in our docket number seventeen dash eight zero one eight seven and this is a proceeding to determine whether the ninth circuit should impose reciprocal discipline in the nature of a six month plus one day suspension which is the discipline that was imposed by the state of arizona against you as a member of the barbera zone so the  the scope of this hearing is limited to the question of whether you will be permitted to practice and in the ninth circuit nothing that we  accomplish in this hearing these proceedings will affect your standing in the state of arizona or in any other court just record or otherwise other than in the ninth circuit and  as we made clear in our filings with you and i think you also are clear about the limited scope of this proceeding and in brief our court will respect the determination of the arizona court unless you can show by clear and convincing evidence that the proceedings there did not comply with the due process protections in particular notice to you an opportunity to respond or two that the evidence was insufficient to support the discipline imposed or three that some other grave reason exists for this court not to impose reciprocal discipline so are you with me in all the great so because i'm going to be asking you questions in there some factual matters that may come to light i'm going to ask the court room deputy to swear u n as we begin arizona disciplinary proceeding record i have reviewed much of that material and i've read your responses in particular and many of the other documents  o i don't want you to feel compelled to go through all of that but is a hearing you're entitle to a hearing and i think it would be  appropriate for you to highlight what you think are the key points now would help you sustain your burden of showing that the court should not impose reciprocal discipline so with that general outline in mind have you given some centering what is right and i do have i do have some questions but i thought i would give you an opportunity and i'm hoping that we will be because i think that it's pretty straightforward i think maybe an hour hour and a half if that's what that's the timeframe i'm hoping to comply with all right so why don't you begin and i'm going to let you just go but i'm going to also feel free to interrupt you as politely as i can if i have questions and as used to talk through things i don't want to have to try and remember four questions i have so i may stop you right there and ask you and ask you  some targeted questions about what you're saying ok with that you may proceed and i first want to thank you for letting me know that you did have access to the record it was it was unclear to me and i tried to provide you're likely referring to the most recent filing here is so in that part section two of your supplemental response you took a by the additional documents so here are the ones that we'd like to have copies of make make that a separate submission along with an offer of the relevance of those documents to the standard that applies to this reciprocal proceeding because honor first of all underlying what i refer to as a sham perceiving a sham suspension underlying that you're the first point is that there was indeed an infirmity or proof  your and i don't know whether this may not this may be non controversial but i'm particularly interested to ensure that you have notice of the proceedings that is you have notice of all the matters and it appears that you got a notice of all the requests for discovery and all the notices of litigation preservation requests that hearing mitigation aggravation hearing i did receive that and that as to each of those you had an opportunity to respond and it may be that they found your response was wanting but you did look at piers he responded to everything maybe not to the satisfaction of the state brought her but it looks to me like like you had both notice of what they wanted and an opportunity to respond i did not and i would i would be addressing that under this first issue ok ok so the first thing with regards to the notice when the state bar in june two thousand and sixteen contacted me by telephone to let me know that there was a investigation a prescreening investigation that's where this began at that time i was not notified of what the nature of the investigation was i was told that the complainant received a litigation preservation letter from me which the complainant did and that he had complained that he didn't know who i was so that was what i was told the nature of the complaint was that was left for me to believe for six months that that was the nature of the complainants allegation underlying a screening letter that was later issued by the state bar on september fifteenth once i receive the screening letter the significance of that is that within the letter it says if you're unable to respond by the october fourth deadline please let us know immediately and that letter was dated the fifteenth of september i called that same day to let them know immediately that i would not be able to respond to that screening letter because of the capability of it interfering with an undermining my filing investigation of antitrust complaint that i intended to file in the federal court also i stop you there  that the complainant himself was a potential defendant got it this is now our oh man concluded the state bar also a potential defendant at the arizona supreme court also a and they're also famous for antitrust litigation also a potential defendant and the arizona state university also a potential defendant i notified the state bar of this in my response immediate response by telephone i followed that up with an e mail saying here's what we discussed and once as we went on and they continue to extend the time so to speak for me to respond i kept providing them additional information based on what i was finding in my previous filing investigation regarding these assertions that that those five may be defendants and up until point where i told them yes they will certainly be defendants based on what i have in the interim i was providing not copies of all of the preservation notices but those that i believed i could provide at the time given this grave conflict of interest that they were aware of them started step or second sure i did not see in the record and the indication that you had provided any response to the this request before you were  i did and specifically letters that were sent to the state bar their general counsel letters that was sent to the state bar president and litigation preservation letters that were sent to some of their employees  had this right they already had copies of those right what about any others did you provide any other copies of many documents not for individuals or companies outside of the state bar course i'm sorry i got to do things came to my mind when i read about this so my my first question and i think this was also asked in the order to show cause hearing that i just troubles me why didn't you file a motion for a protective order so that you you would simultaneously be able to comply with your legal obligation as i see it under the state disciplinary rules and in arizona and also provide some measure of confidentiality for this information that you believe would prejudice your case if it was revealed for two reasons your honor and i did address this with the court and i'll let you know the first reason being i was not and danger of any disciplinary action for not providing the information based on rule fifty fo of the arizona supreme court rules there is an exception to discipline built into the language of the rule and it basically says that