concerning your ability to practice in the state courts there i also wanted to mention that the scope of this hearing is limited to the reciprocal question and one would think that it would be easy to hear i would ask that you use the microphone because the sense of things gets muddled and it will help also for the recording process and before we proceed because i'm going to be asking you some questions and i want those answers under oath i'm going to ask my current japanese would minister the oath at this time right now i have reviewed your submissions and i think i understand your arguments i have two questions for you to clarify my understanding make sure i have your positions right and everything  and so i want to assure you that you need not reiterate things that you've already submitted in writing they will be carefully reviewed in considered and i also you as you know you have  so i understand that you would like to make any and narrative explanation of the case as you see it from a factual standpoint you also need time to reiterate the legal arguments you and i understand the outlines pretty well of the of the factual scenario so i think your request is reasonable in terms of time but i just want to make sure that you focus on the most critical actual matters that you want to raise so i don't feel like you have to give me a whole lot of background information to set the stage i think you can go directly to the most cogent points that you have and i think i can fire you but i'll make you this deal i will stop you and ask you if you lose me as an ok so with that said when you presentation go into some of that both those prior hearings because i think they're pretty cool to the issue of due process and due process not only as to notice and hearing but the aspect of due process as set forth in the loudermilk case which is the impartial hearing entity i would like to address that also  by way of a motion in limine e i'm asking the court to allow me to do that yeah i think we can dispose of the formalities like that and you can just go ahead and tell your story well and  of what i have to say is set forth in the record that the court has so i'm not going to eat again i would like to address and i intend to address for the court that this my entire situation is an ongoing situation and so there's some things that are not that are so recent that they're not addressed there but before i go anywhere as the court i'm sure knows california would be necessary to bring it to the ninth circuit i'm allowed to do so by california the california bar however the bar of if i'm disciplined reciprocally by this court then i'd be kind of i've got one avenue that's still open to me i intend to  practice in the ninth circuit even though i mean good stead with california and i don't before i waste or find any more i mean perhaps the court has some sort of of reciprocal discipline applies so but that does lead me to ask my first question of you and that is what is th disciplinary reciprocal disciplinary proceedings in california i've had a hearing in front of a state park court judge there they adopted reciprocal and no i've seen nothing i think that's a good sign however i can't really say that it really has any true significance but that's it nothing i don't really feel less like something related to was broke which is pretty much been ruled out at this time but it was weird at the time i'd had a stroke my doctor as and you what do i need to move to admit the exhibit you know i'm getting sick my doctor told me at that time as it's recorded in the records do not return to work at the there evidence that you received an order from a doctor telling you not to work a medical records from the veterans administration i believe it's page ten and  so it says here and page twelve follow up care return to the team is checked return to edi if condition changes or worsens i think at this emergency department was seen approximately twelve times i believe in the following few years i last doctor today on friday i believe and i'm going to address that in just a second but i also have an appointment to see  some other professionals these are psychologists on friday this coming friday in two days or three days but at that this it's cut to the i was instructed to go see my doctors or the v a doctor in santa barbara which i did within a few matter of a few days as soon as i could get down there and make an appointment i did and i have been tested  for just about anything imaginable that related to a neurological condition and i continue to be tested i my understanding is now life and your brain up he says that i suffer from what is called post concussive disorder or also called for matic brain injury and also reflects a medical determination that you not return to work that was the only time it's an discuss in fact i did return to work without getting instructions from a medical doctor to do so because i had a choice of completely abandoning all of my clients or what i did do was abandoned about and i shouldn't say abandoned because all of those that i could refer to other lawyers i did the ones i and find a lawyer to take those are the ones i sent a letter and i said i can no longer represent you you need to find at least part time shall we say but perhaps not a vote because of your medical condition to continue the full time evidence to the contrary found that in the words of the about a supreme court who adopted the term i think from the pursuant to the instructions of dr lyman the nevada bar urse all me and said we have some compliance from your former clients we're recommending that you pursuant to rules of discipline seventeen point one i believe you take a six month leave of absence because you apparently have some sort of a medical condition you need to get over that and my response was i would be abandoning my clients at least some of them i did in fact abandon some and