1 | Page

Thomas Retzlaff

2402 E. Esplanade Ln.

PO Box 46424

Phoenix, Arizona 85063-6424

210-317-9800

Retzlaff@texas.net

June 29, 2020

The Honorable Mark Lane

U.S. Magistrate Judge

501 West 5th Street, Suite 7400 

Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Cause No. 1:20-MC-00657-LY; Van Dyke v. Retzlaff; in the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of Texas.

OBJECTION TO USE OF THE ECF SYSTEM BY JASON VAN DYKE

 

Dear Judge Lane:

I wish to complain about plaintiff Jason Van Dyke having access to the 

CM/ECF system for filing documents and getting notifications despite him no 

longer being authorized to practice law in Texas, or anywhere else for that 

matter.

Attached is a June 12, 2020, disciplinary order signed by U.S. District 

Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas specifically 

telling Van Dyke that he is absolutely FORBIDDEN from using his ECF login 

in other than in two cases for which he is representing himself pro se in the 

Eastern District.

Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Van Dyke is currently representing 

himself as a pro se plaintiff in two matters pending in this District: 

(1) Case No. 4:18-cv-247, Van Dyke v. Retzlaff and (2) Case No. 4:19-

cv-786, Van Dyke v. Shackleford. Docket No. 2 at 2. Mr. Van Dyke 

may retain his existing ECF login solely for purposes of docketing 

filings in these two cases as a pro se litigant. Any other use of his 

existing ECF login may result in additional sanctions.

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 10
2 | Page

I have attached a copy of that order to this letter.

Based upon grievances that I filed (one of which led to this $100 million 

lawsuit being filed against me!), Van Dyke has been suspended by the State 

Bar of Texas until at least October 31, 2021. He has been banned by both the 

Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of Texas. And under your 

own Local Rules, he is prohibited from practicing law here, too, and he is 

absolutely not authorized to use his existing ECF login in this case.

--- State Bar of Texas profile for Van Dyke

Judge Lane, Van Dyke has violated Judge Kernodle’s disciplinary order 

no less than three separate times in your court. He filed a Response In Support 

Of The Motion To Quash (Doc #2), a Motion To Strike (Doc # 13) and a 

Motion To Quash Subpoena (Doc # 14).

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 10
3 | Page

I would request that you strike all three of those documents and I further 

request that you conduct a hearing as to whether or not Van Dyke is in 

contempt of Judge Kernodle’s June 12 disciplinary order.

Van Dyke’s use of the ECF system gives him an unfair advantage over 

me, obviously, and this must be remedied.

Respectfully,

__________________

Thomas Retzlaff

Cc

Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle

United States Courthouse

221 W. Ferguson, 1st Floor

Tyler, TX 75702

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 10
4 | Page

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 29, 2020, a copy of this document was delivered 

to the US District Court Clerk’s office by the electronic dropbox, which will 

automatically serve a Notice of Electronic Filing on all parties of record.

__________________

Thomas Retzlaff

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 4 of 10
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF

JASON LEE VAN DYKE

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 6:20-mc-9

ORDER

Before the Court is the disciplinary matter of attorney Jason Lee Van Dyke. 

Mr. Van Dyke seeks a modification of a May 15, 2020 Reciprocal Attorney 

Disciplinary Order issued by the Clerk of Court. As explained below, pursuant to 

Local Rule AT-2(b), the Court grants the motion and issues a new order of discipline 

identical to the discipline imposed by a state court.

I. Procedural Background

On April 30, 2020, the 271st District Court of Wise County, Texas, ordered 

disciplinary sanctions against Mr. Van Dyke for violating Texas Disciplinary Rules 

of Professional Conduct 8.04(a)(2) and 8.04(a)(3). Docket No. 4-4 at 1. The Wise 

County order imposed an eighteen-month suspension from the practice of law, which 

consists of a six-month active suspension followed by a twelve-month probated 

suspension. Id. at 2. The active suspension began on May 1, 2020, and will end on 

October 31, 2020—if Mr. Van Dyke complies with several conditions, including the 

payment of attorney’s fees and expenses to the State Bar of Texas. Id. at 2–3. Upon 

timely satisfying these conditions, Mr. Van Dyke’s probated suspension will begin on 

November 1, 2020, and end on October 31, 2021. If, however, Mr. Van Dyke fails to 

Case 6:20-mc-00009-JDK Document 6 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 56 Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 5 of 10
2

comply with these conditions, then he “shall remain actively suspended until the date 

of compliance or until October 31, 2021, whichever occurs first.” Id. at 3. 