as a as i assert in writing the grounds for my delaying  postponing presentation of though the information that they were requesting that i would not be subject to discipline it would only be subject to blitz discipline to use me if i just said hey i'm not going to give you these without asserting grounds for doing so and the grounds i asserted excuse me i'm kind of fall on my outline here on the grounds i assert it involve the conflict of interest given that the state bar the arizona supreme court and its character committee on character and fitness were defendants in the case that was a great conflict of interest  also the fact that my federal antitrust civil litigation filing was pending and that i was in the midst of pre filing investigation and discovery so based on rule fifty four d and i asserted that several times to them i was not and it triggered a discipline exception ok and then the other reason let me just ask you continue down that path so let's assume for the sake of argument that that would excuse you from immediately complying with the request to disclose particular documents but they also asked you for a description of the legal basis for issuing any of the litigation preservation notices and they already received it so they knew that you were doing this there was no secret that you had  sent a number of these notices out both to the state bar folks and to me and many others so now you're saying well i can't disclose all of that the same no and that's part of the reason why ok ok so then i'll move on to the second point why were you on able to tell them why you had some legal authority even for just sending the letters that you sent they received they knew you knew no question of hiding the ball from anybody you had already disclosed this that they you know that this is in  they asked you tell us why you think you can do this but you didn't you didn't answer them but in response to this you filed a response to the disc to this request that explained to them in a timely manner why you were entitled under the law to file these notices yes and i want to address a couple of things you're just  you're asking if i filed filed in response in a timely manner again that refers me back to the exception under fifty forty two it say postpone or to delay and so at at such time that i completed my investigative filing was when i had told them that i would be able to respond whoa hold on a  what i'm not getting ok is what peace is what possible basis you could have for saying i need to defer my response to this question just  question of what i'm only focusing here on this one question what authority do you have for for sending these out and i'm doing this they knew you knew you sent it to the state bar they had received it so at this day the cat's out of the bag there's nothing that could possibly prejudice your further case by you telling them and at least complying with their requests for and then the whole thing could have gone away it seems to me if you would say to them well here's how i can do it here's why i'm entitled to send a litigation preservation to notice to people who as of yet have not been named in my lawsuit yeah i have not and my letter is now you've been filed and they wanted to know why and how could you do that and so i'm wondering why didn't you tell them they were they in themselves had received it i directed them to the paragraph within the letter itself that cited the case that provides for that against before they filed their their anti trust case it didn't see that anywhere and i know it's within the letter itself yes what we see later is that were to be the preservation letter that we just talked about that they have they never mentioned it that it's not mentioned in any of the documents that all it takes all y written for that purpose that request to speak with general counsel so that we could work together to downsize the request or mak proceeding have adopted that the arizona supreme court and that has to do with email as it isn't passed to do with the preservation of electronic evidence and other and other evidence that saved whether it's on e mail whether it's on hard drives external hard drives whether it's on palm pilots telephones and so on and so forth and that was within there and at one point the general fertile and i had a conversation regarding that and there's a follow up correspondence i had with him where i had directed him to specific documents in their possession that i would be looking for them to preserve with regards to the antitrust issues and that some of those had to do with different board meetings and committee meetings dealing  with in general the ability of attorneys to conduct and manage continuingly cation symon ours which is part of the work that i would be doing information requested from the state bar boards committees and so forth that has to do that's relevant to investigation a pending bar charge related to attorney  conduct and it doesn't specify whether that attorney is yourself or that attorney is someone else it goes on to say that the failure of that attorney to provide that information promptly without asserting grounds for their refusal to do so would subject that attorney to discipline and again i asserted those grounds from day one when the letter the screening letter september fifteenth specifically requested that if i'm not able to provide it by the op tobar for deadline that i need to contact them immediately and so my reading of that is they're asking me to contact them immediately to comply with that or trigger that exception if i can't properly provide it so i did so like i said i understand ok and then going to go ahead ok and then your honor when you were discussing a couple of things why at the moment we thought the cat was out of the bag i would then not give them the answer to that one question which i showed you was within the narrow us in on some specific documents and things that we need to preserve and give me some heads up on why so we there's email correspondence between he and i starting to do that and then more pressure came from the disciplinary section of the state bar the other piece on that is that the complainant who i refer to as a straw man complainant i'm not doing that to be facetious but that in reality from my perspective of reviewing everything is what his position is the complainant who is also a attorney licensed in arizona as i'm reading now and licensed in mexico and also has an m b a to many years yeah once we found out that well it was some six months after receiving the initial call from the state bar regarding this  prescreening investigation six months later during the briefing on my objection to their subpoena and moving to have it cost it wasn't until their response to two that came out and this was around december second or december ninth six months after when they finally disclosed what mr don't we get this is alleged allegation was against me if you recall i was told by mr mccauley that it was hey i got this litigation preservation letter from this miss thomas i don't know who she is first that wasn't correct because there is record of my communications with mr domingo is before i began my professional immigration to mexico because he was identified on the state bar website not as a licensed attorney in arizona but as a consultant mexico legal consultant so i had contacted him prior to  moving forward with certain relocation aspects of my firm to do electronic work between the two countries he knew me he had a copy of my resume he had offered some assistance in certain areas pacifically whether i was going to be relocating furniture but more importantly for me i