Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mitzi Elaine Dailey, Petitioner v. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland

Supreme Court briefOct 25, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No,

10 ~ h$3

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

In re: MITZI ELAINE DAILEY, Petitioner

MITZI ELAINE DAILEY,

Petitioner

FILED

OCT 2 5 2020

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

1. SUPlREEM°FC1OURTLnQK

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MITZr ELAINE DAILEX

The Daileylaw Group, LI*C

P.O. Box 22297

Baltimore, Maryland 21203

(443)915-3149

daileylaw@aol.com

Petitioner, Pro Se

RECEIVED

NOV - 2 2020

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U S.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Should the Maryland Court of Appeals, acting by and

through its Attorney Grievance Commission, have granted

Petitioner’s request for a hearing on her Petition for Writ of

Mandamus, to present her constitutional due process and equal

protection challenges, including: (1) the complainant in this

attorney disciplinary case admitted that he had no evidence to

support his allegations; (2) confidential information of the

investigation was improperly disclosed to an unrelated pro

bono client; allowing that client to file a complaint; (3) the

assigned trial judge for the disciplinary case, Baltimore City

Circuit Court Judge, the Honorable Jeffery M. Geller, had been

the trial Judge for another unrelated pro bono client of this

Petitioner and (4) permitted the participation of Baltimore City

Circuit Court Judge, the Honorable Lawrence V. Fleteher-Hill,

who is currently presiding and ruling in another unrelated pro

bono client of this Petitioner?

PARTIES

Mitzi Elaine Dailey, Esq.

Petitioner

Maryland Court of Appeals

-Respondent

Attorney Grievance Commission

-Respondent

The Honorable Jeffrey M. Geller

Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City

-Respondent

The Honorable Lawrence V. Fletcher-Hill

Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City

-Respondent

Lydia E. Lawless, Esq.

-Respondent

Christine Marie Celeste, Esq.

Respondent

Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General

Michele McDonald, Assistant Attorney General

Joseph Dudek, Assist Attorney General

Debora Goodrick, Assistant Attorney General

-Counsel for All Respondents)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.

PARTIES......................................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.111

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

.iv., v

PRIOR OPINION.

JURISDICTION.

,vi

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Vll

STATUTES INVOLVED

Vlll

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

PROCEDURAL HISTORY.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.

CONCLUSION.

CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT

CERTIFICATE PROOF OF SERVICE

APPENDIX,

A-l

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case

Page

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S.22, 33,

41 S.Ct.230, 233, 65 L.ED. 481 (1921)....

Collins v. Dixie Transport, Inc., 543 So.2d 160

(1989).........................................................................

Fuentes u. Sheuin, 407 U.S. 67, 80,

92 S. Ct. 1983, 1994 (1972)........ ....... ..................

Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973)

Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977)

Loudermillv. Cleveland Bd. OfEduc.,

721 F.2d 550, 563 (6th Cir. 1983), affd, 470 U.S. 532,

S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed. 2d 494 (1985).................................

McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Bevs. & Tobacco,

496 U.S. 18, 39 n.22, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 2251 (1990).......

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Bar Assn.,

10, 11, 12, 13

457 U.S. 423 (1982)

Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,

353 U.S. 232 (1957)..............................

Valley et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board,

118 F.3d 1047 (5* Cir. 1997) at 1052..............

U.S. v. Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258 (5*h Cir. 1998)..... 19, 20

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1937)

World'Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v.

City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9* Cir. 1987)

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

12.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Statute

Page

Article XIV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution,

Maryland Constitution

Maryland Const. Decl. Rights, Article 24

.vn

Maryland Statutes & Rules

MD CODE ANN. TITLE 19 - ATTORNEYS

Maryland Rule 19-707

13, 14, 15

Maryland Rule 19-725

13, 15, 16

PRIOR OPINIONS

There are no prior Opinions in this matter but there is

an Order from the Maryland Court of Appeals, Denying the

Petition for Writ of Mandamus, without explanation. The

Maryland Court of Appeals Order is reproduced in

Appendix at A-l.