On May 15, 2020, the Eastern District of Texas Clerk of Court served Mr. Van 

Dyke with a Reciprocal Attorney Disciplinary Order removing him “from the roll of 

attorneys admitted to practice in this court” pursuant to Local Rule AT-2(b)(2)(A). 

Docket No. 1 at 1–2. Mr. Van Dyke timely moved to modify the Order, as permitted 

by Local Rule AT-2(b)(2)(B). Docket No. 2. In his motion, Mr. Van Dyke argues that 

the Reciprocal Attorney Disciplinary Order is not in fact “reciprocal” because it 

imposes a sanction of indefinite disbarment from practicing law in this District. Id.

at 2. Mr. Van Dyke argues that a reciprocal punishment, i.e., an identical suspension, 

is the proper disciplinary sanction in matters of reciprocal discipline. Id. To that 

end, Mr. Van Dyke asks the Court to vacate the Reciprocal Attorney Disciplinary

Order and impose the same sanction imposed by the Wise County order. Id. at 3.

To better assess Mr. Van Dyke’s request, the Court ordered Mr. Van Dyke to 

provide notice of all other disciplinary actions against him and the date he disclosed 

each to the Eastern District of Texas Clerk of Court, as required by Local Rule AT2(b)(4). Docket No. 3. In response, Mr. Van Dyke notified the Court of two 

substantive sanctions against him: (1) a February 2019 suspension imposed by the 

District 14 Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas1 and (2) the April 2020 

Wise County order that initiated this action. Docket No. 4 at 1. Mr. Van Dyke also 

disclosed reciprocal disciplinary orders resulting from these two substantive 

1 The February 2019 sanction suspended Mr. Van Dyke from the practice of law for twelve months, 

beginning March 1, 2019, and ending February 29, 2020. Docket No. 4-1.

Case 6:20-mc-00009-JDK Document 6 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 57 Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 6 of 10
3

sanctions issued by the District of Columbia and Colorado bars and pending 

reciprocal disciplinary matters pending in Georgia and the District of Columbia. Id.

at 1–2. Mr. Van Dyke claims that he timely notified the Eastern District Clerk of 

Court about both substantive disciplinary orders, but admits that he failed to 

properly disclose the 2019 reciprocal disciplinary orders from the District of Columbia 

and Colorado. Id. at 2–3.2

II. Applicable Rules

Local Rule AT-2(b)(1) provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a member of the bar of 

this court shall automatically lose his or her membership if he or she 

loses, either temporarily or permanently, the right to practice law before 

any state or federal court for any reason other than nonpayment of dues, 

failure to meet continuing legal education requirements, or voluntary 

resignation unrelated to a disciplinary proceeding or problem.

Local Rule AT-2(b)(2) directs the Clerk to serve notice and an order “imposing 

identical discipline” upon the attorney when notified of disciplinary actions initiated 

in other courts. Local Rule AT-2(b)(4) also requires members of this bar to report to 

the Clerk any loss of right to practice law before any state or federal court within 

thirty days. “Absent excusable neglect, an attorney’s failure to comply with this 

subsection shall waive that attorney’s right to contest the imposition of reciprocal 

discipline.” Id.

2 Although Mr. Van Dyke claims to have disclosed to the Clerk the existence of the February 2019 

sanction, the Clerk’s Office has no record of receiving that notice. In any event, the Clerk never 

imposed the reciprocal discipline required by Local Rule AT-2(b)(1). Because the local rules provide a 

procedure by which the Clerk initiates that discipline, the Court will not address the February 2019 

sanction here. See Local Rule AT-2(b)(2)(A).

Case 6:20-mc-00009-JDK Document 6 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 58 Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 7 of 10
4

III. Analysis

Mr. Van Dyke argues that the Reciprocal Attorney Disciplinary Order is 

inconsistent with Local Rule AT-2(b) because the Order imposes indefinite 

suspension; whereas, the Wise County order giving rise to the Reciprocal Attorney 

Disciplinary Order imposes only an eighteen-month suspension. The Court agrees.

