Murders have more ‘Constitutional Rights’ than Lawyer’s

Moffatt Media Report

By Star Moffatt, CEO of Moffatt Media

 

It has become a sad day in the proud (USA) when murderers have more constitutional protections than Lawyers. ~ Star Moffatt

Proud (USA) what a shame that you give Murder’s access to equal justice, yet trample on the constitutional rights and equal protections of a certain group of people whose lives also matter: Lawyer’s.

(USA) you turn a blind eye by allowing certain State Supreme Courts to delegate court prosecutorial powers to corporations.  Those same corporations then operate past their jurisdictions, authorities, Mission Statements, Articles and By-Laws.

The State Supreme Courts delegate court prosecutorial powers to corporations that investigate, criminally charge and prosecute Lawyer’s with using administrative judges and sui generis proceedings (make it up as you go), without affording Lawyer’s Civil or Criminal jurisdictional “Jury Trials within Courts of Record, among their peers! “    Consequently, denying lawful judgment before one’s peers, under the Seventh Amendment Constitution.

These same corporations have a pattern and practice NOT to uphold State or Federal Constitutional laws, because they often out rightly ignore constitutional challenges when confronted.

Moffatt Media Recommends

Congressional inquiries begin against the State Supreme Court of Arizona and the State Supreme Court of California, for failing to uphold Separation of Powers … by delegating court prosecutorial powers to Corporations to regulate, investigate, charge and prosecute (discipline) Lawyers by corporate entities State Bar of Arizona and the State Bar of California.

See Supreme Court of Arizona Court Rule 32 (2)(D)The State Bar of Arizona “is both investigator and prosecutor.” … said John Phelps, CEO and Executive Director, State Bar of Arizona, source:  The Arizona Republic.

 State Bar of Arizona  – See abstracted 2019 AZ BAR TAX RETURN Tax Year 2019

 

State Bar of California Corporation – See California Constitution Article VI Section 9). 

 Also See California Business Professions Code Section 6001.1 regarding the State Bar of California, “… regulatory, and disciplinary functions.”…

States such as California and Arizona, have not modified their State Constitutions, to delegate prosecutorial powers to the State Bar of Arizona and the State Bar of California.  The failure to modify State Constitutions makes it unconstitutional and illegal, for delegating prosecutorial powers to ANY corporations including the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Arizona.

Hence corporations State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of California, do not uphold First & Seventh Amendment constitutional protections applicable to a certain group of people too mean: Lawyers, who are Protected Class Members defined:  Disabled, “particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin,” and Older American Lawyers.

Corporations like the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of California, only look out for the interest of alignment with State Supreme Courts and their own policy guideline Ethical Rules.

Injustices not to preserve upholding constitutional rights and equal protections, kills off law degrees, to become worthless, which are already exacerbated in existing inequalities within the labor industry of Lawyers.

Corporate entity State Bar of Arizona, provided the murder weapon and proceeded to fatally “kill” my forty year legal career, while denying my constitutional rights, says: Tony Guajardo.

The injustice against Tony Guajardo is now a norm to fatally kill and wipe out a Lawyer’s seasoned career without offering ANY diversion solutions, which would preserve upholding constitutional rights and equal protections to alleged first time non-violent offenders.

Guajardo Disabled Vietnam Veteran, Former Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Former Counsel with the United States Supreme Court, Administrative Law Judge, Senior Trial Attorney with the EEOC, Federal Bar Association President, Bexar County Criminal District Attorney, Staff Attorney with the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation and Former Arizona Lawyer.

Tribute to Tony Guajardo: J.D.M, Rachel Alexander, Lisa Aubuchon, Andrew Thomas, Dr. Jane Ross, John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Kurt Olsen, Bryan Blehm, Connie Reguli and other fallen Lawyers who have spoken up and out, exposing government public corruption!

###

 

 

Supreme Court of Arizona Hearing Panel Rule 52

Moffatt Media Report

Episode #1 (Hearing Panel)

Whether “Third World Justice” undermines equal access to justice against April Sponsel, Former Maricopa County Prosecutor?   

A Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions, with two year Suspension, was filed against Sponsel’s law license on 12/19/2023 by the Arizona Supreme Court Hearing Panel.    The Hearing Panel, which  is NOT in compliance with the Arizona Constitution.

Whether the Hearing Panel has exceeded jurisdiction and authority against Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s? 

The Hearing Panel was created under Arizona State Supreme Court Rule 52,  Administrative Order No.: 2010-136, dated: 12/22/2010, issued by former Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch.   “A three-person hearing board consisting of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, a volunteer, lawyer and a public member will hear any cases proceeding to hearing.  The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and the hearing boards will have the authority to impose all sanctions including disbarment,” said Berch.

