27 August 2008

Hey KingCast, the same trolls who say you misrepresented yourself to Chief Dunn now actually claim you weren't up front with Prosecutor Albrecht!

Well, you know, all I could do was ask Prosecutor Albrecht to come before the Grand Jury one and two but in the end you can bring a horse or other four-legged animal to water but you can't make it drink, or stop wasting taxpayer monies.

BTW check the email header for the law firm: Ransmeier & Spellman, same as Franconia's counsel Dan Mullen. I love my trolls, they give me good blawg material. Look w'happened to Bill Albrecht, drummed out of office on ethics charges while one of his inmates ate metal. NH LE stories are weird like that; get used to it. I have.

15 comments:

Christopher King said...

Okay, this is the part where I save time for the Trolls by just cutting and pasting their comments :)

********

"So, go back to popping your girlfriend’s ass pimples and have a nice night.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:46 PM
*

THE REAL CHRISTOPHER KING -

BELIEVE NOTHING HE SAYS BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR AND A DISCREDITED ATTORNEY - WITHOUT THE PROPER ETHICS, HE IS NOTHING - LET IT BE SAID ------


COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.]

Attorneys at law --

MISCONDUCT -- One-year suspension

with credit for time
served -- Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous
disciplinary proceeding -- Engaging in conduct indicating inability to
function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients
adequate representation -- Failure to pay costs imposed at previous
disciplinary proceeding.
(No. 98-423 -- Submitted January 8, 2002 -- Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115.
__________________

Per Curiam. In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we
suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No.
0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension
on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a
mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association. Columbus Bar Assn.
v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862. We also imposed costs of
that proceeding on respondent.

On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former
Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common
Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent's mentor. Based upon the mentor's report to
the relator and respondent's failure to make the payment ordered in our December
1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent's probation
be revoked, that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held
in contempt. Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court.

At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits,
and stipulations. It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain
of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on
respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous
behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client's own
acknowledgement that she had no claim. Respondent did not appeal the order or
pay the sanction. Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him.
The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A.
Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in
Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337. Respondent did not appeal this
sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them,
except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees. On February 28, 2000, Judge
Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held
in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions.

The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge
Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported
himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d
729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor
Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School. Respondent did not at any
time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship.

The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge
John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in
contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent's conduct in Smith v.
Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay
2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January Term, 2002
attorney fees and court costs. Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge
Martin.

In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his
monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of
$1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-
CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County
Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of
$200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000
by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187.

On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not
fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he
could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his
clients adequate representation.

In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs
imposed in our December 1998 order. The panel recommended that respondent's
probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be
reinstated.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel. It is
clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of
probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the
mentor's report is credible. Further, in three years respondent has not paid the
costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety
days.

We have already revoked respondent's probation and reinstated his
suspension on October 4, 2001, "pending entry of a final order by this court." 93
Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901. Respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for one year with credit for time served. Respondent is further
3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71
plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid. Respondent shall
further pay the costs of these proceedings.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:52 PM

4:52 AM
Delete
Blogger Christopher King said...

And then my standard response from this post, in which one may click on all the links for clarification:

********

To the new and uninitiated:

Did you notice that NONE OF THIS has anything to do with what Caleb Macaulay said, or the lies that Kelly set forth?

Or the missing two (2) minutes of audio?


1. The fact of the matter is (again) that no one else in Ohio had got LE found liable for making someone a victim of violent crime.

2. $58,500.00 in 1998 dollars is more than reasonable for the fact that Michael had no palpable injury. Ask any lawyer.

3. Not only did we prevail on the settlement, we also won the criminal trials (the usual resisting arrest/assault on an Officer BS like they ran against Liko Kenney) before an all-white jury in Hamilton, Ohio, as the jury foreman told me part of the reason they voted for Michael and Justice was because I was better than Sam Boorst "you got more honey than his vinegar," was his EXACT quote.

