3926 North 13th Place
OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION TO AMEND Rule 31,
Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court and
TO ADD Rule 32 and Rules 76 through 80, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court
Case No. R-02-0017, R-02-0027, CV-02-0121-PR
MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
FOR LACK OF IMPARTIALITY UNDER
JUDICIAL ETHICS RULE 81, CANONS 1-5,
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, RULES
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION
against the STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT,
AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
MOTION FOR FULL DISCLOSURE,
PETITION TO REPEAL Rules 31 – 74
of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING,
AND MOTION TO STAY ANY FINAL
ORDER OR MANDATE REGARDING THE
MOTION TO STRIKE OR DISMISS the
State Bar’s Petition to Amend or Add New Rules
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW [SIC]
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
COMES NOW the people of Arizona (hereinafter "Petitioners"), by and through ex relatione non-bar member Moses Shepard, (hereinafter "Relator"), to move each one of the Arizona Supreme Court’s (the State Bar) judges to recuse him or herself from making any decision or taking any action with regards to the State Bar of Arizona’s above-entitled petition pursuant to the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, Code of Judicial Conduct, Judicial Ethics Rule 81, Canons 1-5, because each one of this Court’s (the State Bar) judges are also members of the State Bar, i.e., you are all, effectively, one and the same. Bar members, i.e., this Court, are moved to recuse themselves because they are automatically disqualified from hearing the State Bar’s own cause by reason of interest or prejudice. General principles of law and reason dictate that a group of non-bar members should act in their place, one composed of individuals that have never graduated from, nor attended, any law school approved by any mandatory bar anywhere in the world. Furthermore, that group should be composed of individuals that are acceptable to all parties concerned. If this Court (the Bar) does not recuse itself or acts in secret with no public hearing, its integrity and independence will be called into question under Judicial Canon 1, it will not avoid the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2, it will not be acting impartially under Canon 3, it will be engaged in extra-judicial activities in conflict with its judicial obligations casting reasonable doubt on each judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge under Canon 4, and it will be engaged in inappropriate political activity under Canon 5 by siding with itself. See Black’s Law Dictionary as to “political questions,” “justiciable controversies,” “political,” and all related authorities.
In the alternative, if this Court, i.e., the State Bar’s own judges will not disqualify themselves or dismiss their own petition for lack of any hard evidence proving any harm caused by UPL [sic], then a request for a public hearing is hereby made pursuant to Rule 28(E), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, in addition to a prior full disclosure of each one of this Court’s judges’ interest tied up with bar membership, whether that interest be financial, personal, or otherwise. This Court is further moved to order each one of the real parties in interest disclosed by its own July 17, 2002 Order to disclose their interest as well, i.e., those listed on pages 2-4 under the title “Rule 28 Distribution Comment List.”
In the event that this Court (the State Bar) disqualifies itself until such time that neutral decision makers can be found, the petitioners would also ask this Court (the State Bar) to state exactly how many signatures it needs to be convinced that it is the will of the people to be set free to choose who will practice law on their behalf, whether that individual be a member of the State Bar, or not. We are confident that, if a stay of proceedings is granted, we would have no trouble collecting more than that number of signatures, unless, of course, no amount of signatures will ever dissolve the State Bar.
If this Court refuses to voluntarily recuse themselves, then it is asked to state whether or not this moots their own rules or just the necessity of having those rules. In other words, what is the point of having rules when those very rules may be ignored at the whim of those to whom the rules are supposed to apply? Also, if the five lawyers presently doing business as the “supreme court” don’t have to follow their own ethical rules, or any rules for that matter, merely by suspending them, then why should anyone else have to follow them? Are these lawyers anarchists who don’t believe in being bound by rules?
“The Arizona Court of Appeals recognized, ‘the bias and prejudice necessary to disqualify a judge must arise from an extra-judicial source and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case. U.S. v Grinnel Corp. 384 U.S. 563 … (1966).’” Smith v. Smith 115 Ariz. 299, 303 564 P.2d 1266 (App.1977). Does this Court (the State Bar) consider the State Bar to be extra-judicial?
A.R.S. 38-503(B) states, “Conflict of interest. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.” Does this Court (the State Bar) see any conflict of interest?
Judicial Cannon 3E(1) states: "E. Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned ... " [emphasis added].
If this Court (the State Bar) intends to modify the rules per the State Bar’s (its own) petition, it is asked to stay any order or mandate pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The claim for such an appeal would be that Arizona judge bar membership violates Cannon 2C and is, consequently, contrary to the Arizona Constitution’s right-to-work clause and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clauses.
The above entitled motions are more fully supported by the above entitled documents previously filed with the Supreme Court of Arizona, each one of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
In considering this motion, this Court is asked to carefully consider our past, and our future:
"Apartheid exists when rights are based on group identity, favoring one group at the expense of another." – Christopher Lingle
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …" – U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins.” – Lord Chatham (William Pitt) to the British House of Lords in January 1770, from which the quotation on the front of the Arizona State Courts Building is derived, “Where law ends, tyranny begins.”
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August, 2002.
3926 North 13 Place
Original and six copies filed with the Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court on this 19th day of August, 2002, and a copy mailed, telefaxed or hand-delivered to:
Bob Banwyck, Assistant Executive Director – Legal
State Bar of Arizona
111 West Monroe, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
 And or the Relator’s Petition for Special Action against the State Bar of Arizona filed on 7/9/02 under Case No. R-02-0017.
 All those effected by this Court’s, i.e., the State Bar’s, expansion and enforcement of its monopoly over the practice of law.
 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are additional petitions and affidavits overriding the State Bar’s pretext of “harm” due to UPL.
 This paragraph was not added out of any unconscious disrespect, but, on the suggestion of one who pointed out that the same arguments made against disbanding bars can also be used to argue against an unaccountable out-of-control judiciary.
 See Commentary for Cannon 2C as to organizations whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited.
 Not the least of which includes employment discrimination based on membership in intimate, purely private organizations.