Local Rule AT-2(b)(1) does not expressly provide for identical, reciprocal 

discipline. But Local Rule AT-2(b)(2)(A) does. It states: “If it appears that there 

exists a ground for discipline set forth in paragraph (b)(1) above, the clerk shall serve 

a notice and order upon the attorney concerned . . . imposing identical discipline in 

this district.” LOCAL RULE AT-2(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). And the District has 

historically imposed “identical discipline” when it learns that a member of the bar 

has been suspended in another jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re: Norman Silverman, 4:19-

mc-4-MAC, Docket No. 18 at 16–17 (discussing the conditions for imposing identical 

discipline in the District); In re: Daphne L. Silverman, 4:19-mc-5-MAC, Docket No. 18 

at 4 (same).

The problem here is that the Reciprocal Attorney Disciplinary Order does not 

impose an identical, reciprocal sanction upon Mr. Van Dyke. It states that Mr. Van 

Dyke “shall be removed from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice in this court,” 

but does not provide a duration for the removal. The Wise County order, in contrast, 

clearly imposes an eighteen-month suspension, which includes a six-month active 

suspension followed by a twelve-month probated suspension if Mr. Van Dyke 

complies with the stated conditions. Docket No. 4-4 at 1-2. 

Case 6:20-mc-00009-JDK Document 6 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 59 Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 8 of 10
5

Accordingly, the Court will vacate the Reciprocal Attorney Disciplinary Order 

and issue a revised disciplinary order as set forth below.

IV. Sanctions

Local Rule AT-2(b)(2) mandates that the Clerk “impos[e] identical discipline”

if grounds for discipline in a state or federal court are brought to the Clerk’s attention. 

Based on the facts presented, the Court finds that appropriate here.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Van Dyke’s motion and VACATES the 

May 15, 2020 Reciprocal Attorney Discipline Order. 

The Court hereby ORDERS the following sanctions against Jason Lee Van 

Dyke: Mr. Van Dyke is suspended from practicing law in the Eastern District of 

Texas for eighteen months, beginning June 12, 2020, and ending December 12, 2021. 

Mr. Van Dyke shall be actively suspended from practicing law in this District for a 

period of six months, beginning June 12, 2020, and ending December 11, 2020. Mr. 

Van Dyke shall be under probated suspension beginning December 12, 2020, and 

ending December 12, 2021, provided he complies with the terms and conditions stated 

in the April 30, 2020 Wise County order. See Docket No. 4-4 at 2–3. Failure to timely 

comply with those terms and conditions shall result in Mr. Van Dyke remaining 

actively suspended from practicing law in this District until the date of compliance 

or until December 12, 2021, whichever occurs first.

Pursuant to Local Rule AT-2(f), Mr. Van Dyke will not be automatically 

reinstated at the end of the suspension period, but he may apply, in writing, for 

reinstatement following his active suspension. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is 

ORDERED to remove Jason Lee Van Dyke from the roll of attorneys admitted to 

Case 6:20-mc-00009-JDK Document 6 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 60 Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 9 of 10
6

practice in this District pending an application for reinstatement at the conclusion of 

his active suspension. Any such application before December 12, 2021, should include

satisfactory evidence that Mr. Van Dyke has complied with the terms of the April 30, 

2020 Wise County order.

The Court further advises Mr. Van Dyke that, pursuant to Local 

Rule AT-2(b)(4), he is required to notify the Clerk of Court within thirty days of any 

loss of right to practice law before any state or federal court, including reciprocal 

disciplinary orders. Failure to strictly abide by this rule may result in additional 

sanctions or denial of any application for reinstatement in this District.

Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Van Dyke is currently representing himself 

as a pro se plaintiff in two matters pending in this District: (1) Case No. 4:18-cv-247, 

Van Dyke v. Retzlaff and (2) Case No. 4:19-cv-786, Van Dyke v. Shackleford. Docket

No. 2 at 2. Mr. Van Dyke may retain his existing ECF login solely for purposes of 

docketing filings in these two cases as a pro se litigant. Any other use of his existing 

ECF login may result in additional sanctions.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12th June, 2020.

Case 6:20-mc-00009-JDK Document 6 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 61 Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 18 Filed 06/29/20 Page 10 of 10