was moving my car there and there was some law that says you can you can't if it's this year manufactured and so on the so forth and all of that e mail correspondence and there he up he also sent me a legal services and gauge met letter offering his services once i realized he had a miss apprehension that regarding exactly what it was i was doing or planning to do there i declined those services and i declined his legal service and gauge my letter so first thing why is he saying he does no me or why i sent him the letter which was the first response that macaulay from the state bar told me was the allegation six months later meet with him in person i'm sorry did you meet with him in person back then i did not mr joining us i did not ok it's all e mail so there is the one issue with mr preservation notice you sent around twenty six to sixty five years yeah so i'm just wondering whether it's possible he never met you in person he may not have recognized your name from five years ago when you had  asked for some services but declined so he didn't go forward and the reason why i would say no to that your honor it would depend on when you were asking me mr mccully asked me after mr domi complaint contacted him and said hey i got this from this lady you know so he says but between him contacting between dominus contacting mccauley he called me the minute he received the preservation letter and he and i talked for about his memory about who i was just in case you have forgotten and we went over the fact that he had some obligations to me as a potential client under the ethical rules and we went over a few other things he recalled who i was and then after that he calls mccully and allegedly says he doesn't know who i am doesn't make sense so then major six months later when the state bar finally release mccully supposably received from demeaning us that same day the e mail says something to the a sort of i don't know why ms thomas is sending me this letter i don't know why she's suing this university in mexico  i serve clients in mexico is she trying to keep me from getting potential clients which sounds more like a anti trust statement allegation against me i never knew anything about the nature and here we go back to the notice an opportunity to be heard i never knew anything about the nature of this prescreening investigation through mr mccauley i never knew anything about the nature of the screaming letter from the state bar until december that letters dated september so for six months the state bar's going around and vesta giving me apparently i don't know what the investigation was about eventually they get a subpoena and want me to respond and recall there's a conflict of interest there because i told them there are a defendant and but i'm still going to respond i just i'm waiting until i file my complaint and my pre litigation investigation work is done and i continuously tell them this over and over again and emails especially which once they got an order to show cause hearing scheduled they did not submit to the judge they actually think we have an e mail string going on you sent me this letter through email i called that same day and said hey here's why i can't respond by october eighteenth this is in compliance with fifty four d two i've triggered the exception because i'm cooperating but i'm also giving you my grounds and you go through and pick out any of those e mails between september nineteenth and say october sixteenth and you pick out of those strings any of those e mails where i wrote and listed those assert grounds and then you submit that to get probable cause to have this hearing you submit that to the attorney discipline probable cause committee to get them to aquash to get them to deny washing or a motion for a protective order oh and i was getting at that next the reason i didn't file the motion again because i'm i'm protected from this rule fifty two d exception discipline is not an so it's fifty four d two so the reason why i didn't file the seventy g and in that particular rule and subsection it provides that i would  submit to giving up a lot of discovery that's relevant to my antitrust litigation case so then i'm giving this two to defendant state bar and giving it to defendant arizona supreme court state bar and on top of that there's other rules then the supreme court rules that provides that don't mean yes as a straw man complain that complainant would be able to have copies of designated to have those documents with a protective order and disclose only as needed and also i have to subject myself to signing off the resistance for my medical records me and other protective order then for me to get it i'm saying hey in exchange for you've given me that then i've got to give you something to and here's what it is and they're listed in there and some of the things are me signing authorisations to disclose to the state bar a whole bunch of stuff that's all of this in violation of my my guarantee protections under the constitution and i wrote my address tho in my briefings the various briefings that are on the record that there is no need for them to have that information for me it's like ok i'm giving defendants in an antitrust suit information about my personal or giving them card blocks my signature on any type of disclosure that they might ask me for and again we're back to the asserted grounds under fifty four deep to for not promptly disclosing things to the what they were asking me i understand you we can i don't want to keep you from getting all your points in ok so again no real notice of the nature of the accusations against me and that is a violation under the constitution as well for equal protection it's violation for self incrimination and things like  this some of those deal with criminal but the state bar says that there are percy dings and process is a criminal proceeding and those protections should be and are guaranteed to me and they're not used to hold on just but this was a screening process so at this stage it wasn't a complaint yet and then when you did not comply with the requests for information in the screening process and then if you and then refused to comply it was only after that stage of they actually filed the complaint against y screening and the screening letter that led to the contempt order for my not responding to the subpoena in the subpoena was a written response to the screaming letter so i believe i've covered the due process issues within their or equal protection of lawful issues that then led to an interim suspension and finding of contempt against me and that was the hearing that was held where those emails i showed the judge how those emails were not were actually portions of e mail strings that showed the rule fifty forty exception were selectively removed by the state bar and his i can respond by saying i'll respond later i can't respond then i will respond later for the reasons that you stated that you didn't want to jeopardize your litigation and he said his position was no you've got to respond you can't just say  my response is i'm not going to respond and he found that to be contemptuous he found that to be contemptuous but he errors in that and later when i filed a motion to i complied and provided all of those preservation letters the answers that some of which they had prior to about why was i standing after the ration letters after that because during that hearing he had said you know i'm not going to interim suspend you i want to spend you if you can provide that stuff by four pm or something of the sort and i explained there's no way i'd be able to get it done by then i asked him to since he was entertaining