others i stayed with based on what i felt was their the ones who had the most serious cases and the ones who would be the worst would be injured more than the others and i would personal injury i have mostly i think i spend most at least lately after this i spent most of my time doing civil rights case and i point that out some lawyer to take the case so i ended up mostly with some civil rights cases rights cases and some maybe a few criminal defense cases all of which that i felt it was necessary for me to keep those cases and not follow the demand that i hang up my single for six months burns out as it ha suspended for three years and that's still has yet to be addressed fully since we're in front of caliph the california bar which i think but that's that's would be speculative at this time i've just saying i'm quite confident and that is why i did what i did because of the nature of my clients and the nature of the cases and the fact that we weren't going to i was going to be able to find somebody should treat them right and i have not had a problem representing anyone since then and i'm been very careful to keep other attorneys involved and i continue to do that i only have of few clients now with one very one very complex case or set of cases for one client and i have at this point fairly competent i satisfy myself that i can perform adequately more than adequately and i mention to the court that this friday i have follow up with a for that i i and my cognitive cognitive powers are adequate at least that or better so that that's that's the answer to that question and i would also as far as my health is concerned indicate to the court that after january two thousand and eleven my condition continued the same condition that i was having problems with gradually it's gradually improved feel today and continues to improve which  d which you wouldn't think it as affecting one's physical health but in fact it does i've learned and sell i'm dealing with that as well as some other problems that are not the main chip related i know once told me that i have some sort of dementia they do say that i have it that appears to be a t v i case and years of p t s d factor involved expound a little bit on the three levels or the three hearings that were conducted in nevada the first hearings conducted prior to january two thousand and five that hearing had alleged that i failed to properly serve a client by not filing discovery before i went to that hearing  cautionary note which does not constitute discipline the second hearing i just by way of history involved a  i don't remember the exact words but in essence probably was bribed to drop to throw the case by by the insurance company sure it's come right in me and that was just and out of the blue sky allegation by this lawyer who was acting as a pawn for the state bar and the third hearing that is the subject matter of this case is the state bar and the assistant to the state bar counsel actually took a witness in the back room and had a witness sign an affidavit that was presented to the board that this affidavit was concerned where my address and it was late believe all this statement by this witness and it wasn't done with lack of knowledge or by mistake by bar council because they were quite familiar with what my address had been for the past several years and despite that they  they're out to get me and you know it's like i always say though you may be you probably are paranoid paranoid but they really might be out to get you and the truth of the matter is i've never made any bones about it i have been very vocally critical of judges  ther lawyers prosecutors police departments my career has involved including my police career has involved criticizing the system what that up because i have then very notorious in my activities i'm and very outspoken and as my wife will tell you i have no filter so i i've done this for years and i was not real popular there are at this time two retired judges and a sitting judge who i suit and you can't sue a judge but actually you can because these were things that weren't related to their judicial duties but so i sued the oldest are the senior sitting there the senior judge in the state and nevada who i'm certain that didn't do me any i didn't get me any friends and then on top of that not only did i raise some hackles there but both of the two boards that found that i should be disciplined both those boards were comprised of one former prosecutor who sat on both boards and the other two boards had prosecutors who prosecutors one affix commission it's a process tauriel agency  and the other one was the district attorney's office with whom i had a record contentious healing's with over many many many years both as a a challenge that the boards were comprised of people selected by the state involved who would be not be partial not be impartial and would have had a bias against me since i had so much history with prosecutorial agents agencies over the years  primarily were the violation of the united states constitution and which was mostly due process and first and then arguments and he said in a rather heated fashion willed leave i'm not quoting him directly but essentially what he said was we'll leave that up to the nevada supreme court to decide and the nevada supreme court didn't decide i they did they decided it by ignoring it there was never in anything any order any ruling on the issues that i raise regarding constitutional safeguards at the same time  they they failed and i it is again in the record they failed to address phone or follow the rules of civil procedure which they are required to by their own rules as far as notice and hearing because what in the in the if doesn't apply directly to the second hearing that first hearing they failed to  serve notice as to one of their witnesses and provided a document which she had prepared this letter by the attorney you