*****

4. There was no "wiretap," it was a phone recording on a speaker phone and it was not unethical or illegal because

a) Ohio had not adopted the model ABA rules.

b) Ohio was a one-party state, meaning only one party needs to know who is taping.

This is why they couldn't suspend me so instead they put me on "probation" for a year and I reported to a ex-military lawyer who at the end said I failed to fulfill the terms of my probation, so NOW I'm suspended. When asked in my suspension hearing what I failed to do that he wanted me to do, he had no answer.

And BTW one can see Mr. Isreal at my suspension hearing arguing in my defense.

And BTW we were attacking the same kind of racism that caused Peckett's to be closed when the government found that they would not accommodate black folks so rather than to follow the government order to desegregate, they closed the inn!

The landlord had called my client a "nigger lover," which I validated by neutral sources.

Anyway, on Pecketts, I know a guy that burned it down in a training exercise.

5. Now then, coming to the biggest joke of them all, the "extortion" case against me was DISMISSED in its entirety, along with the bogus "Unauthorized Practice of Law" case brought by Kelly.

Here is a summation post, showing the Demand Letter I sent to Chief Dunn after his cops stuck 3 guns in an unarmed man's face and visual body cavity searched him for loitering.

Yes, loitering. He won his criminal "case" without a lawyer, yes he did.

a) Police Chief Dunn fired.
b) Prosecutor Bill Albrecht resigns under an ethics investigation.
c) NAACP's Gloria Timmons and Jaffrey Chief Dunn both lied under Oath.
d) Nashua Telegraph and Mayor Streeter wrote editorial in favor of KingCast and gave me a Mayoral Commendation.

Thanks for bringing that up though so that people can see how foul the government and some "Civil Rights" organizations can be.

But what you failed to do my friend, is to offer any comment about what YOU have done for Civil Rights, or Right-to-Know.

Here's a good post from Daily Kos about today's NAACP:

"...I like your style, even if it's intemperate, it's creative intemperateness. I like that you touched on the way in which hallowed institutions from the civil rights era like NAACP are subject to intense pressures from those outside the organization who wish to subvert the "brand" from within. In this way, legacy institutions end up perverted and co-opted, since at the end of the day all organizations have to be run by real people in real time, in the present moment. If they don't take steps to energetically preserve and adapt their mission to changing times, it's like taking a cruise on the Queen Mary while she sits in dry dock. It's pretty, but you're not getting anywhere."

******

Lastly, you know what's funny?

I talk to people who have spoken with Casey Sherman about this matter, one of whom went to prep school with Casey.

He is a well-respected writer even as acknowledged by the same circle jerk trolls at Topix (where Casey no longer reads BTW) and I know that Casey is making some of the exact same points as I am. So when he publishes his book next year what will the trolls say then?

North Country folks will not be fooled by these trolls, I only bothered to respond because newbies might have some questions.

-The KingCaster

6:24 AM

4:55 AM
Delete

Christopher King said...

Ahhh, but wait, I see it coming now:

"Mr. King, you used "Esq." in your letter to Albrecht....."

Yep. Sure did.

But I did not use it in the Demand Letter to Chief Dunn, and THAT my friends, is the point.

Which is not to say that the State had a case against me even if I had used "Esq." in the Demand Letter, but whatever the case, until I am reinstated I'll just used "J.D."

Fine with me.

What is not fine with me is the fact that the NAACP failed to conduct any further inquiry into Willie Toney's case.

Loitering. Three (3) drawn guns. Body Cavity Search. Criminal cases dismissed. Loitering. Three (3) drawn guns......

Katie Couric said...

Mr. King:

we have heard word of your blowing up in a boozed fueled rage over how you family is reacting to your involvement in this case. Can you give us some background?

Christopher King said...

5:43

First off, you WISH you were as fine as Katie Couric. She is one good-lookin' lady.

In fact, Snowy your IP address is 75.68.82.71

For your background, you, your husband, George Manupelli and I were all drinking at his place one night and your husband drove home.