the idea of not following through with the  suspension i asked him at least give me till friday i thought then i could but it turned out there was so much work involved in pulling everything together because i work electronically for the most part so i'm sending all of these out and i've been sending them out for some time so i was stopping them per defendant in some cases depending upon my relationship with them and information that i had shared with them that they may have shared with other parties so because of  that when i complied with what he asked by the date that he sat in the suspension order because i couldn't realistically get it to him by four pm so when i responded and provided that information and then he was reinstating me based on that i moved for that reinstatement but i also moved for him to under authority provided to him under fifty rule forty seven i think and forty eight vacate the suspension altogether because in my response there was an affidavit there showing how long it took me to get all of those things together in the amount of time that it took there was no way i couldn't of gotten it done even by if he had told me to friday and then also moved within that same motion for him to vacate the suspension and also to  indefinitely further discipline regarding this matter because at that point they have what they wanted and he denied and in that motion i attached an affidavit that included all of those e mails that the state bar have intentionally selectively removed showing that the discipline exception was triggered and that i was cooperating and providing them with my assertions as to why i submitted that to him and saying hey on the record on the transcript you set your not having those emails is the reason why you're the reason why you're able to suspend me because of the appearance that i was not cooperating that i was just willy nilly saying hey i'm not going to give you these until i'm ready and so i'm saying to him with this affidavit with all of those e mails hey take a look here your honor here's the e mails they show that i had done exactly what i told you i had done in my communications with the state bar and that  i and i said hey as you can basically see i was complying with everything this wasn't a sham for me here's you know hundred forty litigation preservation notices they're tailored to each defendant so i couldn't just give them one and say hey here's how i would go but there's any rate i'm saying hey i'm an honest person here i'm i'm not saying that i above discipline that i'm following what the rule says here's those e mails so let's call this a wash and vacate that suspension all to interim suspension altogether because it's hurting me it's out there on the website and it says that i could could could be suspended for mishandling to move forward and filing their complaint here here's the other interest points on no notice or opportunity to be heard in order for the state bar to file that complaint they have to get a probable cause order from the arizona december second when the state bar finally admitted what the true nature of the calls was i didn't have notice of anything so they they rightfully should not have given that probable cause order but what was really interesting about that your honor is the probable cause committee even though they denied my objection to the subpoena denied my motion to quash they did not order me to respond to it i found that interesting i look and they respond to work to the against the state bar because of my objection was based on the state bar's misconduct and having it in those e mails concealed those e mails and other misconduct of of related to their investigation and they said that the supreme court of arizona does not give them authority to to grant me what i want to based on state bar misconduct now there's a rule there's a couple of them that's forty eight i think it's like k through him that talks about the state bar and its position when they're working at pace that if they commit misconduct in other words if they violate the very rules that they are there they're in trust it to to regulate and make sure that as attorneys are abiding if they violate those rules while they're conducting an investigation they cannot be held to those violations unless i show want to occurred which i had and then the probable cause committee could then  file something regarding that so then they could have acted on my objection but they chose not to and and it says that i think the one subsection down i believe it's him that if indeed they did the disciplinary judge the presiding disciplinary judge would be the determining factor on whether or not he would stay those proceedings against them when they've committed ethical misconduct in order to falsely accuse someone else of committing ethical misconduct and so i guess my next question is having heard all of this why didn't you file an answer to the complaint stating all this as a basis for fighting the complaint two reasons your honor first of all because the probable cause committee already knew about the concealment after they reviewed that briefing they then turned around and authorized the state bar to follow a complaint against me without probable cause because now they know they have all the all the e mails and they were going to be the decision maker on your come on  defend against the complaint and raise all these issues that you're saying right now and i did make a record i did defend against the complaint but not by answering it why because the reason why i'm going to tell you the complaint was filed and captioned under a suspended member of the bar all other documents that are on the record show in there in regarding sylvia sylvia thomas a member of the state bar the complaint was catching the suspended member the complaint was prepared well after i was reinstated so why didn't you move to change the caption i brought it to the attention of the attorney and they ignored me so what i did it was filed a opposition to the rule fifty eight before place on the on the on the disposition of the complaint exactly because they filed a right and i'm sorry mark ok in my opinion from that stage forward anything that you hand you at did by this state you're already defaulted right they they they entered a default but they entered the default under a different action where no complaint was issued so it's like you've got this action over here against sylvia thomas a member of the bar  that for all intents and purposes really isn't enforceable but then you've got this other this other matter over here no complaint test been filed no complaint has been up there is no probable cause so you're saying because it said suspended it was invalid it was invalid use to do so to what stage did you bring that to the attention of the state bar present a disciplinary judge there is an e mail communication that i sent to the state bar and i said i'm not i'm not clear on whether it is your intent to correct this but why the file something in that proceeding i mean sending an e mail to the opposing party isn't the same as filing something with the court in saying this is not i don't i object to this for the following reasons priorities has no application to me because i'm not suspended two reason prior to filing pleadings it's part of my i take it as part of my duty to try to speak to the opposing attorney to see if we can come to an agreement and for them to actually go ahead and meant hey this was our air they could then have to serve me properly with a complaint to to up to that point i had not been served and because they were choosing to go that route for me to respond on the record