Attorney conducted himself/herself unethically; so Complaints were DENIED and DISMISSED without explanation or provision of Due Process, and summarily EXPUNGED from the Respondent Attorney’s licensing record by the “trade association,” the State Bar of Texas. The proposed revised rules would simply read:

“INTERNAL PROCEDURAL RULES Board of Disciplinary Appeals SECTION 10: APPEALS FROM BODA TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Rule 10.01 Appeals to the Supreme Court (a) A final decision by BODA may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. The clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas must docket an appeal from a decision by BODA in the same manner as a petition for review without fee.”

An immediate change in IPR Section 10: APPEALS FROM BODA TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS would require a complete overhaul of the State Bar of Texas’ CLE workbooks which currently give a humiliating misinterpretation that the BODA decision on classification appeals is FINAL and cannot be amended, and the amendment cannot be appealed. Current informational sources (e.g., State Bar and BODA websites) fail to provide Notice that an Appeal to BODA can be amended per Regulations within 20 days of receipt of notice of BODA’s classification decision. Nor, do CLE workbooks or BODA’s website information provide the vital right of Complainants to Appeal BODA’s adverse classification decision on an Amendment. For example, per BODA’s website information,40 CDC’s, CLD’s, BODA’s and GOC’s humiliating misinterpretation is noted on “Frequently Asked Questions Page:”

“Can I appeal a decision on my complaint? No. The BODA decision on classification appeals or transfer requests is final.”

c) Immediate declaration by The Supreme Court of the current dysfunctional Grievance Process, implemented 1/1/2004,41 as unconstitutional per TRDP 1.03. Construction of Rules and Severability of Rules per TDRPC Rule 9.01.lxvi

40 Attached is a page of “Frequently Asked Questions” originating from the txboda.org website on 11/25/2009 that provides unconstitutional messaging stemming from the Notices Procedure and the Grievance Denial Procedure.41 Attached are “THE TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE: Changes to Attorney Grievance System (Effective 1/1/2004), Chapter 6, by Jennifer A. Hasley, dated May 20th, 2005

138 |

By Order of the Supreme Court of Texas, Rules, Policies and Procedure, effective October 30 th , 1992, must be reinstituted and continue until revisions to the TRDP and TDRPC are made to the exact standard of the Rules existing before 1/1/2004.42

(i.) Legislation to revise TRDP 2.10 and IPR, Section 3, Rule 3.01 Notice of Right to Appeal so that Respondent Attorneys are provided a Right to Appeal BODA’s determination that a Grievance “writing” constitutes a Complaint and give proper Notice of the Respondent Attorney’s Right to Appeal CDC’s Complaint Classification at the time of “intake.” The revised Legislation would restore rights to Respondent Attorneys in effect before 1/1/2004.lxvii

After revision, Respondents (instead of the Complainant who is most often NOT an attorney) could contest the fact that the Grievance constituted a Complaint. In most cases, the legislative revision would alleviate the current incongruity of DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Grievances, i.e., it is currently the Complainant, (instead of the Respondent Attorney) who is required to learn TDRPC so that the Complainant could understand CDC and BODA’s DENIALS and DISMISSALS of a Grievance per rules defined in the TDRPC.

The proposed revised rules would read: TRDP, 2.10. Classification of Inquiries and Complaints. “The Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall within thirty days examine each Grievance received to determine whether it constitutes an Inquiry or a Complaint. When the Grievance is determined to constitute an Inquiry or a Complaint, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall notify the Complainant and Respondent of the determination. The Complainant may, within thirty days from notification of the dismissal as an Inquiry, appeal the determination to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. If the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirms the classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be so notified and may within twenty days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence. The Complainant may appeal a decision by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to dismiss the amended Complaint as an Inquiry to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. The Respondent Attorney may, within thirty days from notification of the determination of the Grievance classification as a Complaint, appeal the determination to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. If the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirms the classification as a Complaint, the Respondent Attorney will be so notified and may within twenty days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence. The Respondent Attorney may appeal a decision by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel regarding the amended Appeal’s Determination as a Complaint to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals.

When the Grievance is determined to constitute an Inquiry rather than a Complaint after BODA’s determination, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall notify the Complainant and Respondent of the determination with proper provision of Appeal Rights to the Complainant. If the Grievance is determined by BODA to constitute a Complaint, the Respondent shall be provided a copy of the Complaint with notice to respond, in writing, to the allegations of the Complaint. The notice shall advise the Respondent that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel may provide appropriate information, including the Respondent's response, to law enforcement agencies as permitted by Rule 6.08. The Respondent shall deliver the response to both the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Complainant within thirty days after receipt of the notice.”

A change to BODA’s IPR Rule would reinstitute the Rules in effect before 1/1/2004, i.e., a Respondent Attorney would NOT be unconstitutionally DEPRIVED of his/her right to Appeal the adverse decision of a Complaint Classification to BODA.

IPR, Rule 3.01 Notice of Right to Appeal (a) If a grievance filed by the Complainant under TRDP 2.10 is classified as an Inquiry or a Complaint, the CDC must notify the Complainant and the

42 Attached is an Order of the Supreme Court of Texas, Rules, Policies and Procedures effective October 30th, 1992.139 |

Respondent Attorney of his or her right to appeal as set out in TRDP 2.10 or another applicable rule.

(ii.) Legislation to revise TRDP 1.06, TRDP 2.12, 2.13, 2.14 (D), 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.24, 2.28, 3.01, 3.02, 3.05, 3.06 3.07, 3.08, 3.09, 3.10, 3.12, and 3.16 to eliminate the negative, Complainant-adverse changes (which became effective on 1/1/2004) for Complainants in the Grievance Process.

As Marc R. Stanley pointed out in the PETITION (page 10), State Bar officials and Supreme Court appointees are mismanaging the Grievance System; disgracefully waiting for a lawyer to be convicted of a crime (by another legal authority than the State Bar Disciplinary System) BEFORE acting through a “regular grievance process.” It is clear that the changes which occurred 1/1/2004, were intended for efficiency of a procedure for justice and discipline by The Supreme Court of Texas but have, instead, become the “clout” for the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, an embodiment of maladministration by the State Bar.

The origins of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures currently inefficiently and dishonestly administered by the State Bar of Texas can be traced to changes to TRDP 2.13, Evidentiary Hearings, which became effective 1/1/2004. Immediate revision of TRDP 2.13 would result in an extremely positive change that Complainants’ Right to Due Process of Law would be restored in the Grievance Process and Respondent Attorneys would be disciplined for attorney misconduct should the attorney not follow the exact standard of TDRPC and TRDP. A clear message would be disseminated to all Texas attorneys that The Supreme Court of Texas, an administrator of justice, will not tolerate dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation among lawyers that have chosen the legal profession.

Prior to the Complainant-adverse changes, effective 1/1/2004, the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney were permitted to appear in person and testify under oath before an investigatory panel of the State Bar District Grievance Committee. After 1/1/2004, the Complainants’ Rights to Due Process of Law were eradicated by “new rules” with disastrous results that underpin the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures, for example but not limited to:

*a) The elimination of the “just cause” hearing which was held inclusive of the presence of the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney by an investigatory panel of the State Bar Grievance Committee. Under “new rules,” the responsibility for investigation and a “just cause” determination lxviii by CDC are not subject to review per the unconstitutional contents provided in TRDP 2.13.lxix

*b) The establishment of a Summary Disposition Panel was adverse to the Complainant because he/she is no longer permitted to appear in person before an investigatory panel of the State Bar District Grievance Committee, given Proper Notice of Summary Disposition Panel Determinations and Appeal Rights. The current dysfunctional Grievance System proponents purport that the revocation of rights to appear in person, to present all supporting documents under oaths before an investigatory panel, is (in the State Bar of Texas’ own CLE Program lesson) “an opportunity for the Respondent for a favorable outcome --- dismissal.” Without provision of Due Process of Law to the Complainant in the Grievance Process, the Closed Summary Disposition Panel is admittedly for the purpose of --- “Dismissing the Respondent Attorney from Discipline.”

*c) The omnipresent misunderstanding of the State Bar’s current dysfunction Grievance System is that CAAP is a “dispute resolution procedure” for problems that occur between the Complainant and the Respondent Attorneys due to improper DENIALS and DISMISSALS of Grievances - which depict and document attorney misconduct. CAAP, “an opportunity to” conceal attorney misconduct from BODA and/or an Evidentiary Panel, is contemptibly offered as an alternative to (instead of) an Appeal to BODA’s Review on all improper DENIAL and DISMISSAL Notices of CDC. The deleterious confusion is noted in Chapter Six (6)lxx of a State Bar of Texas’ Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program provided to attendees of

140 |

the TEXAS MINORITY ATTORNEY PROGRAM on May 20th, 2005 in Houston Texas by Jennifer A. Hasley, CDC. Absurdly, the State Bar’s current dysfunction Grievance System overrides the stipulations in TRDP 2.17 (O)lxxi that CAAPs referrals can be made ONLY after conducting the Evidentiary Hearing in which a judgment has been provided to CAAPS.