At George's place and in your SAAB, we all discussed how upsetting it was that mass media and the pressures of living in America keep people from focusing on real issues like the ones countenanced by 5/11.

I said (screamed even) that even my own family has been tricked by this and that even though they have supported me, we are all just a bunch of niggas in the grand scheme of things.

George, who filmed Liko's funeral, agreed and he and I are still friends; in fact he gave me the footage from the Healing Party to use as we continue to gather footage for a feature film.

See, the gentleman who did some work for Bode Miller's movie was there too, and that's about all you need to know.

Peace.

And oh, your husband -- who is a great guy and I don't know how he tolerates the like of you -- made it home safely despite drinking.

You wanna' start something with me L, I'll finish it. Go ahead and go to the police as you "threatened" to do the other day. In fact, call me first and I'll meet you there, you silly fool.

Christopher King said...

Here is Katie.

You ain't got nothin' on her.

Thankfully I've removed your image from my blawg lest it shatter folks' glasses.

Christopher King said...

PS: I saw how you said "great letter" to Karen Saffian but you dissed (or tried to diss) on me.

Too bad Karen doesn't give a hoot what you think; she just emailed me to say I'm doing a great job.

Anonymous said...

You won't get many compliments from me - but I got to give you one now! Nice job posting the real you before anyone else did. I hate to admit it, but it was a great move - bravo!

We'll get you next time though, so be prepared!

Anonymous said...

Topix lurks, my friend, just waiting to pounce!!!!!

Anonymous said...

One question, in your letter to have your license reinstated, did you enclose your posts about how you thought McKays injuries were funny and appropriate?

This clearly shows a lack of growth and professionallism since your were suspended.

Anonymous said...

YOU FORGOT THIS ONE -

A lawyer shall not:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

Anonymous said...

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
COLUMBUS
ANNOUNCEMENT
THURSDAY

October 4, 2001

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

98-423. Columbus Bar Assn. v. King.
On December 9, 1998, this court suspended respondent, Christopher King, for a
period of one year, stayed the suspension, and placed respondent on probation for
one year on condition that during the probation period, respondent work with a
mentor appointed by relator. On August 10, 2001, a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed its certified report in this court
in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(H), recommending reinstatement of
respondent's suspension, and revocation of his probation, but not recommending
that respondent be found in contempt. On August 29, 2001, this court, pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(9)(J), issued an order to show cause why the panel recommendation
should not be confirmed. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar
R. V(9)(I), the probation of respondent, Christopher King, Attorney Registration
No. 0062199, last known address in Columbus, Ohio, be revoked and the original
one-year suspension be reinstated, effective as of the date of this order, pending
entry of a final order by this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent, Christopher King,
immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form and is hereby
forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission,
board, administrative agency, or other public authority.
10/04/01 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is hereby forbidden to counsel
or advise or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform such
services.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is hereby divested of each,
any, and all of the rights, privileges, and prerogatives customarily accorded to a
member in good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent surrender his certificate of
admission to practice to the Clerk of this court on or before thirty days from the
date of this order, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys
maintained by this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G),
respondent shall complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each
month, or portion of a month, of the suspension. As part of the total credit hours of
continuing legal education required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), respondent shall
complete one credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by
Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A)(1), for each six months, or portion of six months, of the
suspension.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court, that within ninety
days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have
been awarded against the respondent by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after
the date of this order, the Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against the
respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that
amount to the Clients' Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such
award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall not be reinstated to the
practice of law in Ohio until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for
reinstatement set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar
of Ohio; (2) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the
Government of the Bar of Ohio; (3) respondent complies with this and all other
orders of the court; and (4) this court orders respondent reinstated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before thirty days from the date of
this order, respondent shall:

1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any cocounsel
of his suspension and his consequent disqualification to act as an attorney
after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of co-counsel, also notify
the clients to seek legal service elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency in
seeking the substitution of another attorney in his place;
10/04/01 3

2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due respondent, deliver to all clients
being represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining to the
client, or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and place where
the papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for
obtaining such papers or other property;