to that complaint as if it was valid could be used against me to say that i i responded to the complaint and so i have to move forward with this action that really doesn't exist but you were saying that more so there is no action that has been filed with that caption every other document has a member of the bar and  so it was their responsibility as i brought it to the attention of that attorney for them to issue a new complaint and properly served me with it but they were choosing not to for strategic reasons wanting to move forward with this discipline against me all for what i see as antitrust motives regarding my work and you raise i do think on your fifty eight k yes this whole issue about suspended all of that is in there and the way out what i ended up doing was responding in opposition to the fifty eight k and within there i go through every single one of their allegations and i state whether or not i agree with that and the reasons why and then i also state why the complaint was not a valid complaint there are there's a rule in the arizona rules that says how complaint has to be cash and also states that that rule is grounded on arizona civil procedural rules about the captioning of a complaint and service of the  this issue address i don't recall this issue being addressed in the medication order or the order of suspension i brought it up but it was just ignored there were there's also on the record where the judge says you know i could take judicial notice of this but i'm not did you raise it that the arizona supreme court i call them that is raised there are there and a couple of things i did to address that i  every time some form of abuse of discretion on behalf of the judge the probable cause commission arose i noticed an appeal of that to preserve an objection to get it on the record i was doing that because of exhaustion doctrine so that the supreme court has a record of my objections to do things and later i motion to combine appeals and after that i continue to do that and that leads me into discussing where there were other grave reasons why due process was not followed and why this court should not grant reciprocal did discipline as you know this court has an obligation to make certain that it's not reciprocally to spend disciplining someone  where the discipline underlying was out side of the parameters of due process and i believe i've showed you demonstrated today on the record several areas where due process was not followed meaning notice an opportunity to be heard  altogether or stay the continuing discipline he decided not and then once he was noticed that he had relied on false testimony omitted evidence to the interim l spending there's on the record that shows a bad temperament at that at that point and favoritism toward the state bar where they were the judge vilified me with the motion within his orders granting the reinstatement in part and denying the vacation of the suspension and denying the  on the discipline and the judge actually states after he's been noticed you relied on false testimony and omitted evidence at that point i'm assuming he had no knowledge of it but then afterwards why w ouldn't a judge want to correct that on the record instead the judge in his after showing a notice of a rabbit related to an admonishment against me and changed it from  rules but those of my own and then again relied on information submitted to by the state bar in their opposition of my motion saying that i never discussed with them stay that i try to fool the judge into believing that i had discussed a stay with the state bar prior to my filing it and i had and they did not submit that email either they submitted an email string and had pulled that part out as well later i provided that on the record to the supreme court when the first appeal was find out i had also within that email in opposition to my motion because yes we did discuss these things and you know and i asked them several times to please confirm that i had done so in the emails and eventually they affirmed and tried to qualify the affirm and outside of my favor the other thing is the grave issues are from the state bar's initial sin if you will in violation of the very ethical rules that there are there designated to protect from their initial omission of those emails and giving them false testimony from there and i used the term begat derived all of these other pleading that are first the complaint captioned incorrectly and in violation of rules of evidence trying to claim that i have now a bad care dr that should be put on the record voting been suspended what more can i do then the judge is what it was saying on there which was none then this is all interfering with my ability to work as an attorney to gain clients it's interfering with my reputation and mexico through the nafta which allowed me to immigrate there under certain conditions it's interfering with all of this and again recall this complaint it is mexico licensed attorney like me he's a now arizona licensed attorney like me an m b a like me who all of a sudden there's disclose this antitrust language question about the mentioned that it was very denial of due process because you didn't you knew they wanted this information but i guess you didn't know why they wanted it or what the basis was that they wanted it so i'm trying to put myself in your position in terms of thinking about what was going on at the time that you received this prescreening letter asking you for information months later ok so we knew received the prescreening letter asking you for this information about your litigation preservation notices what do you what do you think was the what do you think was causing them to that and can i clarify one thing your honor and yeah you referred to a pre screening letter that's not exactly what it was initially there was a prescreening investigation by telephone  second under the timeline i see you sent your litigation preservation notice to dominguez on june third yes five days later he sends an e mail to the state bar saying the things you said earlier in between there he got the letter email you receive an email from the state bar council with direction to provide the basis for sending the notice so i was the first inkling you had something was going on here right the first  right they called me first ok before sending that e mail so that inkling i have was the phone call ok so then b you see this email saying asking you to provide the basis for sending the notice for say in complaint her gave a verbal complaint from the phone call and now now you're telling me if i i don't want to make understand you you are saying that there was a due process dominguez is that you sent him the slip litigation preservation notice he doesn't know who you are or why you think that this recall this is after five days that literally let's leave aside the doesn't know who you are port let's just talk about the why you it you knew that that's what they they were looking at why you sent that well the reason why different let me ask you this what the reason make that he says he doesn't know your dad or does or doesn't know you this is what i want to make sure if you're getting last year yeah i'm not getting it because i mean the question is the this it seems to me from everything that i've read they were concerned about where you're setting litigation notices they don't care whether you know these people or don't or these people they want to know and what basis you send these notices ok the  i got this presentation letter i don't know this lady i don't know why she sent a ten ok the state bar calls me and says hey we received a complaint against