JURISDICTION

Petitioner seeks this Court's review of the judgment

entered on July 27, 2020 by the Court of Appeals for Maryland,

by a Petition for Writ of Mandamus Petition pursuant to the

jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) and the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This petition is timely filed because it was mailed within

ninety days of the last Order of the Court of Appeals, that

Denied the Petition and was dated July 27, 2020.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

That the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to

the United States Commission provides that:

No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of

life, liberty or property, without due process

of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Maryland Constitutional Provisions

That the Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights,

Article 24, provides:

That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or

disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or

outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner, destroyed, or

deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by judgment

of his peers, or by the Law of the land.

Vll

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Procedural History

Petitioner, Mitzi Elaine Dailey, a Maryland

attorney for 25 years, with a civil practice, primarily serving

pro bono and low bono individuals in Baltimore City, State of

Maryland, is the respondent in an attorney disciplinary

proceeding initiated by the Maryland Attorney Grievance

Commission. The proceeding began with an investigation in

November of 2018 of a complaint filed by a pro bono client,

Geoffrey Wolst, that alleged there had been no communication,

return of telephone calls or texts regarding the status of his

case for 6 months. That once the investigation was in process

and Mr. Wolst was questioned by the investigator for the

Attorney Grievance Commission, as to his documentation for

these allegations, the client stated that he “has no records of

the telephone calls or texts to the attorney.” The client

never submitted, nor was he required to submit any telephone

records, text messages, emails, letters, or any other

documentation in support of his allegations.

-1-

Petitioner has never had any disciplinary actions

brought against her. Petitioner has been honored by the

Maryland Volunteer Lawyer Service, recognized as Volunteer

of the Month in July 2018, for commitment in providing legal

representation for pro bono cases, in what was described as

appreciation for accepting a “staggering 27 cases taken in three

years”.

This matter was in the investigation stage from

November 2018, until March 24, 2020, more than 400 days,

until the Petition for Disciplinary Action was filed on March

24, 2020, at a time that the Maryland Courts were closed by

Order of The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland,

the Honorable Mary Ellen Barbera, due to the COVID 19

pandemic.

Maryland Disciplinary Procedure Rule 19-711(d) (1)

Time for Completing Investigation Complaint provides:

Generally. Subject to subsection (b)(3) of this Rule or unless the

time has is extended pursuant to subsection (d)(2) of this Rule,

Bar Counsel shall complete an investigation within 90 days

after opening the file on the complaint.

-2-

Petition for Disciplinary was filed by Bar Counsel,

Lydia E. Lawless and Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie

Celeste, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and the Judge

assigned was The Honorable Jeffery M. Geller. The Petition

alleged attorney did not communicate with the client and

alleged that the attorney did not perform the legal services

requested and agreed upon by the client, in regard to the estate

matter and criminal case of the client. Thereafter, during the

early stages of the pandemic with all citizens in the State of

Maryland under a stay at home Order, the Assistant Bar

Counsel, elected to publish Petitioner’s home address in her

pleadings and send numerous versions of her pleadings to

Petitioner’s home; disclosing to family members this

disciplinary proceeding.

As well, the Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie

Celeste, served in April 2020, Requests for Admissions directed

to attorney, “Neda Biggs”, to answer within thirty (30) days.

Thereafter, on or about May 11, 2020, Petitioner filed

her Answer to the Disciplinary Complaint, denying the

allegations, setting forth affirmative defenses of failure to state

a claim, fraud; inadequate due process; and illegality.

-3-

Thereafter, in the months of June and July 2020, the

Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie Celeste, took actions to

attempt to force Petitioner to answer her Requests for

Admissions that was addressed to another attorney. When she

could not force this Petitioner to submit to her demand, she

filed for and had an Order entered for Sanctions, wherein all of

her allegations were admitted. Additionally, both Assistant

Bar Counsel and The Honorable Jeffery M. Geller scheduled

the trial as a “remote trial” at the end of July 2020, during a

time when the Baltimore City Circuit Court and Maryland

Courts were not open for trials yet, due to the COVID-19

pandemic. Thereafter, there were Scheduling emails sent by

The Honorable Jeffery M. Geller informing Petitioner that a

“remote trial”, would be held and including The Honorable

Lawrence V. Fletcher-Hill, who is presiding and making

decisions (often adversely ruling and showing animus toward

Petitioner) on a different pro bono client’s matter that this

attorney was representing. See, Smith v. City Neighbors, et. al,

Baltimore City Circuit Court Case No. 24-C-19-004212.