It might be argued that there would be little or no net financial effect of the elimination of CAAP as an agent of “support” to the Grievance System. The unaudited FY 2014-2015 State Bar of Texas expenditure for CAAP was $519,800; perhaps the CAAP disbursement could, instead, be added into the Client Security Fund which currently holds more than $3 million in its corpus. Payouts are funded through an annual appropriation from the bar, currently more than $1 million, interest on the corpus; and any restitution received (per (CLD) Annual Report — June 1, 2013-May 31 st , 2014 . Yet, The Client Security Fund only paid out $622,878 of the $3,000,000.00 to Complainants in FY 2014-2015.

*d) The revocation of Complainants’ rights to an Appeal of an Evidentiary Panel Decision - only pertaining to the Complainant - results in an inordinately unfair Grievance Process which prohibits a Complainant’s Right to Due Process of Law while favoring the Respondent Attorney’s ability to conceal attorney misconduct and evade much needed Disciplinary Action.

Purportedly in the interest of “eliminating delays and making the (Grievance) System more efficient,” the Right to Appeal of Evidentiary Panel Decision by Complainant – not by the Respondent Attorney - was repealed by Complainant-adverse Changes to The Attorney Grievance System, Effective 1/1/2004.

*e) By restoring the Grievance System in effect before 1/1/2004, Complainants would have: adequate notice of CDC’s decision with proper Appeal Rights (to BODA), a fair hearing with an investigatory panel of the State Bar Grievance Committee-which can be attended by both the Complainant and Respondent- who give testimony and evidence UNDER OATH, and a neutral judge (using procedural rules under Texas Law). Complainants’ Proper Notice from CDC of the Right to Appeal could NOT, under any circumstance, make the mistake of indicating CAAP could suffice for Grievance justice instead of an Appeal to BODA. BODA’s Notices would give proper Notice of a Complainant’s Right to Amend a Grievance for a revised Determination.

The “just cause” hearing including the presence of the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney – to give evidences and testimony - would be restored. The current unconstitutional Summary Disposition Panel with its’ wrongful Notices, DENYING and DISMISSING valid Grievances with no Disciplinary Consequence to the Respondent Attorney, would be only a nightmarish memory. No longer would Complainants be assaulted with improper Notices that valid Grievances are irrevocably “denied”, “completed,” “closed” and given false notice that “there is no Appeal from BODA’s or the District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.” If the Complainant disagreed with the Evidentiary Panel Decision, he/she would have rights equal to the Respondent Attorney’s Right to Appeal to BODA which may reverse and remand for further proceeding by the Evidentiary Panel or a statewide grievance committee panel.

In the circumstance of a subsequent Denial of a Grievance by BODA after an Amendment (and an Amendment Appeal, if necessary), the Complainant would have the opportunity to make an Appeal to The Supreme Court of Texas if the exception that “determinations that a Grievance (statement) constituting an inquiry or complaint” was removed from IPR, Rule 10.01 Appeals to the Supreme Court.

d.) Legislation to appoint an independent inspector general to conduct a comprehensive review of all Grievances that have been DENIED and DISMISSED by CDC and/or BODA and the District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panel on classification decisions (Inquiry and Complaints) since 1/1/2004.

Per TDRPC, Rule 1.05, Confidentiality of Information, the State Bar of Texas must provide logs of Grievance Complainants (with addresses) who were mailed one or more “standard Denial Notices” from CDC or BODA cannot be concealed by Confidentiality Laws. Notices gave improper instructions that:

141 |

Falsely insinuated that the Grievance “writing” did not pertain to attorney misconduct as defined in the TDRPC and/or was determined by BODA, Appointed by The Supreme Court of Texas, to be an invalid Grievance of no disciplinary consequence to the Respondent Attorney.

Misled the Complainant to abandon a Right to Appeal to BODA; claimed incorrectly that Grievance issues pertaining to Misconduct per TDRPC, requiring Discipline, could be “mediated” by CAAP.

Falsely declared that CDC’s, BODA’s and the District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panel’s determinations (in seclusion) without the presence of Complainant or Respondent) were irrevocably “denied”, “completed,” “closed” and that “there is no Appeal from BODA’s or the District Grievance Committee Summary Disposition Panel’s decision.”

e) The Supreme Court of Texas can revise TRDP Rule 15.06 to modify statute of limitations pertaining to the class of DAAMD Complaints under comprehensive review by an independent inspector general.

Proposed language to consider: attorneys may be disciplined for Misconduct that resulted from denial of Due Process in Grievance Determinations after 1/1/2004 for a period of four years after the wrongfully denied Grievance Complainant is granted a Complainant-supportive decision in a Trial de Novo.

g) Provide legislation prohibiting lxxii giving a private reprimand to attorneys if a Trial de Novo issues a judgment against the attorney which is in agreement with the Complainant’s claims in the Grievance.

A revision to TX Gvt Code 81.072, General Disciplinary and Disability Procedures would indicate: “(11) the commission adopting rules that govern the use of private reprimands by grievance committees and that prohibit a committee:(B) giving a private reprimand for a violation:(i) that involves a failure to return an unearned fee, a theft, or misapplication of fiduciary property; or(ii) of a disciplinary rule that requires a prosecutor to disclose to the defense all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, including Rule 3.09(d), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct; or”(iii) of a disciplinary rule that requires attorneys not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

h.) Legislation to restore the Right of Complainant to make an Appeal of Evidentiary Panel Decision; a Right which was misconstrued CDC, CLD, BODA, and GOC to be unconstitutionally repealed by Complainant-Adverse Changes to the Attorney Discipline System, Effective 1/1/2004. lxxiii

i.) Legislation to provide for establishment of a Trust for victims of the unfair administration of Grievance Complaints in Texas, i.e., a trust named “Fair Administration of Complaints in Texas, (FACT).”

A last-but-not-least legislation proposal that I petition The Supreme Court of Texas to consider and enact: a Trust to assist Grievance Complainants so injured by the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS provides:Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

i.) Complainants’ lives have been adversely altered and their financial circumstances destroyed by attorneys who have practiced law in an unethical and unprofessional manner without any Discipline since, at least, 1/1/2004.

142 |

Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Linda A. Acevedo, Assistant Disciplinary Counsels, S.M. Beckage and K.W. Morgan, BODA’s Exec. Director & General Counsel Christine E McKeeman, BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones, GOC Chair Catherine Wylie, CLD Chair Guy Harrison and many other officials and appointees of the State Bar of Texas, have shamefully avoided duty per Chapter 325 of TEX GV. Code - Texas Sunset Act to respond to multiple written criticisms of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. As a direct result of willful, gross negligence of the State Bar of Texas members and officials and appointees by The Supreme Court to agencies associated with the State Bar, a large category of DAAMD victims (tens of thousands) have been disenfranchised of their Right to Due Process in the Grievance System (intended to provide Discipline to attorneys who violate TDRPC) and require compensation.

While accepting the Salaries, Duties, and/or Honors of serving the Public and The Supreme Court of Texas in administering the State Bar of Texas’ Grievance System, the officials and appointees instead became overseers of an unconstitutional procedure which has a sole purpose of self-centered interest to all Texas attorneys in that the dishonest practice kept premiums for professional liability low. But, the State Bar’s procedure was especially beneficial those attorneys who routinely acted unethically and unprofessionally, i.e., the procedure purposely concealed attorney misconduct, actually providing for EXPUNGEMENT of all Grievance Records for State Bar of Texas’ dues-paying members. The Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures contemptibly has provided a “safe harbor” to Respondent Attorneys, most often never even providing a copy of the Complainants’ Grievances “writings” to those attorneys to “ponder;” and actually encouraging the prevalence of attorney misconduct in Texas.

Each and every member of the State Bar of Texas who can be defined as having participated in or benefitted from the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedure stands accused of the crime of depriving citizens of Texas of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in some manner disfranchising Texans, without the due course of the law of the land. Therefore, it is essential that legislation be established and enacted in reference the State Bar of Texas Grievance System crimes victims - to provide compensation accorded by The Texas Constitution, ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS, Section 31, COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME FUND; COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME AUXILIARY FUND; USE OF FUND MONEY. lxxiv

ii.) Funding of the FACT Trust will include appropriations as determined by the Legislature and, in addition, other sources that may be recommended by The Supreme Court of Texas as a remedy to apparent widespread noncompliance.

The (newly) appointed independent inspector general will be charged with investigating Grievances against individuals, for example; but, not limited to State Bar officials and appointees by The Supreme Court of Texas to agencies of the State Bar, accused of FACT related crimes. If an arrest is made following the investigation of Grievance Complaints, the inspector general will become the prosecutor which files charges against the defendants and pursues prosecution. In the criminal case, the prosecutor will be the attorney for all the people of Texas and will not act on behalf of the individual victims.

The FACT prosecutor will control all key decisions of the case, including whether to charge a defendant with a crime and what crime to charge, and whether to offer or accept a plea deal or go to trial. The penalties imposed if the defendant is found guilty can include incarceration/imprisonment, fines and forfeitures, probation, community services, and sometimes restitution to the individual victim. The burden of proof in criminal matters is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is much more difficult to achieve than the “preponderance of evidence” standard used in most civil cases.