you for misdemeanors what's his complaint that you sent him a letter and you because the state bar is telling me that that's what the basis of it is is that he doesn't know who i am i told the state bar he does i simply those e mails from two thousand and eleven where then they would come as a make whether he knows who you are not because the allegation against me i'm supposed to be able to know who my accusers are and what their allegations against me what are they choosing me off what is it using me of of sending them a letter and he doesn't know me what's it using me of that he doesn't know why i sent him he knows all of that we went over it will never end in no part of anything i read did the state bar rely on the fact that he didn't know you about as a basis for imposing discipline every allegation that i saw and everything that it was talked about why did you feel entitled to send a letter to anybody who would know it whether you knew them or not as a that's not that that wasn't the allegation the initial allegation was that i sent it and he doesn't know me but i fixed all of that before he had no reason to even contact the state bar because he called me right after he got it and i answered all th questions explained everything so at that point later five days later why would he call the state bar instead of his allegation against me if he doesn't know me sure he does i just talked to him five days earlier and we reiterate that's and what i told them was i believe he's doing this for antitrust purposes and they said no the guy just didn't know yet and all the while they had that email there telling me his complaint was just this verbal thing he d know me when i disproved that that could not be possible by sending them everything to show that he knew me he knew i was in mexico doing what i was trying to implement there his his reasoning can not be honest so at that point  verbal counter claim they refused to take anything in writing from me and i said well you have some in writing to me and send it to me and they sent me my letter after that they sent my preservation letter after that and i said hey was i thought you were going to send me his with the process i was going through under the nafta measures and then additional immigration measures as a professional a lot of what the political things i was in countering and other issues i was encountering there and everything else that's in my complaint of antitrust and my finding out more in my investigation about jimmy gets his relationship with some of these other defendants the supreme court the character  witness committee examination committee the state bar his relationship with the issue and so on who later we find out are trying to start a projects project components of my project in mexico so and i'm sorry we start you know going out too far with things but the whole answer to your question was again i believed at that stage to mean this was a straw man complain it and a straw man complained that anybody that becomes a complaint against another attorney in one of these disciplinary proceedings hey guess what there's a rule in there that says they get copies of everything she's providing we went over that and why didn't do the seventy but  there's also a rule in there that says they're subject to all of the rules of the arizona supreme court but because they're a witness they also cannot i cannot bring a claim against them regarding this investigation of me what a what a great place to be and to be a straw man complained that bringing an antitrust charge against me which what it would have amounted to had they given me that e mail from the get go that the affidavit shows they hack before they sent before mccullough even called me he had that email and told me there was nothing in writing this guy's just saying he don't know you he don't know why you sent him this letter but that e mail shows before my public picked up the phone call he had that were that even though pacifically accusing me of antitrust violation against do guess who says my market is mexico miss thomas is trying to prevent me from getting clients over there i don't know why she's suing this and mexico university in arizona i don't know what her emails are about macaulay have that before he picked up the phone to call me on that screening but instead of sending me that he told me there was nothing in writing there was no allegations against me in writing and when i asked him for what is my complaint what is the complaint against me he sent me my preservation letter ok let me before going to time i have a few questions i want to make sure i care about her for her and i'll give you a chance to wrap up ok  i did not your honor file a motion for i filed nothing related to that complaint and the reason why going back quickly to the original after the original send everything that the state bar did from there through the probable cause committee to get an authorization to file that complaint in an action that really doesn't exist then everything else the default interest was under the other caption where no complaint was ever bought so no i did not and within my response to the fifty eight k i lay all of that argument out i also lay it out and in what i'll get into when you when you allow me to finish with the grave thing so you can see is that also the reason why you didn't appear at the mitigation hearing also i did prior to appearance actually the morning of i f motion for the disqualification and rick you so judge o'neil because of the record it's replete with in the record his abuses of discretion his favoritism to the state bar his mouth temperament against me for some of the things he had said and those orders that were not true after i provided him with the evidence that he needed to vacate the suspension and whether we're going to follow a motion to disqualify him early date that hearing oh i would have the guts to do what you did yeah i i don't feel so much that it was a risky gamble because the violations of due process and equal protection of law prior to which were the original sin it everything else under there kind of similar to way the fruit of the poisonous tree works everything else after that that was done was done based on the fact that they say they believe that i violate fifty four d two and i didn't so because the evidence wasn't there they didn't prove by clear and convincing evidence without violating that rule so a bit limitlessly good ask again why you didn't fire disqualification motion because they said that this is why there was a notice that went out saying this is a notice that we are now assigning judge o'neil for the further proceedings of your action yes or when you file your motion to disqualify right then i don't know how far after that i'm sorry that i didn't i don't know how far after that i did but because for my for the my strategy was not to answer anything after that original sin and i after that notice came saying that they're noticing the appointment of judge whatever doubts you had i suppose at that stage at the end of that hearing oh i filed an appeal i understand that we did file a motion to disqualify until june right i filed the or months later this is after there had been the proposed hearing panel report yet that you filed it contemporaneously with your objection to the proposed report and emotion squabbles yet and then again i wasn't going to respond to anything that had to do with the assumption that there was a complaint filed against me in the matter in the matter of sylvia thomas a member because there was no complaint filed against me in that matter and i have brought what happened after that is norm talking