Will the American Bar Association (ABA) “practice what it preaches”?

In Scheidler’s continuing effort to hold public officials to the laws that regulate their conduct … including “JUDGES”, Scheidler is asking the ABA practice what it preaches.

To: ABA amicus committee,

re: Writ of Mandamus to US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This matter fits completely and squarely within the ABA’s wheelhouse — specifically under ABA rule 8.3(b).

I have the following objectives in seeking this writ … which are: to have federal courts (judges) uphold the US 10th amendment, to obey 28 USC 1652, to obey 28 USC 2072(b), and when judges violate these constitutional and statutory authorities, then to obey 28 USC 455(a) and (b)(4) and establish a “fair forum” to address judicial misconduct. Said another way, to END the practice in judges-judging-judges because it is a violation of law, 28 USC 2072(b) and 28 USC 455(a) and (b)(4)!

FYI, attached are the 9th circuits memorandum and my petition for en banc review – denied 1/29/2018

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (DRAFT)

Washington State’s constitution and laws define defendants’ duties they owe to Scheidler. The following 10th amendment issues of first impression, raised but ignored below, call upon this courts supervisory jurisdiction and fiduciary duty to protect the US constitution and the integrity of the judiciary.

Must federal judges explain why they ignore 28 USC 1652, which mandates ‘state law be the rule of decisions in federal courts”?

Principally, why hasn’t any judge nor defendants address James Avery’s fraudulent instructions (Appendix 3), which he distributes to retired homeowners, when the law, RCW 84.36.383, prohibits James Avery deviating from the law as written?

Must federal judges explain why they use federal rules to alter the relationships between plaintiff-defendants established by the state’s constitution and laws, principally, Article 1, section 1, and RCW 84.36.383, when 28 USC 2072(b) prohibits federal rules from “abridging, modifying or enlarging any substantive right”?

Must federal judges justify judicial decisions based in federal common laws that collide with state laws concerning immunity; pleading standards; an unabridged right to bring a civil or criminal action without limitations; the inviolate right to a jury trial; prohibits altering statutory language; prohibits legalizing unauthorized conduct by any public official (specifically, the violation of RCW 84.36.383); and the laws that limit the powers of judges and lawyers?

Must federal judges explain why they ignore the evidence, principally, the fraudulent instructions distributed by Avery, when state law demands the jury decides the merits?

Isn’t it a fraud upon society, aiding and abetting with their public servant colleagues in what would be criminal conduct under state law, when federal judges ignore the US 10th amendment, ignore 28 USC 1652, ignore 28 USC 2072(b), ignore the evidence, ignore 28 USC 455, and deny the people of Washington State their rights, powers and protections without any rationale nor remedy for the “people” to reclaim their rights, powers and protections that is free of bias and fiduciary conflict because judges-are judging-judges concerning the laws that apply to judges?

Regards,
Bill Scheidler
The “reluctant activist” for www.corruptwash.com
Future Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/

Scheidler also sent a follow-up email to the ABA’s ‘Rule of law Board’, upon which, US Supreme Court Justices server as “special advisors”. This symbiotic relationship between lawyers/judges seems to me to be a clear conflict of interest when the ABA requires lawyers to report judges for their misconduct, yet judges are special advisors to the ABA. I know many people complain that their lawyer didn’t adequately represent their interests in court, nor hold judges or the other lawyers to the laws or codes of conduct as they should. Now you know why.

From: Bill Scheidler
To: rol@americanbar.org

Dear Rule of Law Board, and Special Advisors, particularly Hon. Stephen G. Breyer, Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy, and Hon. Stephen J. Rapp

As the email appended below confirms, I’ve contacted the ABA’s amicus committee concerning ‘judicial misconduct’ and how judicial misconduct propagates via an unlawful scheme in which judges-judge-judges in violation of 28 USC 455(a) and (b)(4). This matter fits squarely within the ABA’s rule 8.3(b). I’ve also attached documents that have been filed with the US 9th Circuit that should show how judges-judging-judges concerning the laws that apply to judges is the means by which government corruption is covered-up.

As this is a matter that is also of concern to this Board, the rule of law should include a “fair and impartial” mechanism by which an aggrieved party can challenge judicial misconduct that isn’t governed by the very same rules judges are using to insure their misconduct is decided by them. It is a fraud upon me, the courts and society and it must stop!

While I am going to seek a “rule nisi” (28 USC 1651(b)) from the US Supreme Court concerning the 9th Circuit’s violation of the US 10th amendment, there is little hope the US Supreme Court will address their own failures, hypocrisy, and the frauds they have perpetrated upon US citizens by their self-established scheme in deciding their own powers.

Under rule 8.3(b), lawyers (i.e., the ABA) must address this fraud (judges-judging-judges in violation of 28 USC 455(a)and(b)(b)(4)) as the lawyers code of conduct mandates.

Regards,
Bill Scheidler
The “reluctant activist” for www.corruptwash.com
Future Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/

If you would like to add your voice to this matter, please contact Annaliese F. Fleming, email: Annaliese.Fleming@americanbar.org and the Board

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*