Regardless of whether a criminal prosecution is undertaken, or whether defendant was found not guilty, FACT crime victims may still be able to seek justice by filing a civil lawsuit against the person or persons the victim believes caused the victim harm. The civil justice system does not determine an offender’s guilt or innocence, but works to determine whether the offender is liable for the harm caused to the victim. In pursuing the civil lawsuit, the victim, who will hire a private attorney, control all of the key decisions of the case, including whether to accept a settlement offer or go to trial. The act that caused the harm is known as a “tort” in the civil justice system.

143 |

In the civil case, the victim will seek to be compensated (usually with money) for the damages that he or she suffered as a result of defendant’s tort. The amount of evidence needed to win in most civil cases (or what is known as the burden of proof) is a “preponderance of evidence.” This burden of proof essentially means that one side’s evidence must be more persuasive than the other; this is far lower than the burden necessary in a criminal case. “Statutes of limitation,” set time limits on how long FACT Plaintiffs have to file a civil suit following the harm they have suffered will vary in accordance with the Date of Discovery of the Grievance Complainant of Rights accorded by FACT Legislation.

iii.) Applications for payments from the FACT TRUST must include a Grievance finding from a Trial de Novo conducted by the independent inspector general that the DENIAL and DISMISSAL of a Grievance filed after 1/1/2004 was Improper and that the Complainant received Improper Notice from CDC or BODA that there was NO PROVISION FOR A RIGHT TO APPEAL. Thereafter, the attorney might be determined in a Criminal and/or Civil Court to have perpetrated Professional Misconduct as defined by the TDRPC, for example; but not limited to: stealing the Client’s money, causing loss of property or other assets due to Misconduct, failed to refund an unearned fee or failed to follow Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedures regarding evidences that caused the Complainant to suffer pain and financial losses. The payments to DAAMD Complainants could be offered as grants to aid in Criminal and Civil Lawsuits for restitution of money, property and important rights that many Complainants have been DENIED by the Improper Notices Procedure and the Grievance Denial Procedure.

The people -- the people -- are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts -- not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.

Abraham Lincoln - September 16 and 17, 1859 Notes for Speeches at Columbus and Cincinnati

I contend the State Bar of Texas officials and appointees have formed into a vigilante band, operating in complete opposition to TDRPC Rule 8.03 (a) which commands a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, will inform the appropriate disciplinary authority. The self-appointed State Bar members believe they can make their own Complainant-adverse Grievance System, eschew the mandate from THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS which provides the Texas State Bar is that “appropriate disciplinary authority;” instead choosing to encourage attorneys in Texas to practice Barratry and Misrepresentation, to act Dishonestly, Deceitfully, and to conduct Fraudulent schemes.

State Bar of Texas officials and appointees are very obviously concealing ALL grievance “writings” filed by Complainants in the Grievance System. Using a convoluted rational that the Texas State Bar is “helping” its own members by hiding the huge number of Grievances filed against Texas attorneys – by never classifying certain Complaints, or providing explanations and investigations, failing to record the Grievances of Complainants, and not providing much needed discipline. The Texas State Bar has, instead, rendered itself completely meaningless; an excruciating embarrassment to THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, and a nearly overwhelming obstacle to overcome in the system of justice in Texas.

144 |

For its disrespect of Texans, the State Bar of Texas must be disabused of all Respect previously accorded by The Supreme Court of Texas and curtly removed from the Attorney Discipline System. CDC’s Linda A. Acevedo, BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman, BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones, GOC Chair, Catherine N. Wylie, CLD Chair Guy Harrison and State Bar Spokeswoman Claire Mock have mocked The Supreme Court of Texas by directing an improper Grievance System that denies Texas Complainants and Respondent Attorneys Due Process of Law. I have provided more than thirty-five (35) Complaints/Reports to CDC’s Linda A. Acevedo, BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman and, and GOC Chair, Catherine N. Wylie, and CLD Chair Guy Harrison requiring that a response be made to me in accordance with The Government Code, Title 2, Subtitle G, Chapter 81, Subchapter A, Chapter 325 of The Government Code - Texas Sunset Act, Section 81.036, INFORMATION ON CERTAIN COMPLAINTS. I have never received a single, solitary response.

Over seven (7) years, I received one terse letter, from Catherine N. Wylie, Chairman of the Grievance Oversight Committee, dated January 22nd, 2015,43 which referred to only two (2) of the letters/reports I had written but did not specify the correct dates of those letters. At Chair Wylie’s GOC “committee meeting,” I was allotted only twenty-five minutes to provide the details of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures. Chair Wylie quickly ushered me out of the “committee meeting,” nervously explaining that there was nothing she could do. I compiled more reports in March, 2015 and sent them by Priority Mail to CDC’s Linda A. Acevedo, BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman and GOC Chair, Catherine N. Wylie, CLD Chair Guy Harrison and others. I have received no response at all to my letters/reports and full documentation of the Improper Notices Procedure and Grievance Denial Procedures.

I emailed www.txboda.org because I had only been able to download the 2015 BODA Report from the website. I had only been able to download the 2014 BODA Report by information from Marc R. Stanley’s PETITION. I have attached a copy of the emailed reply from Gayle Vickers, BODA’s Deputy Director Counsel,44 which gives incorrect information that the Reports from 2005 through 2015 are readily available and can be mailed if BODA is contacted. BODA’s Deputy Director Counsel Vickers asserts in a “(secret) confidential” email that BODA Reports 2005-2015 are linked on txboda.org. To date, Gayle Vickers, BODA’s Deputy Director Counsel, is unwilling or has not been able to correct the information on the www.txboda.org Home Page that all BODA Reports (2005 through 2015) can be mailed to individuals, if so desired.

Texas is THRIVING with 96,912 active attorneys; perhaps some of the best and brightest in the Nation! Why will any Texan retain any attorney (among the 96,912) for any reason when it becomes public knowledge that we are being disserved by an incompetent, corrupt, puerile “trade association” which does NOT DISCIPLINE; ONLY EXPUNGES all records of valid Grievances, DENYING & DISMISSING Complainants’ Statutory Rights to file AMENDMENTS AND APPEALS of adverse decisions? Contemptibly, the only manner in which Texans can impeach OCDC is to propel a beckoning Media spotlight on the very worst of humanity; attorneys who regard their Law degree as an opportunity to lie, cheat and steal; depriving innocent victims (often indigent individuals with families) of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. I petition The Supreme Court of Texas to take immediate action to investigate the vigilante groups, for example, but not limited to CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC, among the Texas State Bar membership. The Court must seek to retract (by Discipline and Disbarment) the Licenses to Practice Law of Texas officials and appointees who have participated in willful and/or grossly negligent violations of The Supreme Court Rules. CDC’s Linda A. Acevedo, BODA’s Christine E. McKeeman, BODA’s Chair Marvin W. Jones, and GOC Chair, Catherine N. Wylie, Spokeswoman Clair Mock, and CLD Chair Guy Harrison Have Mocked The Supreme

43 Attached is a letter dated January 22nd, 2015, Re: Letters dated December 14, 2014 & January 5, 2015, from Catherine N. Wylie, Chairman of the Grievance Oversight Committee. This is the ONLY reply I have ever received from a single, solitary proponent of the Improper Notices Procedure and the Grievance Denial Procedure.44 Attached is an email, dated Dec. 1, 2015 from Gayle Vickers with is marked “Confidential” and contains the incorrect information that “paper reports from 2005 through 2015 can be mailed.” Ms. Vickers notes under “(secret), confidential cover” that “Because they are readily available on our website, we do not mail paper copies of the reports.”