testified or said in the letter that i was on the take from an insurance company and that i had failed to make a proper record both of which were were were lies but i raised that because that didn't just happen there but throughout now i believe that i have a disability unquestioned star added i did i had just believe because he told me that i needed to follow the you're doing ok it was never that was never done they never had any sort of finding at all that i had a disability and why in essence have and at this point it's been made clear to me that i have a disability disability that requires me to work less and take better care of my physical health but it's not something that provides prevents me from being adequately represented clients and i'm it takes a couple years to get here but i started tonight in eighty eight california nine hundred eighty nine i've been to this court for times and i doubt i could count but i lost track but i would ask the court to take a huge a judicial notice that and i i don't want to miss the key here but i know that i've had six so i want to say i don't like to brag because i really do like to brag and the fact of the matter is i've been very successful over the past my entire legal history in front of a courts including the nevada supreme court even after january two thousand and eleven and all of the cases of the six cases that i've recently been successful with let me see if you have six cases all of those cases except i think one i was representing the appellant and at the lower court and that was successful in getting the ninth circuit over from those if you buy them or and i'd i i think i would challenge anyone to find a better record  i've always been successful but i've been successful over the years i think probably in excess of fifty percent i might be wrong on that but i'm pretty good on i've got a good record there and quite proud of it and continue to feel i'm ads competent or more common anyway that said i would invite any questions to correct that is entirely correct and i would like to address that if i may yes please do when i turned sixty five i lost my insurance that was provided by the city you know as for a police officer so i at that time being very healthy i decided i was i don't need insurance other then i can use the veterans  n because i'm of that and i did and when i first went to see the vets i didn't see anybody for a couple of years but when i did on in january and when i attempted to get those records i couldn't get the records event might hit my experience before that that if you want to get records from the v a good luck the truth of the matter is that's been changed in the last several years it's become easy easy to get your records i can go and grab records i just go to the hospital wherever it was that i went and will find your records prior to that prior to the the two hearings i had i had asked for my entire set of records and had not never heard back which happens a lot of the aides it is run by the military so semi military anyway so i was unable to get those records those records that are in in this package are never presented i testified as to what i'd done my test run and i put on two or three witnesses that testified about my medical condition these were lay witnesses they were not not  yacht with his feet up for the last year and a half that was how we addressed my did you take any other steps of trying to obtain medical testimony  possibly have put him on as a witness but at the time it was really the issue that i'd then told by a doctor this came up during the hearing and i've been told by a doctor not to go back to work it came up during the hearing that well you you just quit seeing your client and there is no evidence that you fact of the matter is the state clause they offered that right out of the box so this is before the hearing before it before anything ok so everybody knew that medical condition was an issue that they're the ones that pointed it out right why didn't you take more make more effort to get that medical evidence in front of the us they are well to be perfectly frank when i went off on medical leave her soon to what i been told it would have cost me a couple thousand dollars to bring a doctor in to testify i mean that's my experience in trying cases and i had no income for a period of our very little income for a long period of time i just i could have subpoenaed d len but since it was never an issue that i had a medical condition nobody ever questioned that until i got to the hearing and then it became an issue and when i went to the second hearing i made it a point but on some witnesses who gives or me i also gave them i provided a list of every appointment and every test that had been conducted over a period of about two years so again it was addressed i didn't i didn't have the wherewithal to hire a medical expert to do a work up and come in and testify that here mr bowles has post concussive syndrome or t indication that there was a medical professional of said do not return to work should there have been a different result absolutely do i so what's that let me ask you this question and what's the legal basis or a medical defense in your case i mean you had witnesses testifying against certain matters that were significance of this well she was impartial medical disability as a shorthand for you know what you've been in countering so let's say that there was  that were created by the bar how does that save yours very their entire position their prosecution was based on this idea that this was a self imposed unmerited medical leave and i didn't have the right to be on medical leave because i was on my yacht in santa barbara with my feet up that was their positions throughout that's the way it started and that's where it's a my main restraining is that their position was even if you had some form of medical disability you were still compelled