3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are
unearned or not paid, and account for any trust money or property in the possession
or control of respondent;

4. Notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of
counsel, the adverse parties, of his disqualification to act as an attorney after the
effective date of this order, and file a notice of disqualification of respondent with
the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for inclusion in the
respective file or files;

5. Send all notices required by this order by certified mail with a return
address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;

6. File with the Clerk of this court and the Disciplinary Counsel of the
Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing proof of
service of notices required herein, and setting forth the address where the affiant
may receive communications; and

7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent
pursuant to this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk, the
Columbus Bar Association, and Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of
address where respondent may receive communications.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made
on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified
mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration
Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified
copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be
made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs
of publication.
10/04/01 4
98-2616. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson.
On June 28, 2000, this court suspended respondent, Steven C. Wilson, Attorney
Registration No. 0032952, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio, for a
period of six months with the entire six months stayed subject to being actually
served should respondent fail to meet the conditions of his probation. The court
further ordered that the probation conditions included, inter alia, that respondent
make restitution to Joseph McAtee of $8,000, plus interest, within six months. On
July 18, 2001, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a report of respondent's
compliance with probation. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent show cause by filing a
written response with the Clerk of this court on or before twenty days from the date
of this order why his probation should not be revoked and why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law for failure to make payment of $8,000, plus
interest, to Joseph McAtee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.
00-1862. In re Resignation of Stidham.
On February 12, 2001, this court accepted the resignation of respondent, Chuck
Ray Stidham, Attorney Registration No. 0031507, last known business address in
Cincinnati, Ohio, with the designation of disciplinary action pending. On August
23, 2001, the Cincinnati Bar Association filed a motion for the court to order
respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to
return client files as ordered by the court on February 12, 2001. Upon
consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be and is hereby granted and
that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court
on or before twenty days from the date of this order why he should not be held in
contempt for failure to comply with this court's order of February 12, 2001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.
10/04/01 5
01-1033. In re Resignation of Pappas.
On affidavit of resignation from practice of law of Peter V. Pappas and report filed
under seal by Disciplinary Counsel.
The resignation of Peter V. Pappas is accepted.
01-1319. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hogan.
On Certified Order of the District Court of Guam, No. 99-00013.
Jerry E. Hogan is suspended from the practice of law for three months.
01-1629. In re Pace.
On September 7, 2001, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), the Secretary of
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
certified to the Supreme Court a certified copy of a judgment entry of a felony
conviction against Don Pace, a.k.a. Don Haywood Pace, an attorney licensed to
practice law in the state of Ohio.
Upon consideration thereof and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), it is
ordered and decreed that Don Pace, a.k.a. Don Haywood Pace, Attorney
Registration No. 0025708, last known address in Panama City Beach, Florida, be,
and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period, effective
as of the date of this entry.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be, and is hereby, referred to
the Disciplinary Counsel for investigation and commencement of disciplinary
proceedings.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Don Pace, a.k.a. Don Haywood Pace,
immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form and is hereby
forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission,
board, administrative agency, or other public authority.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, effective immediately, he be forbidden to
counsel or advise, or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform
legal services for others.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that he is hereby divested of each, any, and all
of the rights, privileges, and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member in
good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G),
respondent shall complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each
month, or portion of a month, of the suspension. As part of the total credit hours of
continuing legal education required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), respondent shall
complete one credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by
Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A)(1), for each six months, or portion of six months, of the
suspension.
10/04/01 6


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall not be reinstated to the
practice of law in Ohio until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for
reinstatement set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar
of Ohio; (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court;
(3) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio; and (4) this court orders respondent reinstated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court, that within ninety
days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have
been awarded by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(70(F). It
is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the
Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients'
Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before thirty days from the date of
this order, respondent shall:

1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any cocounsel
of his suspension and his consequent disqualification to act as an attorney
after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of co-counsel, also notify
the clients to seek legal service elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency in
seeking the substitution of another attorney in his place;

