Disqualifying Counsel Conflict Interest

****

PROVIDE THE CASES

YES

PA

United States v. Bernstein: This case underscores the importance of representation free from conflicting interests as part of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. It highlights the constitutional basis for disqualifying counsel when a conflict of interest compromises the right to effective representation. Seifert v. Dumatic Indus., * Pa.: This Pennsylvania case considers a motion to disqualify counsel as a collateral order under Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P. *), providing a procedural basis for immediate appeal in cases of attorney disqualification due to conflicts of interest. Vertical Resources Inc v. Bramlett: Although not directly related to disqualification for conflict of interest, decisions like this from the Pennsylvania Superior Court can provide insight into how state courts view professional conduct and potential conflicts. THOSE ARE CORRECT

NO ARE THEY

YES

YES ARE THEY

ARE THEY RELEVENT TO THE SITUATION

****

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES ROBERT TICE, Plaintiff, v. HARRY E. WILSON, et al., in their official capacities and the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. Case No.: [NO.*:*-*] MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Introduction Plaintiff, James Robert Tice, respectfully moves this Court to disqualify Jennifer M. Herrmann, Esq., and the law office of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (collectively, "the AOPC") from representing Defendants, the Juvenile Probation Department, the Honorable Fred P. Anthony, the Honorable John A. Bozza, the Hono rable Dominick D. DiPaolo, the Honorable Stephanie Domitrovich, the Honorable Paul Manzi, the Honorable Peter Nakoski, and the Honorable Brenda Nichols (collectively, "the Judicial De fendants"). Plaintiff argues that, Ms. Herrmann's affiliation with the AOPC creates a clear, and present conflict of interest, that prevents her from providing fair, and impartial representation to the Defendants, violating Plaintiff's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Background Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants in their official capacities. He challenges the validity of his convictions, both as a juvenile, and as an adult, in the Pennsylvania court system. These convictions resulted in ongoing restrictions on his freedom. Plaintiff alleges that the Judi cial Defendants engaged in misconduct, throughout the legal proceedings knowingly doing so, resulting in wrongful convictions. He further alleges the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America failed to uphold their responsibilities to ensure a fair, and just legal process. Argument The AOPC's representation of the Judicial Defendants creates an undeniable conflict of interest that necessitates disqualification. Here's why: Direct Conflict: The AOPC supervises all judges in Pennsylvania, including the Judicial Defendants. Representing these judges directly conflicts with the AOPC's duty to main tain neutrality, and impartiality towards all judges. Ms. Herrmann's loyalty to the AOPC would hinder her ability to zealously advocate against the Judicial Defendants, especially if their actions reflect poorly on the Pennsylvania court system as a whole. Appearance of Impropriety: Allowing the AOPC to defend the Judicial Defendants cre ates a glaring appearance of bias. The public deserves confidence that the justice system holds judges accountable. The AOPC's involvement creates the impression that the court system is protecting its own, undermining public trust in the fairness of these proceedi ngs. Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule *.*(a): This rule directly addresses conflicts of interest and states that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. You can reference this rule to argue that the AOPC's representation of the Judicial Defen dants creates a conflict that violates Ms. Herrmann's ethical obligations. Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon *(E)(*)(a): This Canon states that a judge should avoid both actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. You can reference this Canon to strengthen your argu ment regarding the appearance of impropriety created by the, AOPC representing the Judges. Ethical Violations: The Pennsylvania Code of Conduct for Judicial Conduct mandates th at judges, and those associated with the court system avoid conflicts of interest. By repr esenting the Judicial Defendants, Ms. Herrmann, and the AOPC are violating these ethic al principles, further eroding public trust in the judiciary. Rebuttal to Doctrines Raised by Judicial Defendants Why These Doctrines Don't Apply Here's a more specific breakdown of why each doctrine is irrelevant to Plaintiff's case: Good Cause for Extension: The AOPC's resources should allow them to quickly gras p the case. A lengthy extension only prejudices Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial. Federal Rule *(a)(*): The details provided are necessary for context, but the core clai ms are clear. The Court can always request clarification. Statute of Limitations: Plaintiff argues "constructive custody" due to ongoing restric tions on his freedom, also collateral consequences, and capital punishment, extending the filing window, including ineffective assistance of counsel, and the continued legal procee dings, further, suffering continued, and punishments, and sentences from. Judicial Immunity: Plaintiff challenges actions outside the scope of judicial immu nity, as detailed in the complaint. Eleventh Amendment Immunity: The lawsuit targets individuals, and the state in offi cial capacities, not the state itself. It concerns federal civil rights violations, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The lawsuit focuses on misconduct leading to the convic tions, not directly challenging the convictions themselves. Relief Requested For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:Grant this Motion to Disqualify Counsel, and disqualify Jennifer M. Herrmann, Esq., and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) from representing the Judicial Defendants in this case. (s)JAMES ROBERT TICE Attorney for Pro-Se Supra III, Dated: */*/* Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on [*/*/*], I served a copy of this document MOTION TO DISQUAL IFY COUNSEL on the opposing party, or their counsel via [Regular Mail, or Certified mail.]. Clerk Federal Court Western District /s/ Jennifer M. Herrmann

SO THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THAT OR IS THERE MORE FOR WESTERN DISTRICT

THE ARGUMENT IS STRONG CORRECT

HOW TO MAKE IT STRONGGER

[PROVIDE MORE CASE LAW AND STATUTES

McQuerry v. Barry, * S. Ct. * (*)

\

Double Jeopardy and New Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals' denial of Petitioner's application to file a second habeas corpus petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of * (AEDPA), * U.S.C. § *, violates his right to a fair trial and misinterprets the precedent established in Magwood v. Patterson, * U.S. * (*). Petitioner presents new and reliable evidence demonstrating a series of legal violations that undermine the fairness of his convictions, including a partial innocence finding in the related juvenile case.

YES

YES

BOTH

YES

CITE TEH CASES FULLY

F THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED HIM THEN IT WOULD BE UNFAIR, AND HE FILED A NEW HABEAS, WHIC SHOULDNT AFFECT NEW HABEAS, BUT HE CASN SUBMITT THIS ARGUMENT TO THE FEDERALCOURT STATING THE COURT OF APPEASL VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS UNDER MAGWOOD

MEANING WHAT

CREATE THE ARGUMENT

THE COURT OF APPEALS MADE JUDGES IN A REQUEST FOR COA DOES THAT COUNT

YES BUT IT WOULD BE NEW BECAUSE THEY MADE MULTIPLE ORDERS INCLUDING REHEARING ENBANC, AND SUR PETITION, THEN DENIED IT

IF A NEW CASE IN BETWEEN OCCURED CAUSING A GUILTY VERDICT ,ADN A NEW SENTENCE WOULDNT THAT DO IT

IF COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES ARE APPLYING WOULDN'T THAT COUNT FOR NEW HABEAS.

SO IF A * OVER TRAFFIC OFFENSE OCCURED ,ADN THAT RESULTED IN GUILTY VERDICT AND FINE UNDER AN ILLGAL JUDGE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH THAT WOULD COUNT

THE NEW JUDGEMENT DOESNT HAVE TO CHANGE PAST SENTENCES IT JUST HAS TO ADD TO IT SOMEWAY

YES BUT A SPEED LIMIT GUILTY VERDICT AND A SENTENCE OF A FINE COUNT