Berch proceeded in 2010, with creating the Hearing Panel in Administrative Order# 2010-136, knowing such panel lacks constitutional infrastructure  compliance. 

Essentially the Hearing Panel operating under Administrative Order 2010-136, creates an administrative  fourth branch of judiciary government without approval by ANY Governor or  Arizona House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

 

MOFFATT MEDIA’S RECOMMENDATION ON SUPREME COURT RULE 52

(HEARING PANEL)

Stay Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions by the Hearing Panel dated 12/19/2023 against Sponsel;

Suspend Supreme Court Rule 52, until there has been a constitutional review to determine Rule 52, contingent on constitutionally legally valid and does not conflict with the Arizona Constitution; and

Suspend Supreme Court Rule 52, that gives the Hearing Panel, a murder weapon  to fatally “kill” Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s professional occupational Lawyer’s licenses  and their financial livelihoods. 

The “Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions,” filed: 12/19/2023, against April Sponsel reads in pertinent part:  “The hearing panel was comprised of Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret H. Downie, attorney member Mark S. Sifferman, and public member Randall Clark.”

Sponsel was prosecuted by the Hearing Panel under Count Two alleged violation of ER 1.1.  and ER to mean: (Ethical Rule).  Do you know the Ethical Rules, are NOT adopted into any Arizona statutory civil or criminal laws?  

Conclusion paragraph within the “Decision and Order Imposing Sanctions,” reads in pertinent part: … “April Arlene Sponsel is suspended from the practice of law in Arizona for two years.” … 

A two year suspension has the same effect as a disbarment and taking of Sponsel’s vested law license.

The taking of Sponsel’s law license and livelihood has NOT been done by a real “Court of Record,” because the Hearing Panel is nothing more than an administrative hearing body, that does NOT uphold State or Federal constitutional laws.

Do you know the administrative Hearing Panel proceedings against Sponsel denied Sponsel a Jury Trial? 

Do you know Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s do NOT have First Amendment Protections? 

Because the Arizona legislative Judiciary Branch of government has not been able to force  the Supreme Court of Arizona into compliance with implementing First Amendment protections for Sponsel and Arizona Lawyer’s.

ER to mean Ethical Rules

The Ethical Rules are only policy guidelines of Non-Profit Corporation doing business as:  State Bar of Arizona. All proceedings are nothing more than sui generis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 48(a) and administrative.

 

Arizona Supreme Court, enough is enough STOP the kangaroo unconstitutional proceedings against Arizona Lawyer’s.

The Hearing Panel’s Infrastructure has been unconstitutional since its inception. 

WHY: 

Courts, including the State Supreme Court of Arizona, do NOT make laws they interpret and decide laws!

____

Moffatt Media, has been conducting Case Studies since 2015, regarding the State Bar of Arizona, the Hearing Panel and the State Supreme Court of Arizona.

It continues to be unfortunate that the Arizona Supreme Court appears to have gone rogue against persons like Sponsel and other Arizona Lawyer’s.  

Maybe it’s time for Congress to conduct Congressional Inquiries against the Arizona Supreme Court, Hearing Panel and including Supreme Court Rule 52.

 

Novice users click on areas highlighted in purple to view supportive documents or other references.

###

About Investigative Journalist

Star Moffatt, CEO & Founder of Moffatt Media, Investigative Journalist, Certified Paralegal.  Lead Paralegal in two U.S. Supreme Court cases and Completed First Year of Law School.

Email on this article topic issue: [email protected]

Follow Star on Twitter / X: @star_moffatt

 

 

 

California “Unclean Hands” Concealed spent $134 Mil on Vulnerable Old Voting Machines targets Trump 2023

Smart Voters do you know California has concealed  $ 134 MIL SPENT TO RETIRE OLD VOTING MACHINES?

“County elections officials must now implement a voting system that meets the state’s newest testing and certification standards in time for the March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary Election,” per Secretary of State Alex Padilla, February 27, 2019.  …

“Throughout California, many counties are using voting systems that are at or near their life
expectancy,” Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. “Some counties use machines that are so old that vendors no longer make replacement parts. Some counties utilize operating systems that are so old that they are no longer supported and security upgrades are not available.
While county officials have worked diligently to keep equipment up and running, our democracy faces increasingly sophisticated threats from nefarious actors, both foreign and domestic. The time is now for all California counties to modernize voting equipment.”  … Bold added for emphasis.

“The state budget for the current year includes $134.3 million for counties to upgrade or replace aging voting systems.”“In a February 12, 2019 hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, DHS Director Christopher Krebs testified that “It will take significant and continual investment to ensure that election systems across the nation are upgraded and secure, with vulnerable systems retired. These efforts require a whole of government approach.” Bold added for emphasis.