to take steps to protect the legal rights of those clients that you have an ethical required to take in order to protect clients well there's the great fallacy because no one was totally abandoned every one of those lines was able to keep in touch with my office and my office was a telephone in my brother's house and he answered it for me work for me and let me get your clever caring  a moment but what i'm probing here is the actual back of the medical disability you've talked about and i'm a suit let's just assume for purposes of this part of the argument that it's a factual issue i did what was appropriate and skittering and i had been told to go on medical leave not partial go on medical leave and i took whatever steps were protect those clients until such a point which is a matter of quite a few months i took the necessary steps to protect each and every one of those cases nothing was dismissed and at some point i reached the conclusion that i wasn't going to be able to protect my own health and you're on your own mr thomson you've got to go hire a new lawyer you're on your own is grave or you've got to go hire a nude lawyer and seen it and the record is i think more than clear that i did take the necessary steps what reeser thought or opined was that i should have set out a blanket letter to all my clients and talk to each and every one of misreading what you're getting at here so i thought on the one hand i i i think i'm reading that you were you're claiming you're being discriminated against on the  know there's not so much at stake or maybe you can tell me that actually that the facts here support that i was on medical leave and was instructed to do so by dr lemon and the bar  after i refused to do the rule one seventeen leave of absence for six months they took the position that even though you're on medical leave you should not have been on medical leave you should have to perform which was their position i mean i throughout this hearing in the other hearing my position was i was on medical leave that means you're on medical leave you don't take phone calls you don't go to court you don't write briefs their position was you should have continued to work and they're there in order to reach that conclusion whether they said so or not they had to not believe that i had a disability my position has always been the same i had a disability i was told to stay off work i stayed off work when i could i went back to work in a limited fashion sense the sense that the primary theme at the hearing was you not really medical this medical this but you're pretending to do so we don't really have to give you the kind of a dation we might give somebody who actually was disabled i get that but then how can you also contend that you were being discriminated on the basis of disability if they didn't believe you were disabled how can they discriminate against you on the basis that this is really well see that was the prosecutor's position was yeah i know just went to the hospital ways and sometimes in the hospital it's got all these problems he he believed that there was no question in my mind because he wanted me to take his medical leave them absence but he sold or a bill of goods he sold the board on this position because i didn't go along with his recommendation he said well we'll show you you're down on your yacht  they've said the complaints will just go by the wayside if you take the six months you can come back in six months all the compliance at that time there was one or two left out there that hadn't been ma beach and after that you're ok you know that's the way they like to work they're like prosecutors everywhere you know don't want to go to trial make a deal all right you have this takes responsibility for placing all the clients with lawyers that that's very interesting i'm glad you brought that up because none of these clients after i terminated counsel for the clients that were yours well if in fact there had been some this conduct and those clients were somehow injured and according to the state  they are to be provided with counsel but that's not the case they do not do that and i know that i've always known that they don't have the wherewithal to do that they can't the lady who came in and testified against him as the other lawyer that's the other lawyer one who said i was taking bribes ok and and she did one of the most shawty and she was she was referred to the client was referred to and bowl and she wrote a letter to the client that said you do not this letter was a letter i'm speaking of where there was just blatant lies in it and it was also letter that said mr bowles did not make a record so your case in the night circuit can't go forward which was a lie mr bowles is probably being bribed by the insurance company which obviously again is a lie they they don't have turley's they have attorneys they refer to but it doesn't mean that those people are going to be properly taken care of as specially when my clients include a couple of of one convict and another guy who'd been arrested by the police you can't find attorneys in the badda who already ruled on cases in the first case the first case that netted me a year on the beach he'd already ruled on pacer in that case in other words they brought in that case it was six six case charges against me three in the first one and three in the second he had already ruled on the second three not all three of them but he did consider well legal authority would be louder which latter meal versus milwaukee board of education i believe that provides that you must have an impartial hearing ent and the fact that little aside i tried a case should judge and read one of the most respected federal judges anywhere particular case i tried as an example one of the city council people had previously decided and involved in the case before you it and because this city council person who was part of the