Petition filed to disbar Michael Newdow

[AuntieSocial]

Petition filed to Disbar Newdow/Pledge Objecter

Click here to read article on the original site

By Jen Shroder
Published: November 20, 2003
Publication: The Sierra Times

A petition to disbar Michael Newdow was filed Monday by Rev. Austin Miles. Newdow, who filed a lawsuit to remove the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is apparently using his authority as an officer of the court to not only further his atheistic agenda, but to harass Christians.

The petition states that Newdow is "misusing his authority as a member of the State Bar of California by filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits, violating the rules of professional conduct and lying to the courts under oath".

Mr. Newdow filed a lawsuit against the United States, the U.S. Congress, California, two school districts and its officials claiming the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" and cannot be recited in the nation's public schools. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the words "one nation".

The suit will now go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

PETITION TO DISBAR REV. DR. MICHAEL NEWDOW [actual text]

Michael Newdow who is licensed and empowered by the State Bar of California has brought disrepute to the legal profession by:

1. Misusing his authority as a member of the State Bar of California by filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits.

2. Clearly violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.**

3. Lying to the courts under oath.

THE PARTICULARS:
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS:

An example is the suit he filed against World Net Daily.com, a news service for supposed libel. SEE EXHIBIT A. As can be seen in the enclosed news release dated 8/14/03, the attorney for the news service, Richard Ackerman, showed that this suit had no factual basis, was nothing more than "Malicious Prosecution," labeled it as such and Newdow backed down.

He is attempting to bring this same lawsuit against another news service, ASSIST News, and this petitioner, Rev. Austin Miles even though it has already been proved to have no basis in fact.

The story in question was published over a year ago this past July. It was a story combining facts about Mr. Newdow that were quoted directly from the petition he filed to declare the Pledge of Allegiance illegal, and from the various stories published about him and his case against America as his activities unfolded.

Michael Newdow does not work for a law firm, has no law office of his own, and is not practicing law. He has obtained his membership card from the State Bar of California solely to further his atheistic agenda and to harass Christians.

He is on a rampage of filing countless lawsuits, clogging court calendars and causing problems for the public.

He has filed these bogus suits against President George W. Bush, Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham), every Congressional and Senate Chaplain, members of congress, and rank and file ministers like this petitioner, with the hopes of eventually making local churches illegal. He intends to have any and all mentions of God purged from government buildings, swearing in ceremonies, on currency and any public symbol.

Michael Newdow is a publicity hound, wants his name and picture in the papers and brags of all the mentions, both positive and negative, on his website.

VIOLATION OF RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, CODE SECTION #6076 & 6077.

The above cited codes state that the Rules of Professional Conduct dictates that lawyers are to "protect the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal profession." This rule is also backed by the State Bar Act (bus. & prof. Code #6000) and opinion of California courts.

Michael Newdow was quoted by United Press International (10/25/03) where he called (family court) judges: "Frauds…these charlatans who go by the name of family custody experts." That’s his opinion and quote of judges. SEE EXHIBIT B-PAGE 3.

The most damaging statement Newdow made in disparaging the law was his quote published by Law.Com (11/10/03) SEE EXHIBIT C-PAGE 4, in which he stated; "To do this stuff, for a filing fee, you can affect 280 million people." What he basically said was that any half-wit with no special abilities, for a filing fee, can cause havoc with 280 million people. This is the impression of the law that Michael Newdow has made public. And it also clearly shows his arrogance and intentions. He has also stated on television that he did not have to study to pass the bar examination.

These published statements, that are being picked up by many other news sources shows that Newdow is ridiculing the legal profession and showing contempt for it. Similarly, he is, as Plaintiff, calling himself REVEREND Newdow, to show his contempt and hatred of religion. He is doing exactly the same thing with the law.

According to the rules set forth by the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct, the violations listed above in themselves are reason to disbar Newdow.

Continued in next post

[AuntieSocial]

Continued from previous post

LYING TO THE COURTS/PERJURY:

Michael Newdow determined to make the Pledge of Allegiance illegal, shortly after the tragedy of 9/11 (making his case extremely outrageous). He made an attempt to deliberately mislead the court by stating that his ‘daughter’ was offended by having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and saying the words, "Under God." He misled the court into believing that he was an active, caring father, making a legal decision for his daughter.