Smart Voters, do you think rather than California casting a stone at 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump, maybe the solution for California is to do away with its vulnerable Voting Machines and in 2024 use “Paper Ballots:” Yes or No?

California, let’s make the 2024 election different, use “Paper Ballots” to restore honesty and integrity instead of contributing towards the erosion of voting democracy.   Cyber-hackers pose no threat without having program codes to flip “Paper Ballots.”  

California STOP casting stones at TRUMP, because your hands are NOT  clean and to remove TRUMP’s name off the ballot may cause a “Rise of Smart Voters,” to peacefully protest with just simply writing-in Trump’s name on the 2024 Ballot. 

California do you know the State of Colorado received in 2020 $7,133,864.00?   That’s right the Federal government (EAC) issued $7.3 Mil to Colorado also for Cybersecurity enhancements of its (outdated) Irregular  Voting Machines. 

Fast forward 2023, Colorado moves to remove Former President Donald J. Trump off the 2024 Ballot. Colorado your hands aren’t clean either STOP casting stones! 

Novice users click on areas highlighted in blue to view  supportive documents and video.

###

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“John Eastman” scholarly attorney has been investigated, charged, prosecuted and convicted by Public CORPORATION – State Bar of California

Public Interest Concern:  PUBLIC CORPORATION having a corporate name: The State Bar of California (SBC) has illegally investigated, charged and prosecuted Trump Adviser John Eastman.    (SBC) proceedings against Eastman have been done before an unconstitutional illegal Court. 

Eastman has been Illegally investigated, charged (administratively) and prosecuted by “CORPORATION,” State Bar of California, which is a non-governmental organization (NGO) “Public Corporation?”  

The proceedings before (SBC) are illegal and administrative proceedings only against Eastman, because (SBC) is NOT a real court of law.   The administrative proceedings are done by (SBC), which does NOT have to uphold State or Federal Constitutional laws that protect Eastman and other California Lawyer’s.

 

The California Constitution admits that the State Bar of California is only a public corporation.   See California Constitution Article 6 Section 9, which  reads in pertinent part: “[t]he State Bar of California is a Public Corporation.” … 

 

Do you know the State Bar of California has NOT been delegated STATE POLICE PROSECUTORIAL POWERS?  Only the County District Attorney’s Office usually conducts investigations to criminally charge people.  Not a “Public Corporation.”  

 

“This Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.” 

 

There have NOT been ANY amendments to the California Constitution to allow the public corporation State Bar of California (SBC) to receive prosecutorial or court powers to be recognized as an official “Court of Record,” or a prosecutorial agency similar to a District Attorney’s Office. 

 

Shame on the State Supreme Court of California for going rogue in delegating your court powers to CORPORATION: The State Bar of California (SBC) . 

 

It’s time to take back your wrongfully delegated regulatory powers to CORPORATION (SBC) and retain both jurisdiction and regulatory powers over California Lawyer’s.  Failure by the State Supreme Court of California to take back wrongfully delegating powers outside of the California Constitution will continue to cause  imminent public safety dangers to both consumers  and California Lawyer’s. 

 

PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION 

WHETHER  the State Bar of California,  has committed  Prosecutorial Misconduct, against Eastman?

California Bar you’re now exposed and no longer permitted to conceal from the public your legendary myth inferring to be a licensing body when in fact only a mere “Public Corporation.”

 

The State Supreme Court of California nor the State of California can delegate prosecutorial or judicial powers to ANY “Public Corporation,” because “judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.”

 

“[t]his Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.   See  Department of Transportation v Association of American Railroads 575 U.S 43 2015 Amtrak

Thus, an abhorrent appearance of “Conflict of Interest” exists between the State Supreme Court of California and the State Bar of California.   The “Conflict of Interest” is problematic because it violates Constitutional Separation of Powers. 

A conflict of interest scheme causes the Supreme Court to run afoul of the Separation of Powers, with (NGO), Public Corporation State Bar of California against Eastman.

Eastman’s own attorneys will NOT challenge the abhorrent constitutional conflict of interest in violation with Separation of  Powers, between the Supreme Court and State Bar of California, are they too will find themselves DISBARRED!

To this end, the State Supreme Court of California, was the only licensing government body that issued  Eastman lawyer’s license to practice law and  hang his lawyer’s license on his wall of fame for public viewing.  

Sidebar: 

The power of history is in telling the truth:  California 2020 admits spent $134mil Voting Machines outdated beyond repair. 

 

Note areas highlighted in “purple” click on to read: supportive documents or sources of references.

###