145 |

Court of Texas by Directing an Improper Grievance Procedure That Denies Texas Complainants and Respondent Attorneys Due Process of Law. State Bar of Texas Members and Supreme Court of Texas appointees have deliberately harmed tens of thousands of Texans by their failure follow the exact course of The Supreme Court of Texas Laws. Sincerely Yours,

Debbie G. Asbury

cc: Thompson & Knight LLP: Richard B. Roper, 1722 Routh St #1500, Dallas, TX 75201Nina Hess Hsu, General Counsel, #24047749, The Supreme Court of Texas, PO Box 12248, Austin, TX 78711Linda A. Acevedo (#00829825), Chief Disciplinary Counsel, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711Counselor Christine E. McKeeman (#16174500), BODA Chair Marvin W. Jones, (#24026950), GOC Chair Catherine Wylie (#24033479), CLD Chair Guy Harrison (#00000077), State Bar, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711Spokeswoman Claire Mock (#24067772), State Bar, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711THE AMIN LAW FIRM 2131 N. Collins Street, Suite 433-610 Arlington, TX 76011 (Mayur)David N. Kitner, BODA Chair, PO Box 12426, Austin, TX 78711 (512) 427-1578Frank Stevenson, President-Elect, State Bar of Texas, P.O. Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711The Honorable Nathan Hecht Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice c/o Mr. Blake Hawthorne The Texas Supreme Court Clerk PO Box 12248 Austin, TX 78711Ms. Jane Nelson, Chair Texas Sunset Advisory Commission PO Box 13066 Austin, Texas 78711James M. McCormack, 2508 Ashley Worth Boulevard, Suite 210, Austin, TX 78738Christine McKeeman, BODA Exec. Director & General Counsel& Marvin W. Jones (BODA Chair)Catherine N. Wylie, Chair Grievance Oversight Committee (GOC) State Bar, PO Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711Gaines West, Atty at Law, West, Webb, Albritton & Gentry, PC, 1515 Emerald Plaza, College Station, TX 77845State Bar, PO Box 12487, Austin, TX 78711Charles Herring, Jr, Herring & Panzer, L.L.P., 1411 West Avenue, Ste 100, Austin, TX 78701Cindy Tisdale, Chair of the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors Guy Harrison, Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Linda Acevedo, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Catherine Wylie, Chair, Board of Disciplinary Appeals David Whittlesey, Chair, State Bar Board Discipline/CAAP CommitteeRobert S. Bennett, Suite 504, 401 Louisiana, Houston 77002HALT -- Simple, Affordable, Accountable Justice for All 1612 K Street, NW, Ste. 1102, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887-8255 • www.halt.org Chris L’Orange, Alan Lazarus, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 50 Fremont St., #2000, San Francisco, Ca 94105 (415 591-7638)Sue M. Beckage, 5301 Ankara Crt, Austin, TX 78730 512 762 7691 Rick Green (for Texas Supreme Court), PO Box 900, Dripping Springs, TX 78620Jeffrey B. Simon, President of Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Simon, Greenstone, Panatier, 3232 McKinney Ave, Suite 610, Dallas, TX 75204E.A. Trey Apffell, III, President. State Bar of Texas, 1406 West Main, Hometown Bank Building,Texas City, Texas 77573Dana Andrew LeJune, 6525 Washington Ave, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77007-2112Gaines West, West, Webb, Allbritton, Gentry, PC, 1515 Emerald Pkwy, College Station, TX 77845Innocence Project of Texas, 300 Burnett Street, Suite 160, Fort Worth, Texas 76102

146 |

Jose M. Portela, The Beckham Group, 3400 Carlisle St., #550, Dallas, TX 75204, RE: Sandra Liser of Naman, Howell, Smith & LeeJulie Oliver, 2832 Shoal Crest, Austin, TX 78705

147 |

i PROCESSING A GRIEVANCE, a “first opportunity” for a favorable outcome for the Respondent Attorney, “DISMISSAL AS AN ‘INQUIRY with NO Disciplinary Consequence.”I have referred to following reference materials and deductions for the “first opportunity” Chart on pg 4.a. 79 % of Complainants’ Grievance “Writings” classified as Inquiries, 21% of Grievance “Writings” classified as Complaints - from 2015 BODA Report, Pg. 7b. At least 441 (A Total of 7,071 Grievances are indicated as “Grievances filed and classified by CDC” from 2015 BODA Report, - for fiscal year June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015 - Pg. 7) but the number 7,071 is contradictory to a bar graph on pg. 27 of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline Annual Report (June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015) that shows “CAAP Resolutions = 1,094; Grievances Received = 7,512 for 2015.” (7,512-7,071 = 441)c. Of 7,071 Grievances in 2015:

only 318 of 7,071 resulted in a Disciplinary Sanction - pg. 17 of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline Annual Report (June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015) shows 318. Pg. 7 from 2015 BODA Report, - for fiscal year June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015 shows five (5) Disciplinary Judgments rendered by BODA after Classification Appeal was granted.

184 were “unresolved” and/or dispersed by CAAP – Pg. 21 of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline Annual Report (June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015) indicates that there were 502 Respondents (239+213+50) who elected or defaulted into Evidentiary Hearings; or elected District Court. Eff. 1/1/2004, Complainant-adverse Changes were instituted which CDC, CLD, BODA and GOC inanely misconstrued to mean that – even AFTER a Summary Disposition Panel failed to DENY and DISMISS the Complaint but placed the Respondent’s & Complainant’s Grievance on an Evidentiary Hearing Docket – that a Complainant and Respondent might “mediate a dispute” so that the Respondent would require NO DISCIPLINARY SANCTION and, in addition, the very fact of the Grievance would be expunged from the Respondent Attorneys’ record! Pg. 17 of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline Annual Report (June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015) shows that of 502 Respondents set on Dockets, only 318 received a Disciplinary Sanction. 502 – 318 = 184 – cases which did NOT result in Discipline but were dispersed by CAAP, a “voluntary mediation” which has NO Disciplinary Purpose. 184 Grievance Complaints were dispersed with NO discipline and expunged while Grievance Complainants were misinformed that CAAP could suffice – in lieu of their Right to an Evidentiary Hearing Decision or trial in a District Court.

5,348 “writings” DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION, NO UNBIASED INVESTIGATION, NO PROPER APPEAL & NO DISCIPLINE of Respondent. The 2015 BODA Report, - for fiscal year June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015 - Pg. 7 shows that 1,958 of 5,576 Grievance “writings” DENIED & DISMISSED upon CDC’s “intake,” were Appealed to BODA. Therefore, 3,618 were DENIED & DISMISSED upon “intake” with NO explanation, investigation & an Improper Appeal Notice. The same page shows that only 228 of 1,958 Grievances appealed to BODA were returned to CDC by BODA because BODA disagreed with CDC’s summary DENIAL & DISMISSAL upon “intake.” Therefore, the remaining 1,730 Grievance “writings” were DENIED & DISMISSED by BODA with NO explanation or investigation. Even more despicably, in contempt of Rules, BODA DEPRIVED Complainants of their RIGHTS to file Amendments to “writings” within 20 days of receipt of BODA’S DENIAL & DISMISSAL Notice & Amendment Appeals accorded by TRDP 2.10. 3,618 + 1,730 = 5,348

Remaining 89% (1,730) of Complainants who are DENIED and DISMISSED their Appeal of the “Inquiry” Classification to BODA (with NO explanation or investigation) are also DEPRIVED of Rights accorded by TRDP 2.10, Classification of Inquiries and Complaints. Speciously, BODA “denies,” “dismisses,” “closes,” and wrongly states on the “standard Appeal Denial Notice” that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s Inquiry Classification decision. Due to noncompliance with Rules and abject disrespect for Complainants in the Grievance System, BODA has omitted the provision to Complainants of Proper Notice of their Right to File a Grievance Amendment and an Appeal of BODA’s Grievance Amendment decision, since, at least, 1/1/2004. If a Complainant discovers TRDP 2.10 and files an Amendment within 20 days proscribed, CDC refuses to read or record the Grievance Amendment because the Grievance “writing” has already been denied, “dismissed,” “closed.” In blatant opposition to Rules, CDC and BODA, in firm consensus, proclaim that “there is no Appeal” of BODA’s Inquiry Classification decision.

Claire Mock, spokeswoman, conceals the startling disposition of 7,071 Grievances:₁ ONLY 318 - Disciplinary Sanctions;₂ 184 “unresolved or dispersed” – referred to VOLUNTARY CAAP without Discipline,₃ 5,348 “Writings” & 1,217 “Complaints”- DENIED & DISMISSED with NO EXPLANATION, NO UNBIASED INVESTIGATION, NO PROPER APPEAL NOTICE, & NO DISCIPLINE. ₄ Official “response” to Media is a mockery of “confidentiality:” Mock “cannot even confirm that a Grievance was filed” among 7,071 Grievances, unless it resulted in a Public Reprimand.

ii

PROCESSING A GRIEVANCE, a “second opportunity” for a favorable outcome for the Respondent Attorney, “DISMISSAL as a ‘Complaint” by a Summary Disposition Panel” with NO Disciplinary Consequence.I have referred to following reference materials for the “second opportunity” Chart on pgs. 5 & 6.a. 75 % of Complainants’ “writings” are DENIED & DISMISSED with NO explanation why CDC & BODA ignore TDRPC definitions. 25% Grievance “writings” are classified as “Complaints” BEFORE any respondent reads a Complainant’s “writing.”

A Chart “Catherine N. Wylie, Chair of Grievance Oversight Committee, Conceals Readily Available Statistical Information, absurdly blaming the State Bar’s “Lack of Proper Computer Technology” to collect clearly incriminatory data (on page 46 of this Report) demonstrates that the State Bar makes up its “Grievances Received” numbers – not bothering to read, classify, and protecting the “identity” of the Respondent but BODA and CLD cannot agree upon just what the false number of “Grievances Received” might be!