hearing board at already decided or involved not even decided but just been involved the jury found that it was not an impartial hearing board and that we prevailed on that case so my legal authority is louder mel and it's personal experience of  a jury member would be an automatic bar to that person sitting on a on the board and of course this wasn't a jury but in essence it was a jury ok we moved to another topic  so you are also making the argument that the evidence was essentially insufficient to support charges against you and i want to focus on in the case of mr thompson he made it clear from the very beginning that he was interested in one thing and one thing only and that was getting his money back he had paid me two thousand dollars  probably done ten to twenty thousand dollars worth of work for him but he wanted that money back and he's his position was mr bowles should continue to represent me and that was  not incredible at all that was his position that's what he testified to that i should have continued to represent him or give them his money back how they found that my refusal or choice not to continue it as his as his counsel constituted misconduct but that's what they found and of course what they said was well we didn't communicate with him well of course i didn't communicate and i was on medical leave and once i decided i couldn't continue at that same pace i said here's here's a letter of says you have to go find new counsel and he wanted his money thompson now you're telling me that because of your medical situation you were unable to communicate and i was to over back to work part of that that to me meant you don't take phone calls you don't write briefs you don't do anything you don't make appearances or anything at the point that i had decided that i could no longer represent mr thompson i informed him and said go get another lawyer the truth of the matter is i did not communicate with him in that period of time between january twenty eighth till some time wasn't a process of wow we think you had a stroke go see get some follow up you should be hospitalized now if you want to go to santa barbara  children that's were my partner was santa barbara and at that point i quit working every step i did exactly what the doctor said do not go back at some point i found that no medical tests were able to accurately diagnose what was going on in my head and at some point i did handle some cases on an emergency basis very few but i was doing as i'd been instructed by a medical doctor until all these tests we don't know what's going on in your head at that point i decided that i was going to sense really narrow my practice practice down to about  medical leave they had a problem with getting their money back that's what the whole thing was about  a hearing and cited that she didn't have a case and she wasn't going to win this case she had lost at the hearing level and the if he'll was unsuccessful so we parted ways she was no longer my client at all i didn't even have a duty  i couldn't get a hold of mr bowles i still had the same address in reno and she claimed that she had gone by the address and nobody was there which might have happened because you know the office might have day but she had a big hole in her case because she said she had sent me a letter and after i had testified  and our counsel knew i didn't have that address they went in and made something up that she had sent the letter a letter to an address that i didn't have until at least a year later and that was if they were receiving federal funds and i asked the barber to inform me if they got any federal money for the operation bar i can't find where they have any federal money so my understanding right now is that the nevada bar does not have to accommodate and they can do whatever they want they can take my license because i am disabled but set out the season calls with this person and i was never they never did so i don't remember if they did so or not but i was never  eleven sanction and there was no finding on the merits of what i had done other than you were being found liable by default because i'd untimely we're not going to consider it and she said i'm referring it to the state bar of nevada so why did you appeal that order quite simply at the time i was it was a period of time that i was not i didn't have the time or the the drive to do that and the other thing is is i intend to address that i'm just going to file something for injunctive relief with the state bar and i think the state bar we're going to join them from considering receiving their part of it yes and any other well the other thing is having the other thing is that the state bar of california is ethically required to properly consider the actions here and the state of california is given credence to the self imposed medical leave that's what they are hanging their hat on and now that i have the records the state the federal courthouse coming i think from a lunch i got a phone call on my cell phone and it was judge cook and she said mr bowles why aren't you here i said where i haven't heard and i had he'd fired me like months before that i wasn't even the attorney of record you longer and i've been removed from that case and i'm walking by the courthouse and if you make that oh yeah i was like i said i don't i don't i didn't get any of this stuff all these motions that's why i never responded to judge address at a later date or act after years of two thousand and twelve i did at some point before that and you'll have an opportunity if you so choose to whatever a comment subtractions her raw's or mention kinds of thoughts that you may have that filing by you plus my report a recommendation will then go to with three judge panel and they'll have all that before then they'll have access to the entire record as well and they'll make the final decision in the case about whether or not to impose reciprocal