about no this is this is me entering the order this is special order there was the order not the interim has been the actual six month suspension right why didn't you request o'neill the one who five already motion to have him disqualified to recuse himself and when he received that motion he appointed the panel member who he wanted to already appealed to the supreme court and asked to combine a second appeal that i made to the supreme court and part of that was to deal with the abuse of discretion and the error in factual findings and conclusions of and every perceiving that went on there was more due process violations there was more construction of the rules not in favor of doing substantial justice but just the contrary  where there was a discretion for for the supreme court to rule that would avoid this miscarriage of justice they in my opinion abused their discretion contrary to rule  eat doing substantial justice and the supreme court what they did was say hey you know what we're going to look at thomas appeal and her or her motion to to state her appeal so she can file this other notice and combine the two we're going to look at this as a special action and because there's there's no will hearing report on the record what we're going to do is dismissed thomas appeal and we're doing this with our discretion and t all she can come back and appeal from either a decision that's appealable order that's appealable or a final judgment that's appeal about the stay under fifty nine at that point i'm giving that judge who's on the record has this favor toward me favor toward the bar saying vilified i'm asking him to give me a stay and then i'm at the time doing it i'm giving him the authority to say you know what i could stay i could grant a stay without any limitations or restrictions or i could find that  filed i requested the supreme court to stay the proceedings based on some of these grounds regarding the abuse of discretion he didn't produce in the supreme court to stay your suspension stay in the order denying stay yet susie and creasy shall we say ok let me ask you what the before i forget what is the current status of proceedings at the arizona supreme court ok and  i filed a motion requesting extra time to reply to the response to the order to show cause in that motion there is a declaration from me stating how i had been outside of the country in mexico working to resolve some of those antitrust issues outside of court and settle those and supply various things occurred i was granted that and then i  late filing that designation or file a transcript and so when i when i wrote back i attached copies because i had asked them to take judicial notice of what was on the record  january now saying there was an order entered denying my request i received no such order so i filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification on the rule fifty two and fifty nine and and i just filed that last week no no action no response and in it i brought it to the court's attention that the law of the land had to favor dismissal or disposition on the merits right and that the technicality and again that is part of the great affair because through all this time since trust claims against those in mexico defendants that i'm sure are associated with straw man domingue as trying to work some of those things out so they won't interfere with my planned immigration to spain compromise your ok there is supreme court there are three or four different supreme court cases that are within some of the various documentation that provide that the best way for will want the arizona state to come in there and do what i proposed in their jurisdiction there's case law from the supreme court that says you know there's a strategy out there that defendants like this use before when they know an antitrust case is coming against them before it they should go ahead and start laying the groundwork and bring their own antitrust suit against the potential antitrust complain but for the to work well but complain it has to be someone in a similar position in the market this market that i'd niched out to to do the implement the program there has to be somebody with similar credentials and who would that be domingue guess the straw man complaint it again licensed in arizona to practice law but at the time when we first met him he was giving me advice on that every attorney has to make to be as part of their character and fitness examination you know we're supposed to disclose to be admitted to the bar yes to the state bar verizon are under rule thirty seven  says that those those disclosures remain confidential and would not be disclosed absent some signing for me allowing them i found out during my pretty investigation that some of that information somehow got into the hands of individuals in mexico and because of that there are some defamation issues the harm to my reputation and then all of a sudden some of these other defendants in mexico and arizona alike are trying to implement components of a project that i designed to implement there and mexico so that was the hear you disclosed information that you believe was confidential as part of your admission you learned that that information had been illegally disclosed to people in mexico in fact now what's the antitrust component i get that to see that there's some kind of a breach of their duty something is or toward action potentials there where's the antitrust is the antitrust component is where this was done as a way because this was a market  doubt based on measures in the nafta that allows a professional like me an attorney and a business consultant to do certain types of work that provides for practical training functions and also  law with them global commerce of mexico and the impact of it hurting me here and the goal was to make me look incompetent and then all the sudden here comes this litigation here comes this complain communicating with the general counsel for the state bar when i first preservation letter to him i indicated to him specifically to look at some of the board committee meeting minutes where if you look at the timeline where i was in the process of implementing something in mexico dealing with these interdisciplinary studies seminars that have to do with promoting the inherent influence and governing role of the law in interdisciplinary careers your doctor malpractise you need an attorney malpractise you need an attorney you are starting a business oh you need an attorney to help you do that and from the business side oh i do graphic design work so let me for cooperation let me design your logo let me trademark your logo let me defend against people coming trying to use your local saw and so forth but the bigger piece of it was timing on that where there were actually committee and board board member meetings where timing with what i was doing in there and lined up with hey we're going to make this new pre certified cation process for any attorney that's wanting to present continuing legal education symon ours they're to have to go to this prescreening and you know what part of my thing these are fundraisers part of that money goes to provide scholarships and aid practical training for some of the university graduates in mexico who once they finished their studies they still owe money to the secretary of public education they still have to do practical training it's not paid they finished in three years later they still don't have their degree yet because they don't have practical training and if they do it's not paid and it's not in the been extremely helpful to me so this to have you come here and clarify your argument it filled in some