The 2015 BODA Report, Pg. 7, indicates “Grievances filed and classified by CDC” 7,071 but unashamedly CDC & BODA manipulate the “Total Grievances Received” by rejecting Grievances, unclassified & unrecorded. The 2015 CLD Report, Pg. 27 displays 7,512 as “Grievances Received” but purports that 1,094 of those Grievances were “minor concerns, disputes, or misunderstandings impacting the attorney-client relationship” and “resolved” by CAAP, WITH NO DISCIPLINE AND COMPLETE EXPUNGEMENT of the Grievance from the Respondent’s Record, leaving 6,418 as CLD’s “acknowledged” Grievances that CDC “classified.” I used the number 7,071 (which is certainly a false number to deceive anyone who might read a BODA or CLD Report) because it was more than 6,418 and less than 7,512.

The 2015 BODA Report, Pg. 7, indicates “1,958 Classification Appeals” but Pg. 18 of 2015 CLD Report indicates: “During the 2014-2015 bar year, there were 1,984 appeals by complainants from classification decisions.” I chose to use the lower, obviously falsified number, 1,958, in this Report. It disgusted me to read in the GOC 2014 Report that GOC blames “computer glitches” for GOC’s failures. In the most recent GOC Report (2014), GOC claims that GOC’s role in Case Management and Statistical Reporting is impeded by “system failures:” WinVantage (WV) and JustWare (JW) “glitches!” I contend that the State Bar is responsible for concealing Data because Data reveals the Gross Misconduct of its officials and appointees of The Supreme Court that I have been able to obtain from profuse Googling of Data as I have accomplished for this Report.

The 2015 BODA Report, Pg. 7, indicates that Complaints Received at Intake or determined as “Complaints” just by CDC and BODA’s reading were 1,767 :

1,495 Grievances were classified as “Complaints” at “intake.” Only 228 of 1,958 DENIED & DISMISSED Complaints which were appealed were returned by BODA to

CDC for “an investigation” of Professional Misconduct per TDRPC. 44 Grievances were “unresolved” by CDC or BODA – in 2013-2014; DENIALS & DISMISSALS were

appealed by Complainants but held “in abeyance” until CDC “investigation.”25% (1,767/7,071) are determined as Complaints by CDC from 2015 BODA Report, Pg. 7: 1,495

“Upgraded” plus 228 “Total Appeals Granted,” plus 44 from “2013-2014” = 1,767/7071 (25%).

b. CLANDESTINELY, CDC presented (1,495 + 228 – 502 – 5 =) 1,217 Grievances for DENIAL & DISMISSAL to Summary Disposition Panels. 1,189 of 1,217 (98%) of CDC’s biased findings of NO Just Cause” are discarded with NO DISCIPLINE & EXPUNGED. (Please note a variance in that the CLD 2015 Report shows no acknowledgement of 44 Grievances added to 228 DENIED & DISMISSED Complaints shown on Pg. 7 of the 2015

BODA Report.)The 2015 CLD Report indicates that more than 69% (1,189 of 1,723) of Grievance Complaints, (BODA’s

67% -- 1,189 of 1,767), which were earmarked by CDC and/or BODA to reveal Professional Misconduct as it is defined in TDRPC BEFORE a biased CDC investigation) were DENIED & DISMISSED by an anonymous Summary Disposition Panel. Complainants were DEPRIVED of Proper Notice to Amend and Appeal the adverse Decisions! All docs and evidences were hidden in a “(secret) confidential CLOSED FILE” until the Grievance record of the Respondent is EXPUNGED! Respondents are encouraged by the Dysfunctional Grievance System which allows them to steal millions of dollars from victims with no fear of Discipline and “win cases” by DEPRIVING Texans of Civil Rights, e.g., a Right to a Fair Trial by Jury.

Pg. 20 “During the 2014-2015 bar year, 1,217 were presented to Summary Disposition Panels of local grievance committees for consideration. The panels voted to dismiss in 1,189 of those Cases.”

c. (36%) 184 of 507 Complaints were REJECTED with No explanation, Appeal Notice or compensation from Respondent for financial damages &/or pain & suffering. Prof. Misconduct pardoned and Respondents’ record EXPUNGED!

The 2015 CLD Report indicates on pg. 21 that there were 239 Respondents who elected an Evidentiary Panel, 213 Defaulted into an Evidentiary Panel, 50 Elected District Court for a Total of 502. The same CLD Report, pg. 17, indicates Total Disciplinary Sanctions as 318. (502 – 318 = 184)

I have surmised from the 2015 CLD Report, pg. 17, that shows “Total Complaints Resolved” as 416 that 86 of 502 are “unresolved” meaning that those Grievances are dispersed WITHOUT DISCIPLINE due to incompetence and corruption of the State Bar. For example: cases are left pending for so long on the Evidentiary Panel Roster that the Statute of Limitations expires! 98 (416-318) of 502 – shown as “resolved” means that CLD’s case against Respondent was so weakly prosecuted that there was no sanction. Because Complainants were DEPRIVED of a Right to Appeal an Evidentiary Panel Decision eff. 1/1/2004, Complainants are left with NO RECOURSE unless the CLD makes an Appeal – exposing its own deficiencies! Such cases are, no doubt, referred to CAAPS and absurdly reported as “resolved” – even though the Respondent does not ever show up at a CAAP conference and scoffs derisively at any mention of the possibility of his/her being Disciplined in the future for any Professional Misconduct!

iii A letter dated May 14th, 2010 to Judy Sebesta, GOC Chair, from James M. McCormack presents vital information that GOC, BODA and CLD have discarded for the purpose of misleading The Supreme Court of Texas that the State Bar of Texas’s Grievance System is serving Texas Complainants by administering a proper Disciplinary System.

iv http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Judge-Resigns-Amid-Allegations-of-Improper-Conduct-228778391.html In emails on Tuesday, both Seana Willing, the commission's executive director, and Claire Mock, a spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas' Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office, wrote that their organizations could not comment on whether they are investigating Jones or other attorneys.

v One year is missing (2010-2011) but I found 2009-2010 on Internet. Per BODA & CLD Reports (6/1/2009 – 5/31/2010) 6,918 (95.64%) of 7,233 Grievances were DENIED &

DISMISSED without explanation by the State Bar’s misadministration of a Complainant-adverse Grievance Process. Only 315 of 7,233 (4.36%) Grievances were provided a Disciplinary Sanction by an Evidentiary or District Court Hearing after the classification, BODA Appeals, investigations of CDC & Summary Disp. Panel at a cost of $1,410 /Grievance.

vi

“ORGINAL PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, in re Marc R. Stanley, PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF, dated September 29th, 2014, By Marc R. Stanley, State Bar No. 1946500, STANLEY LAW GROUP, 3100 Monticello Ave, Suite 770, Dallas, Texas 75205, (214) 443, 4300 FAX: 214-443-0358 marcstanley@mac.com

vii TEX GV. Code, Texas Statues – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES: “(a) The chief disciplinary counsel’s office shall classify each grievance on receipt as:(1) a complaint, if the grievance alleges conduct that, if true, constitutes professional misconduct or disability cognizable under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct; or(2) an inquiry, if:(A) the grievance alleges conduct that, even if true, does not constitute professional misconduct or disability under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct; …”

viii TRDP, 2.10. Classification of Inquiries and Complaints“The Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall within thirty days examine each Grievance received to determine whether it constitutes an Inquiry or a Complaint. If the Grievance is determined to constitute an Inquiry, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall notify the Complainant and Respondent of the dismissal. The Complainant may, within thirty days from notification of the dismissal, appeal the determination to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. If the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirms the classification as an Inquiry, the Complainant will be so notified and may within twenty days amend the Grievance one time only by providing new or additional evidence. The Complainant may appeal a decision by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to dismiss the amended Complaint as an Inquiry to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals………………………………”

ix Per TEX GV. Code Section 81.072, GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES:“(a) In furtherance of the supreme court’s powers to supervise the conduct of attorneys, the court shall establish disciplinary and disability procedures in addition to the procedures provided by this subchapter.(b) The supreme court shall establish minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system. The standards and procedures for processing grievances against attorneys must provide for:(1) classification of all grievances and investigations of all complaints(2) a full explanation to each complainant on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint;”

x TRDP, 2.10. Classification of Inquiries and Complaints“………………………………………….If the Grievance is determined to constitute a Complaint, the Respondent shall be provided a copy of the Complaint with notice to respond, in writing, to the allegations of the Complaint. The notice shall advise the Respondent that the Chief Disciplinary Counsel may provide appropriate information, including the Respondent's response, to law enforcement agencies as permitted by Rule 6.08. The Respondent shall deliver the response to both the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Complainant within thirty days after receipt of the notice.”

xi TEX GV. Code 81.072 (d) and (e) (d) Each attorney is subject to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.(e) The state bar shall establish a voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure to:(1) attempt to resolve each allegation of attorney misconduct that is:(A) classified as an inquiry under Section 81.073(a)(2)(A) because it does not constitute an offense cognizable under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct; or(B) classified as a complaint and subsequently dismissed; and

(2) facilitate coordination with other programs administered by the state bar to address and attempt to resolve inquiries and complaints referred to the voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure.

xii TEX GV. Code, Texas Statutes – Section 81.073, CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES, (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) and (11).

