Opinion ID: 2550875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Victimized by Racial Discrimination

Text: Respondent also argues the Equal Protection Clause precludes selective enforcement of the law based on race or ethnicity. He argues that he presented witnesses who testified that the proceedings were deliberately based on an arbitrary, illegal, or otherwise unjustifiable standards [ sic ]. Presumably Respondent is referring to his own testimony alleging that the basis for Judge O'Hara's ruling was Price's race, and to the testimony of Price, whose ideas largely formed Respondent's allegations. Judge O'Hara strenuously denied this charge of racial discrimination. Respondent also alleges that Paretsky singled his motions out because he was representing an African-American and further alleges that racial discrimination was the initial motivation for the disciplinary action against him. Paretsky categorically denied these allegations in his reply and again in his testimony at the disciplinary hearing; he singled out the motions because they resembled pro se complaints, and he was concerned the client might be injured by the representation. Respondent further alleges that he was charged for representing an African-American and an American Indian who were at all times treated differently than litigants who were members of a majority race. Several witnesses, including Oldham, Paretsky, and Barnes, testified that the plaintiffs in Respondent's cases were treated no differently than other litigants. Respondent makes several other accusations that are unsupported by the record. At oral argument before this court he persevered in his allegations against Judge O'Hara, Paretsky, and others with no apparent ability or willingness to support those allegations with facts. In essence, he evidently resorted to such allegations whenever challenged. His beliefs  or, more likely, excuses for the bad outcomes flowing from his incompetent legal work  do not support his racial discrimination argument.