2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due him, deliver to all clients being
represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining to the client,
or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and place where the
papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for
obtaining such papers or other property;

3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are
unearned or not paid, and account for any trust money or property in his possession
or control;

4. Notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of
counsel, the adverse parties of his disqualification to act as an attorney after the
effective date of this order, and file a notice of disqualification of respondent with
the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for inclusion in the
respective file or files;

5. Send all such notices required by this order by certified mail with a
return address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;

6. File with the Clerk of this court and the Disciplinary Counsel of the
Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing proof of
service of notices required herein, and setting forth the address where the affiant
may receive communications; and
10/04/01 7

7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent
pursuant to this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk and the
Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may
receive communications.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made
on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified
mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration
Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified
copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be
made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs
of publication.
01-1630. In re Al’Uqdah.
On September 7, 2001, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A), the Secretary of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
submitted to this court a certified copy of a determination of default of a child
support order by William Al'Uqdah, a.k.a. William Mujahid Al'Uqdah, an attorney
licensed to practice law in the state of Ohio.
Upon consideration thereof and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), it is
ordered and decreed that William Al'Uqdah, a.k.a. William Mujahid Al'Uqdah,
Attorney Registration No. 0039809, last known business address in Cincinnati,
Ohio, be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period,
effective as of the date of this entry, and further, that he shall remain suspended
until he is in full compliance.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be, and is hereby, referred to
the Disciplinary Counsel for investigation and commencement of disciplinary
proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William Al'Uqdah, a.k.a. William
Mujahid Al'Uqdah, immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any
form and is hereby forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court,
judge, commission, board, administrative agency, or other public authority.
10/04/01 8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, effective immediately, he be forbidden to
counsel or advise, or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform
legal services for others.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that he is hereby divested of each, any, and all
of the rights, privileges, and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member in
good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall not be reinstated to the
practice of law until (1) the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
files in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(5)(D)(1)(b) with the Supreme Court a
certified copy of a judgment entry reversing the determination of default under a
child support order, or it files in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(5)(D)(1)(c) with
the Supreme Court a notice from a court or child support enforcement agency that
respondent is no longer in default under a child support order or is subject to a
withholding or deduction notice or a new or modified child support order to collect
current support or any arrearage due under the child support order that was in
default and is complying with that notice or order, and (2) this court orders
respondent reinstated to the practice of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk and the
Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may
receive communications.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made
on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified
mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration
Office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified
copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be
made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs
of publication.

Christopher King said...

9:14

Nope because I never said McKay's injuries were funny, but as State Rep Sorg said, they were in part the result of his own actions.

Guess what though, and this is what really bugs you:

I don't give a damn what you think, and neither does the court.

See you at oral argument.

Anonymous said...

Nope because I never said McKay's injuries were funny, but as State Rep Sorg said, they were in part the result of his own actions.

I call bullpuckie on you, you were also giddy when describing his injuries.

Anonymous said...

For McKay to have acted the way he did and treat the public as such I can say that he had many injuries prior to 5/11.

He was without a doubt injured emotionally (for whatever reason).

Having said that for the town/local Government to turn a blind eye to reach out to this in my opinion a "very troubled officer" was not only an injustice to the communities but MccKay as well.

It was their respomsibility to monitor his job performance.

They failed to do so. They are the ones that have failed Liko, Caleb and McKay. Again, systems in place that are broken and need to be fixed.

Had some done their job as they were legally, ethically and morally obligated to do I say chances are good that both men would still be alive and this incident would have been avoided.

Hope you folks can sleep well at night !

Monitor your employees and get them the help they need. McKay was worthy of that as well as the citizens of New Hampshire.

And if you can not do the job the way it needs to be done then step aside and allow for another as there are many very honest people that can.

Christopher King said...

5:51

That was a good post.

Meanwhile, take a look at what's been going on in Gloucester Mass with respect to the Lorraine Fire.

-c