(a) In furtherance of the supreme court's powers to supervise the conduct of attorneys, the court shall establish disciplinary and disability procedures in addition to the procedures provided by this subchapter.(b) The supreme court shall establish minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system. The standards and procedures for processing grievances against attorneys must provide for:(3) periodic preparation of abstracts of inquiries and complaints filed that, even if true, do or do not constitute misconduct;

(4) an information file for each grievance filed;

(5) a grievance tracking system to monitor processing of grievances by category, method of resolution, and length of time required for resolution;

(6) notice by the state bar to the parties of a written grievance filed with the state bar that the state bar has the authority to resolve of the status of the grievance, at least quarterly and until final disposition, unless the notice would jeopardize an undercover investigation;

(7) an option for a trial in a district court on a complaint and an administrative system for attorney disciplinary and disability findings in lieu of trials in district court, including an appeal procedure to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals and the supreme court under the substantial evidence rule;

(8) an administrative system for reciprocal and compulsory discipline;

(9) interim suspension of an attorney posing a threat of immediate irreparable harm to a client;

(10) authorizing all parties to an attorney disciplinary hearing, including the complainant, to be present at all hearings at which testimony is taken and requiring notice of those hearings to be given to the complainant not later than the seventh day before the date of the hearing; (16024)

(11) the commission adopting rules that govern the use of private reprimands by grievance committees and that prohibit a committee:

(A) giving an attorney more than one private reprimand within a five-year period for a violation of the same disciplinary rule; or

(B) giving a private reprimand for a violation that involves a failure to return an unearned fee, a theft, or a misapplication of fiduciary property; and

(12) distribution of a voluntary survey to all complainants urging views on grievance system experiences.

(c) In addition to the minimum standards and procedures provided by this chapter, the supreme court, under Section 81.024 shall prepare, propose, and adopt rules it considers necessary for disciplining, suspending, disbarring, and accepting resignations of attorneys.

xiii TRDP VIII. MAINTAINING THE INTEGRETY OF THE PROFESSION,Rule 8.04 Misconduct

(a) A lawyer shall not: (1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer relationship; (2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on

the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

xiv http://txboda.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Report2005.pdf

xv TRDP, 7.11 Judicial Review An appeal from a determination of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals shall be to the Supreme Court. Within fourteen days after receipt of notice of a final determination by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, the party appealing must file a notice of appeal directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The record must be filed within sixty days after the Board of Disciplinary Appeals' determination. The appealing party's brief is due thirty days after the record is filed, and the responding party's brief must be filed within thirty days thereafter. Except as herein expressly provided, the appeal must be made pursuant to the then applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Oral argument may be granted on motion. The case shall be reviewed under the substantial evidence rule. The Court may affirm a decision on the Board of Disciplinary Appeals by order without written opinion. Determinations by the Board of Disciplinary Appeals that a statement constitutes an Inquiry or transferring cases are conclusive, and may not be appealed to the Supreme Court.

xvi INTERNAL PROCEDURAL RULES Board of Disciplinary Appeals SECTION 10: APPEALS FROM BODA TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Rule 10.01 Appeals to the Supreme Court

(a) A final decision by BODA, except a determination that a statement constitutes an inquiry or a complaint under TRDP 2.10, may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. The clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas must docket an appeal from a decision by BODA in the same manner as a petition for review without fee.

xvii The issue of Debbie G. Asbury’s 2009 Grievance involved fraud on the part of Barron Casteel and the Plaintiffs, Kevin L. Butt and Jasmine A. Butt, Cause #C2007-0475A. The Grievance fully depicts a criminal act that is best described as Mortgage Bank Fraud. In meeting with my husband, Clement W. Machacek, Barron Casteel stated on June 5th, 2014 that he had little or no recollection of the Lawsuit.

On January 22nd, 2009, I, Debbie G. Asbury, was unfairly forced by Barron Casteel and Judge Gary L. Steel to “act as my own attorney” in a Court Case on a fraudulent real estate scam conducted by Barron Casteel which culminated in March, 2009 by forcing me to provide an invalid Title to Plaintiffs, Kevin and Jasmine Butt. It is the subject of the 2009 Grievance against Barron Casteel and the website, www.statfoundation.com.

xviii BODA Reports 2005-2015: http://txboda.org/annual-reports. “The Report 2014, THE BOARD of DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.”

xix BODA Reports 2005-2015: http://txboda.org/annual-reports “The Report 2015, THE BOARD of DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.”

xx Government Code, Title 2. Judicial Branch, Subtitle G. Attorneys, Chapter 81. State Bar.Sec. 81.011. GENERAL POWERS. (a) The state bar is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judicial department of government.(b) This chapter is in aid of the judicial department's powers under the constitution to regulate the practice of law, and not to the exclusion of those powers.(c) The Supreme Court of Texas, on behalf of the judicial department, shall exercise administrative control over the state bar under this chapter.Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 148, Sec. 3.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

xxi INTERNAL PROCEDURAL RULES, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Effective February 19, 2015

SECTION 3: CLASSIFICATION APPEALS Rule 3.01 Notice of Right to Appeal (a) If a grievance filed by the Complainant under TRDP 2.10 is classified as an inquiry, the CDC must notify the Complainant of his or her right to appeal as set out in TRDP 2.10 or another applicable rule.

xxii BODA’s 2015 Annual Report, page 6, “Procedure for an Appeal from a Grievance Dismissal”This link lists BODA reports 2005-2015: http://txboda.org/annual-reports. Click on the ones you wish to download.

Gayle Vickers, gvickers@texasbar.com, Deputy Director/Counsel

                              Board of Disciplinary AppealsAppointed by the Supreme Court of TexasP.O. Box 12426Austin TX 78711(512) 427-1868txboda.orgThe information contained in this email message, including any attachments, is attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as addressee. The review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication by or to anyone other than the intended addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

xxiii TX GV Code, Section 81.072

(o) Whenever a grievance is either dismissed as an inquiry or dismissed as a complaint in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and that dismissal has become final, the respondent attorney may thereafter deny that a grievance was pursued and may file a motion with the tribunal seeking expunction of all records on the matter, other than statistical or identifying information maintained by the chief disciplinary counsel pertaining to the grievance.

xxiv “The Report 2015, THE BOARD of DISCIPLINARY APPEALS, APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS” indicates on Page 5:

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.Appeals from Evidentiary Judgments“Either the Commission for Lawyer Discipline or an attorney against whom discipline has been imposed by a State Bar Grievance Committee may appeal any judgment from an evidentiary proceeding, including dismissal, findings of professional misconduct, or sanction imposed…..”

xxv TDRPC 8.04 (a)(2), Disciplinary Rules 8.04 (a)(3)Rule 8.04 Misconduct (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer relationship; (2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;…”

xxvi The last Sunset Review of the State Bar of Texas was in 2003, more than twelve years ago!Last Review Next Review

Bar of Texas, State § 81.003, Government Code

2003 2017

xxvii TRDP 2.13. Summary Disposition Setting: Upon investigation, if the Chief Disciplinary Counsel determines that Just Cause does not exist to proceed on the Complaint, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall place the Complaint on a Summary Disposition Panel docket. At the Summary Disposition Panel docket, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel will present the Complaint together with any information, documents, evidence, and argument deemed necessary and appropriate by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, without the presence of the Complainant or Respondent. The Summary Disposition Panel shall determine whether the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed. If the Summary Disposition Panel dismisses the Complaint, both the Complainant and Respondent will be so notified. There is no appeal from a determination by the Summary Disposition Panel that the Complaint should be dismissed or should proceed. All Complaints presented to the Summary Disposition Panel and not dismissed shall be placed on the Hearing Docket. The fact that a Complaint was placed on the Summary Disposition Panel Docket and not dismissed is wholly inadmissible for any purpose in the instant or any subsequent Disciplinary Proceeding or Disciplinary Action. Files of dismissed Disciplinary Proceedings will be retained for one hundred eighty days, after which time the files may be destroyed. No permanent record will be kept of Complaints dismissed except to the extent necessary for statistical reporting purposes. In all instances where a Complaint is dismissed by a Summary Disposition Panel other than where the attorney is deceased or is not licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall refer the Inquiry to a voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure.

xxviii TX. Govt Code, Sec. 81.072. GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES. (a) In furtherance of the supreme court's powers to supervise the conduct of attorneys, the court shall establish disciplinary and disability procedures in addition to the procedures provided by this subchapter.(b) The supreme court shall establish minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system. The standards and procedures for processing grievances against attorneys must provide for:(1) classification of all grievances and investigation of all complaints;(2) a full explanation to each complainant on dismissal of an inquiry or a complaint;

xxix TRDP, 1.06. Definitions:U. “Just Cause” means such cause as is found to exist upon a reasonable inquiry that would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an attorney either has committed an act or acts of Professional Misconduct requiring that a Sanction be imposed, or suffers from a Disability that requires either suspension as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas or probation.

xxx TRDP, 1.05 Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct: Nothing in these rules is to be construed, explicitly or implicitly, to amend or repeal in any way the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.

xxxi TRDP, 2.17 Evidentiary HearingsM. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is upon the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to prove the material allegations of the Evidentiary Petition by a preponderance of the evidence.

xxxii TX Govt Code 81.072 (b) (8) an administrative system for reciprocal and compulsory discipline;…..