What he did not disclose was that his daughter never lived with him, he never had custody of her, and that he and the child’s mother were never married. He seduced Sandra Banning, impregnated her, then stated to Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Mize that Ms. Banning had raped him. SEE EXHIBIT C. To further examine Mr. Newdow’s character, he also stated to the judge that, "I don’t love her, and I told her that."

He then used the child he fathered, "as a hook", to file this infamous Pledge Case. He made this revealing comment on CNN. He did not have custody of the child he fathered, never did have the custody of that child, and he had no legal right to make decisions for her since the mother had sole custody. Newdow had no standing to even make his case by suing in the name of his ‘daughter.’ He never asked the little girl or her mother for permission to do so. And they have stated they would never have given it.

Furthermore, the child and her mother both are born again Christians, are members and active in a church, and the child has no problem whatsoever in saying the Pledge and the phrase, "under God," contrary to Newdow’s statements.

Indeed, the child begged Newdow not to bring her name into the case since it would look like she was an atheist which she is not. Newdow did not consider [that] by doing this he put the child he fathered in a position of retaliation and hatred. Newdow is now fighting to gain custody of the little girl he fathered, using her, thinking this will give validity and standing to his bringing the Pledge case in her name. SEE EXHIBITS D & E.

Newdow’s hatred of America, God, and Christians is his driving force. He wants to see the mention of God removed from all public places, no matter who he has to step on and hurt to accomplish it, including a little girl he fathered who wants nothing to do with this. And by lying to the court to file his case, when he had no legal standing to bring it, he committed perjury, which calls for definite punishment. He signed an affidavit testifying that his stated facts were true, when he knew full well that the facts were false. This is perjury.

PRECEDENT:

The State Bar of Texas disbarred one Neal Hogan who involved himself in a case in Contra Costa County (1995) because of perjury. He stated in his signed affidavit to the court that he was a member of the Texas State Bar in good standing, when actually he had been suspended 3 years earlier.

When the facts of his suspension were brought forth, after he had successfully thrown a case in favor of a corrupt district attorney, he not only was disbarred, but at the same time a warrant for his arrest was filed by the same district attorney’s office. This serious charge could not be overlooked.

And it cannot be overlooked in the case of Michael Newdow who has angered and offended the vast majority of the population of America by insulting their heritage, faith and beliefs. For a lawyer and member of the Bar to commit perjury is an especially serious offense, which dictates punishment.

Furthermore, Newdow also violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 which sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorney for filing a case knowing the allegations of the complaint are false. Newdow was his own lawyer in the Pledge case. Being a member of the State Bar of California, he is therefore in fact, the plaintiff’s attorney. This means that he can also be sanctioned by the civil law for lying to the court.

PERSONAL COMMENT:

Michael Newdow has attempted to attach himself to my name, knowing that by doing so he will get a lot of publicity. That is his main goal, to make a name for himself at the expense of others.

On July 6th of this year, 2003, I suffered a double stroke which was almost fatal. Within a week after the news of this came out, Newdow, taking advantage of this, began making his moves to try and bring a lawsuit against me. Knowing that I was totally disabled during that time, his idea was to bring the case he concocted against me to a court, where I would lose by default (there is no way I could go anywhere), and then flex his muscles.

He could not find my home address since it has been kept away from public knowledge specifically for this reason—misfits who try to use me and my name to bring attention to themselves. Let me add I am 70 years old. I’ve had enough of this.

Newdow, with his empowerment from the State Bar of California next began to harass everyone I know, including the owners of two homes I previously lived in. He then (either him or one of his thugs) learned where a relative of my wife lived in Oakley, California, banged on his door on Saturday, November 8, 2003, and tried to push his way into the house demanding to know where I could be found.

Continued in next post

[AuntieSocial]

Continued from previous post

That relative is 86 years old, frail and lives alone. He was taking a nap at the time the banging on the door woke him up. To him this had the appearance of a home invasion and he would have been within his legal rights to grab his shotgun and kill the intruder, whether it was Newdow himself, or someone he hired to try and serve papers.

In this case, the police were not called, and the relative did not want to tell me about this, knowing my difficulty in trying to recover from my strokes. He did say that the intruder "did not look too bright."