blanks for me i think i understand exactly what your contentions are we only have a few more minutes well i think the only issue that i want to just hammer in about from the original sin false testimony intentionally omitted e mail communications that everything that occurred from there  is an enforceable and including as you will see on the record from the from the disciplinary proceeding to dealings with the supreme court and also with the federal court there is a consistent construction rule away from rule eighty that provides that the judiciary should construe pleadings to do substantial justice and this falls under the other graves reasoning why this court should not follow and give a reciprocal discipline  specifically where there is a supreme court law that says discipline long term discipline when you have six months plus a day because just that plus a day is what makes that long term there's a record i believe it's it's in re snyder that says that the supreme court of the united states recognizes that in arizona that one day is actually tantamount to disbarment and  provides that an attorney would have to go through all kinds of hoops disclosure of financial information does whatever that state court has said you've got to do you've got to do it in order to try and get back in and it's noted by the u s supreme court that this could take years well beyond six months and what's going to be happening in those years that market is going to be overrun  in mexico with those defendants i'm not able to practice there if for state you know if i'm suspended right now which i referred to the sham suspension but for for my for me just mind you that nothing that we do here is going to change that i understand that i'm only saying that because my aim in other countries is to be able to continue to practice federal law my project in mexico has to do with my practice of federal law a lot to do with trademark copyright antitrust my moving forward the reason why i mentioned spain part of from here i travel to madrid and i'll be meeting at the embassy the consulate in barcelona doing some visiting some distribution outlets for group be related to my practice related to my project and trying to establish myself there as i did in mexico to be able to practice and implement my project can i do that if i'm suspended from the federal court and you are who are currently under suspension from the district court yes but i've also filed the i'm sorry the district court filed a  order of suspension and refer to it as a reciprocal based on the fact that the arizona supreme court dismissed my appeal which i motion for them to make because it's that language was intended to say the language is a little bit different in the o s c for this court a less the response i'm sorry to see was a response for this court and the l s e response to a specific judge in a matter that am representing a client on in the federal court i point these things out to the district court i also point out the big glowing thing that this different issue was not on the merits that feels there's the obligation for the district court to concur with within the parameters of due process if it's going to reciprocally suspend so there is a motion out there related to that  electronic filing of the order to show cause i was just given the email to my response to which i did the order came from an email because i have to  seventy two requests this consideration in that rule there's language that says that i'm not to reiterate arguments that i suspending me i dress the fact that there was an order actually filed i called and spoke to the clerk regarding that also because this court filed its order for me to show cause there's a case number it's out there on the record because of these issues as i've submitted that and so that's pending disposition as well so you know and then the last thing with regard to th court is that this is consistent construction of rules away from substantial justice and construction of rules that i feel are overt acts of the further ends of trying to prevent me from practicing law not only in the state but also in the federal courts and also in jurisdictions outside this country and the grave and irreparable harm to  me without due process of law the particular protections of the law when you see this type of conduct going on bringing raising issues of where the federal court has its own this court in particular my my ability to continue to practice here is not dependent on my ability to continue to continue to practice in the in the state court which you've made clear based on  the limitations that you set forth for me to address here today and because i believe the record shows clearly that there is that antitrust conspiracy and that various defendants have taken over acts and further ends to protect the state of arizona with regards to the supreme court's conflict of interest there the stakes are these are the regulators and the disciplinary investigators that they put in charge and they're violating their own rules and construe them in ways that offend due process that a fit in attorney's right to practice in areas that they choose to practice without these non sovereign designees who are marketed participants in themselves trying to determine for me what area of law going to or decide that i can only practice under these restrictions that would be put upon me from the state from the judge that this favors me to only practice this you know in this area of law and only under supervision of whomever it is that they're promoting in these other markets outside of the country that i'm looking to continue to implement my program and in spain and i'm already received my permits to practice in mexico i have what they call say the law professor now which is my professional credentials similar to a license to practice law here i have that for my law practice i have there for my m b a degree and also have there for my undergraduate degree which was interdisciplinary studies part of that was communication they don't offer into disappeared studies but they gave me for communication i satisfy those requirements and i have my permanent resident permit that allows me to have these  in spain where i'm going from here on the twentieth part of my my immigration process as a professional under the laws of spain and it's based on their say it's meant again of my education the standpoint of not being a member of the bar of the state and trying then to interfere with my ability to practice in the federal courts to evidence of that is the fact that when that's pension order was sent out within eleven minutes it was sent to both the ninth circuit and the district court in hopes of some type of a domino effect but the domino stopped rolling thank god at the federal court level where you say outside of the parameters of due process s and other countries is quite dependent upon my ability to continue to practice in the federal courts ok thank you so can i can you provide those additional documents mails the march affidavit and then after that issue a report and recommendation will be served on you you'll have an opportunity to file any response you deem appropriate to that there after that reported recommendation will in my submissions to the federal district court and also to the arizona supreme court with regards to reciprocal reciprocal discipline why it's relevant i continue to state that there is supreme court and  should the federal court not vacate its current order based on what i filed and we get to the point where that's a final order i don't know how because it's not entered but that's something send in those additional filings ok and