….(10) authorizing all parties to an attorney disciplinary hearing, including the complainant, to be present at all hearings at which testimony is taken and requiring notice of those hearings to be given to the complainant not later than the seventh day before the date of the hearing;

xxxiii TRDP 5.02., PART V. CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSELDuties: In addition to the other disciplinary duties set forth in these rules, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall: A. Review and screen all information coming to his or her attention or to the attention of the Commission relating to lawyer misconduct. Such review may encompass whatever active investigation is deemed necessary by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel independent of the filing of a writing. B. Reject all matters and Inquiries not constituting a Complaint and so advise the Complainant.C. Investigate Complaints to ascertain whether Just Cause exists. D. Recommend dismissal of a Complaint, if appropriate, to a Summary Disposition Panel of appropriate venue. …..K. Notify the Respondent and the Complainant promptly of the disposition of each Complaint.

xxxiv TDRPC, Rule 8.04 Misconduct(a) A lawyer shall not:(1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through theacts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyerrelationship;(2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely onthe lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;(4) engage in conduct constituting obstruction of justice;(5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;(6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicablerules of judicial conduct or other law;…

xxxv TRDP 7.08 Powers and Duties: The Board of Disciplinary Appeals shall exercise the following powers and duties:

C. Affirm or reverse a determination by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel that a statement constitutes an Inquiry as opposed to a Complaint.

xxxvi TRDP 2.13 Summary Disposition Setting: ….. All Complaints presented to the Summary Disposition Panel and not dismissed shall be placed on the Hearing Docket. The fact that a Complaint was placed on the Summary Disposition Panel Docket and not dismissed is wholly inadmissible for any purpose in the instant or any subsequent Disciplinary Proceeding or Disciplinary Action. Files of dismissed Disciplinary Proceedings will be retained for one hundred eighty days, after which time the files may be destroyed. No permanent record will be kept of Complaints dismissed except to the extent necessary for statistical reporting purposes. In all instances where a Complaint is dismissed by a Summary Disposition Panel other than where the attorney is deceased or is not licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall refer the Inquiry to a voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure.

xxxvii TRDP 3.08 Additional Rules of Procedure in the Trial of Disciplinary Actions: In all Disciplinary Actions brought under this part, the following additional rules apply:

A. Disciplinary Actions are civil in nature. B. Except as varied by these rules, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply. C. Disciplinary Actions must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. D. The burden of proof in a Disciplinary Action seeking Sanction is on the Commission. The burden of proof in reinstatement cases is upon the applicant. E. The parties to a Disciplinary Action may not seek abatement or delay of trial because of substantial similarity to the material allegations in any other pending civil or criminal case. F. The unwillingness or neglect of a Complainant to assist in the prosecution of a Disciplinary Action, or a compromise and settlement between the Complainant and the Respondent, does not alone justify the abatement or dismissal of the action.

xxxviii TRDP 7.08 Powers and Duties:The Board of Disciplinary Appeals shall exercise the following powers and duties: ……..G. Hear and determine actions for compulsory discipline under Part VIII.

xxxix TRDP 2.14 Proceeding Upon a Determination of Just Cause:All rights characteristically reposed in a client by the common law of this State as to every Complaint not dismissed by the Summary Disposition Panel are vested in the Commission. A. Client of Chief Disciplinary Counsel: The Commission is the client of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for every Complaint not dismissed by the Summary Disposition Panel.

xl Sec. 81.072. GENERAL DISCIPLINARY AND DISABILITY PROCEDURES. (a) In furtherance of the supreme court's powers to supervise the conduct of attorneys, the court shall establish disciplinary and disability procedures in addition to the procedures provided by this subchapter.(b) The supreme court shall establish minimum standards and procedures for the attorney disciplinary and disability system. The standards and procedures for processing grievances against attorneys must provide for: (3) periodic preparation of abstracts of inquiries and complaints filed that, even if true, do or do not constitute misconduct;(4) an information file for each grievance filed;(5) a grievance tracking system to monitor processing of grievances by category, method of resolution, and length of time required for resolution;

xli TRDP, 2.11Venue of District Grievance Committee proceedings shall be in accordance with the following: A. Summary Disposition Panel Proceedings. Proceedings of a Summary Disposition Panel shall be conducted by a Panel for the county where the alleged Professional Misconduct occurred, in whole or in part. If the acts or omissions complained of occurred wholly outside the State of Texas, proceedings shall be conducted by a Panel for the county of Respondent's residence and, if Respondent has no residence in Texas, by a Panel for Travis County, Texas. B. Evidentiary Panel Proceedings. In an Evidentiary Panel proceeding, venue shall be in the county of Respondent's principal place of practice; or if the Respondent does not maintain a place of practice within the State of Texas, in the county of Respondent's residence; or if the Respondent maintains neither a residence nor a place of practice within the State of Texas, then in the county where the alleged Professional Misconduct occurred, in whole or in part. In all other instances, venue is in Travis County, Texas.

xlii TRDP 2.17. Evidentiary Hearings:P. Decision: After conducting the Evidentiary Hearing, the Evidentiary Panel shall issue a judgment within thirty days. In any Evidentiary Panel proceeding where Professional Misconduct is found to have occurred, such judgment shall include findings of fact, conclusions of law and the Sanctions to be imposed. The Evidentiary Panel may: 1. dismiss the Disciplinary Proceeding and refer it to the voluntary mediation and dispute resolution procedure; 2. find that the Respondent suffers from a disability and forward that finding to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals for referral to a district disability committee pursuant to Part XII; or 3. find that Professional Misconduct occurred and impose Sanctions.

xliii TRDP 2.21. Notice of Decision:The Complainant, the Respondent, and the Commission must be notified in writing of the judgment of the Evidentiary Panel. The notice sent to the Respondent and the Commission must clearly state that any appeal of the judgment must be filed with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals within thirty days of the date of the notice. If the Evidentiary Panel finds that the Respondent committed professional misconduct, a copy of the Evidentiary Petition and the judgment shall be transmitted by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall make an appropriate notation on the Respondent's permanent record.

xliv

TRDP 2.16. Confidentiality: A. All members and staff of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Committees, and Commission shall maintain as confidential all Disciplinary Proceedings and associated records, except that: 1. the pendency, subject matter, status of an investigation, and final disposition, if any, may be disclosed by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or Board of Disciplinary Appeals if the Respondent has waived confidentiality, the Disciplinary Proceeding is based on conviction of a serious crime, or disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction; 2. if the Evidentiary Panel finds that professional misconduct occurred and imposes any sanction other than a private reprimand; a. the Evidentiary Panel's final judgment is a public record from the date the judgment is signed; and b. once all appeals, if any, have been exhausted and the judgment is final, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel shall, upon request, disclose all documents, statements, and other information relating to the Disciplinary Proceeding that came to the attention of the Evidentiary Panel during the Disciplinary Proceeding; 3. the record in any appeal to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals from an Evidentiary Panel's final judgment, other than an appeal from a judgment of private reprimand, is a public record; and 4. facts and evidence that are discoverable elsewhere are not made confidential merely because they are discussed or introduced in the course of a Disciplinary Proceeding.

xlv TRDP 2.18. Imposition of Sanctions: The Evidentiary Panel may, in its discretion, conduct a separate hearing and receive evidence as to the appropriate Sanctions to be imposed. Indefinite Disability sanction is not an available Sanction in a hearing before an Evidentiary Panel. In determining the appropriate Sanctions, the Evidentiary Panel shall consider: A. The nature and degree of the Professional Misconduct for which the Respondent is being sanctioned; B. The seriousness of and circumstances surrounding the Professional Misconduct;

C. The loss or damage to clients; D. The damage to the profession; E. The assurance that those who seek legal services in the future will be insulated from the type of Professional Misconduct found; F. The profit to the attorney; G. The avoidance of repetition; H. The deterrent effect on others; I. The maintenance of respect for the legal profession; J. The conduct of the Respondent during the course of the Disciplinary Proceeding; In addition, the Respondent's disciplinary record, including any private reprimands, is admissible on the appropriate Sanction to be imposed. Respondent's Disability may not be considered in mitigation, unless Respondent demonstrates that he or she is successfully pursuing in good faith a program of recovery or appropriate course of treatment.

xlvi A chapter from TCLE training, “THE TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE: Changes to the Attorney Grievance System,” (Effective 1/1/2004) provides that CAAPS, a VOLUNTARY program that was established to aid Clients and Attorneys to work together toward the Client’s Goal, should be proffered as an alternative to an Appeal to BODA of a Grievance’s DENIAL and DISMISSAL as an inconsequential “Inquiry.”

xlvii Sec. 81.036. INFORMATION ON CERTAIN COMPLAINTS. (a) The state bar shall maintain a file on each written complaint, other than a grievance against an attorney, filed with the state bar. The file must include:(1) the name of the person who filed the complaint;(2) the date the complaint is received by the state bar;(3) the subject matter of the complaint;(4) the name of each person contacted in relation to the complaint;(5) a summary of the results of the review or investigation of the complaint; and(6) an explanation of the reason the file was closed, if the state bar closed the file without taking action other than to investigate the complaint.(b) The state bar shall provide to the person filing the complaint and to each person who is a subject of the complaint a copy of the state bar's policies and procedures relating to complaint investigation and resolution.(c) The state bar, at least quarterly until final disposition of the complaint, shall notify the person filing the complaint and each person who is a subject of the complaint of the status of the investigation unless the notice would jeopardize an undercover investigation.Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 227, Sec. 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

xlviii http://www.mybarinsurance.com/tx/lawyers-professional-liability/faqs/

xlix Per “The State Bar of Texas --- A Few Stats” Page 33 of The Commission for Lawyer Discipline — Annual Report — June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015 by Chair Guy Harrison

l TX Govt Code, Sec. 81.0752. CONFIDENTIALITY. (a) All types of information, proceedings, hearing transcripts, and statements presented to a panel of a district grievance committee are confidential and may not be disclosed to any person other than the chief disciplinary counsel unless:(1) disclosure is ordered by a court; or(2) the panel finds that professional misconduct occurred and a sanction other than a private reprimand is imposed against the respondent attorney.