Newdow has sent me some harassing emails and has had others (with a Christian sounding address) email me to try to obtain my home address. There is also indications that he, or one of his thugs plans to intrude into my church and disrupt things there.

Because of the stress Newdow has caused me in his rampage, I have suffered two additional mini-strokes. It is obvious that some drastic action will have to be taken. And because of the deliberate, malicious actions of Newdow, which has caused me additional health problems, liability is being established.

Again, he seems to specialize in harassing older people because he is a coward and has no character. Indeed he is a criminal. My family and church are on alert and ready.

There has already been an atheist, identified as Keith Wheeler who threatened my life and intruded into my church. Fortunately the church was on alert and he was immediately apprehended. A police report was filed with the Antioch Police Department. We all believe that he was connected to Newdow even though we cannot confirm this.

This harassment of citizens would never have been able to occur had it not been for the State Bar of California that has endorsed Newdow. Being a member of the Bar has given him power as an ‘officer of the court,’ which has enabled him to cause mischief and havoc in people’s lives in the name of the law.

He has clearly misused this authority and certainly has added to the negative public perception of lawyers, and in this case, the Bar itself. This man will wind up causing the Bar huge problems.

Newdow is a loose cannon and will totally disgrace the law and especially the State Bar of California when he acts as his own lawyer before the Supreme Court in February, which he has stated he will do. I really don’t think you want that to happen.

FINAL STATEMENT:

It is in the best interest of the State Bar of California to immediately yank Newdow’s membership before he causes problems that will create liability for the State Bar itself. Any one of the reasons detailed above with documentation would be a solid reason for his dismissal. I have given you three solid reasons to disbar him:

Frivolous Lawsuits - Documented

Violation of the rules of professional conduct and demeaning the law - Documented

PERJURY- DOCUMENTED

There should be no delay in doing this for the sake of everyone. Please read the exhibits thoroughly to see who and what this man is.

This complaint and petition is submitted by Rev. Austin Miles Date: November 17, 2003

Maverick: Added to the news page. Message icon updated.

[Yaw]

I don't think this petition is a good idea. I'm not just saying that because I disagree with Rev. Miles about the pledge; I think that disbarring Newdow before the Supreme Court date would also be damaging to his position.

Let's assume for the moment that the entirety of Rev. Miles' petition is factually correct. (I can point to one instance where it isn't -- Newdow is a Reverend with the Universal Life Church, and is hence a legal Reverend. Now, you can argue over whether or not a ministerial position acquired over the internet is reputable -- even the Unitarian Universalists are more discriminating when it comes to clergy -- but it is certainly legal.) Even if Newdow did not have the standing to bring the case regarding the pledge to court, the Supreme Court still should rule on the case regarding its merits. Pandora's Box has already been opened. If the Supreme Court does not come up with a final ruling on the issue itself, and dismisses it over the issue of standing or Newdow's out-of-court behaviour, the old decision in favour of Newdow remains uncontradicted. That only postpones the issue; anybody can then use the arguments from the Ninth District case and its decision to launch a new trial arguing exactly the same case Newdow did. They only need to actually have standing. The case has to argued before the Supreme Court because any alternative is an unacceptable conclusion for this case.

As for the argument that Newdow is only out to advance an atheistic agenda, that's sort of what lawyers do -- advance agendas. What else is an environmental lawyer for? Besides, wouldn't this be a similar argument as to if a lawyer decided to file on behalf of blacks in the 1950's? Fear and lack of civil rights would prevent anyone from ever having standing. Such a case would certainly offend those in the population who were racist. Those facts alone, however, don't mean such a case would not have merit.

[AuntieSocial]

I find the entire petition to be prejudicial. The precedent for the Code of Conduct violations, for example, do not correspond to Newdow. The reason the other lawyer was punished had more to do with the fact that he put himself foward as being a lawyer in good standing, the subsequent lie (after being found out) is immaterial, in my humble opinion.

And it cannot be overlooked in the case of Michael Newdow who has angered and offended the vast majority of the population of America by insulting their heritage, faith and beliefs. For a lawyer and member of the Bar to commit perjury is an especially serious offense, which dictates punishment.

... and this affects the price of tea in China how?