(b) If the requirements of Subsection (a)(2) are met, the panel of the district grievance committee shall, on request, make the information, proceedings, hearing transcripts, or statements available to the public.Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 227, Sec. 17, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

li TDRPC § Rule 8.03 Reporting Professional Misconduct(a) Except as permitted in paragraphs (c) or (d), a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyerhas committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantialquestion as to that lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shallinform the appropriate disciplinary authority.

lii Per The Supreme Court of Texas, Catherine M. Wylie has been reappointed as Chair of the Grievance Oversight Committee until August 31st, 2018.

liii Page 27 of The State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline — Annual Report — June 1, 2013 – May 31, 2014 by Chair Guy Harrison indicates that in 2013 and 2014 more than 14,906 Grievances were received in CDC’s “intake” procedure.

liv Table “PROTECTING THE PUBLIC 2013 – 2014 SNAPSHOT”

lv Table “PROTECTING THE PUBLIC 2014 – 2015 SNAPSHOT”

lvi Table – pg. 29 - from the CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2014-May 31 st , 2015 indicates a Total State Bar Public Protection Dollars Actual Expenditures as $11,594,087.

lvii TRDP 2.07 is unconstitutional and discriminates in favor of the Respondent Attorney and against the Complainant in the Grievance Procedure.

2.07. Duties of Committees: Committees shall act through panels, as assigned by the Committee chairs, to conduct summary disposition dockets and evidentiary hearings. No panel may consist of more than one-half of all members of the Committee or fewer than three members. If a member of a panel is disqualified, recused or otherwise unable to serve, the chair shall appoint a replacement. Panels must be composed of two attorney members for each public member. A quorum must include at least one public member for every two attorney members present and consists of a majority of the membership of the panel, and business shall be conducted upon majority vote of those members present, a quorum being had. In matters in which evidence is taken, no member may vote unless that member has heard or reviewed all the evidence. It shall be conclusively presumed, however, not subject to discovery or challenge in any subsequent proceeding, that every member casting a vote has heard or reviewed all the evidence. No member, attorney or public, may be appointed by the chair for both the Summary Disposition docket and the Evidentiary Panel pertaining to the same disciplinary matter. Any tie vote is a vote in favor of the position of the Respondent.

lviii

TRDP PART V. CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 5.01. Selection: The General Counsel of the State Bar shall, subject to the provisions of this Rule, serve as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel under these rules. If the Commission determines that the General Counsel of the State Bar should no longer function as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, then the Commission shall notify the Board of such decision and, in the next succeeding fiscal year of the State Bar, funds shall be provided to the Commission sufficient for it to select and hire a lawyer as Chief Disciplinary Counsel and sufficient deputies and assistants as may be required to operate the disciplinary and disability system effectively and efficiently. The Commission's determination must be made, if at all, and the notification herein provided must be given, if at all, during the months of January or February 1993, or during the same months of any odd numbered year thereafter. In such event, the Commission shall alone possess the right of selection, but nothing herein precludes its employment of the General Counsel or a member of the General Counsel's staff for such positions.

lix GOC June 2014 Report – page 6.Recommendations: 1. The GOC commends the State Bar for the recent CLE program on the new discovery rules and encourages additional educational programs on the issue of prosecutorial and defense ethics in criminal cases. 2. Understanding that it is the responsibility of each district attorney to ensure his or her staff is trained in ethics, the GOC encourages the Texas District & County Attorney Association (“TDCAA”) to prepare and coordinate basic and advanced ethics training for all assistant district attorneys. 3. The GOC recommends that specific ethics training on Brady, Giglio, and Disciplinary Rule 3.09 issues be included in the required three hours of ethics training for State prosecutors.

lx The GOC June 2014 Report – Pages 4 – 6

lxi CLD Annual Report — June 1, 2013-May 31 st , 2014 , page 9

lxii

Per “The State Bar of Texas --- A Few Stats” Page 33 of The Commission for Lawyer Discipline — Annual Report — June 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015 by Chair Guy Harrison

lxiii According to the Census American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year survey, the median household income for Texas was $53,035 in 2014, the latest figures available. Compared to the median US household income, Texas median household income is $622 lower.

lxiv TRPC, Rule 8.04. Misconduct. (a) A lawyer shall not: (11) engage in the practice of law when the lawyer is on inactive status or when the lawyer's right to practice has been suspended or terminated including but not limited to situations where a lawyer's right to practice has been administratively suspended for failure to timely pay required fees or assessments or for failure to comply with Article XII of the State Bar Rules relating to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education; or 117.

lxv TRDP, 2.21. Notice of Decision: The Complainant, the Respondent, and the Commission must be notified in writing of the judgment of the Evidentiary Panel. The notice sent to the Respondent and the Commission must clearly state that any appeal of the judgment must be filed with the Board of Disciplinary Appeals within thirty days of the date of the notice.

lxvi TRDP 1.03. Construction of the Rules: These rules are to be broadly construed to ensure the operation, effectiveness, integrity, and continuation of the professional disciplinary and disability system. The following rules apply in the construction of these rules: A. If any portion of these rules is held unconstitutional by any court, that determination does not affect the validity of the remaining rules.

TDRPC IX. SEVERABILITY OF RULES Rule 9.01.

Severability If any provision of these rules or any application of these rules to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of these rules that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of these rules are severable.

lxvii “BODA’S REPORT FOR 2005” indicates that, eff. 1/1/2004, attorneys could no longer appeal grievance screening decisions to BODA.

lxviii Page 2, State Bar of Texas’ Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program provided to attendees of the TEXAS MINORITY ATTORNEY PROGRAM on May 20th, 2005 in Houston Texas by Jennifer A. Hasley , CDC

lxix

CDC’s “just cause” determinations replaced a “just cause” hearing in which the Complainant and the Respondent Attorney were invited to appear. Abominably, CDC’s dismissal recommendations are reviewed by a Summary Disposition Panel without the presence of the Complainant and Respondent.

lxx

Page 2, State Bar of Texas’ Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program provided to attendees of the TEXAS MINORITY ATTORNEY PROGRAM on May 20th, 2005 in Houston Texas by Jennifer A. Hasley , CDC

lxxi TRDP 2.17 Evidentiary Hearings,(O) Decision After conducting the Evidentiary Hearing, the Evidentiary Panel shall issuea judgment within thirty days. In any Disciplinary Proceeding where Professional Misconductis found to have occurred, such judgment shall include findings of fact, conclusions of lawand the Sanctions to be imposed. The Evidentiary Panel may:(1) dismiss the Disciplinary Proceeding and refer it to the voluntarymediation and dispute resolution procedure;(2) find that the Respondent suffers from a disability and forward thatfinding to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals for referral to a district disabilitycommittee pursuant to Part XII; or(3) find that Professional Misconduct occurred and impose Sanctions.

lxxii A Private Reprimand cannot be imposed by a District Court; nor should it be available as a sanction of an evidentiary hearing.

lxxiii Evidentiary Hearings are confidential, private Proceedings. The Right to Appeal of Evidentiary Panel Decision by Complainant was repealed by Changes to The Attorney Grievance System, Effective 1/1/2004.

lxxiv

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS Sec. 31. COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME FUND; COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME

AUXILIARY FUND; USE OF FUND MONEY.(a) The compensation to victims of crime fund created by general law and the compensation to

victims of crime auxiliary fund created by general law are each a separate dedicated account in the general revenue fund.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section and subject to legislative appropriation, money deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund or the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund from any source may be expended as provided by law only for

delivering or funding victim-related compensation, services, or assistance.(c) The legislature may provide by law that money in the compensation to victims of crime fund or

in the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund may be expended for the purpose of assisting victims of episodes of mass violence if other money appropriated for emergency assistance is depleted.

(Added Nov. 4, 1997.)