-4-

After the aforementioned, Petitioner filed her Petition

for Writ of Mandamus with the Court of Appeals

on July 13, 2020, asserting the violations of her Due Process

rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the United

States Constitution; including proceeding to trial when the key

witness concedes he has no evidence of the alleged misconduct;

violations of rights of confidentiality; due process violations in

admitting the Requests for Admissions that had been

propounded to attorney, “Neda Biggs” and violating Petitioner

rights to a fair and impartial tribunal with its, inclusion of a

Judge presiding over an ongoing separate case of the

Petitioner; and setting a videoconference trial at a time when

the Maryland Courts were not open due to the pandemic.

Thereafter, on July 27, 2020 the Honorable Chief Judge,

Mary Ellen Barbera, Court of Appeals, Denied the Petition for

Writ of Mandamus, without explanation. See, Appendix A-1

Next, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Jeffery M.

Geller and Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie Celeste

determined they would move forward with the trial on

August 11, 2020, still in violation of the Order(s) that the

Maryland Courts and Baltimore City Circuit Court were not

-5-

open for trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner did

not participate in this proceeding, in which there was no

possibility of a fair and impartial hearing on any of the issues,

including Petitioner’s constitutional due process challenges.

Assistant Bar Counsel, thereafter, had her Requests for

Admissions propounded to attorney “Neda Biggs”, admitted

against this Petitioner; had Petitioner’s Answer and

Affirmative Defenses stricken and was permitted to have her

late filed Pre-Trial Statement admitted.

All in absolute violation of Petitioner’s due process rights

to full and fair trial; right to confront witness, right to a fair

and impartial tribunal and other rights under the 14th

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

That as of September 22, 2020, the Maryland Court of

Appeals, received the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

of The Honorable Judge Jeffery M. Geller, finding in favor of

the Attorney Grievance Commission on all issues.

Additionally, as of October 6, 2020, the Attorney Grievance

Commission has filed its Recommendation for Sanctions and

Statement of Costs, wherein it has requested disbarment and

that Petitioner be held responsible for all costs.

-6-

That as of October 7, 2020, this Petitioner, Mitzi Elaine

Dailey, has filed Exceptions to the Findings of Fact and

Conclusion of Law of Judge Jeffery M. Geller, Denying all the

Facts set forth therein; reasserting that the Petition for Writ of

Mandamus that set forth the Due Process violations, and that

the Petition had been Denied and Request for a Hearing.

The Maryland Court of Appeals has scheduled Oral

Arguments for the dates of January 4, 5, 7 or 8, 2021.

As well, during the investigation stage of the

Commission’s action, it disregarded Petitioner’s right to

confidentiality advising another of Petitioner’s pro bono clients

that the above complaint had been filed, and almost

immediately that client filed a complaint.

Facts

This Petitioner has never had any disciplinary case

until this action was brought but to the contrary for all of her

25 years as an attorney has performed primarily pro bono work

for individuals that would otherwise have to go without legal

representation. This Petitioner has never had a disciplinary

action filed against her, to the contrary, has continuously

worked with pro bono organizations such as

-7-

Catholic Charities; Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”); Civil

Justice Network and Mid-Shore Pro Bono. As well, from my

earliest days as an attorney beginning in 1996,1 have

consistently accepted many clients from Maryland Volunteer

Lawyers Service.

Thus, it is these proceedings instituted by the Attorney

Grievance Commission, based solely on a wholly unfounded

and unsupported complaint filed by a client, Geoffrey Wolst, on

November 17, 2018, that alleged “he did not know what was

going on with his case; had not communicated with Petitioner

in six months and would not speak with Petitioner because he

had filed his complaint”.

This client had received Petitioner’s name from the Civil

Justice Network, and, he initially sought legal advice and

representation regarding whether he could become the

personal representative for his mother’s estate after his mother

left almost $90,000 dollars to his niece and it was the client’s

belief that the niece may also have been named as the personal

representative. At the same time, the client also requested

Petitioner’s legal advice and representation, in regard to

difficulties with his sister, with whom he lived and that

-8-

ultimately escalated to the sister filing police charges; filing for

a protective order and having the client removed from the

home.

As well the Petitioner was asked to provide advice

regarding the client and his niece decision to divide the

$90,000.00, with each depositing one half into their own

personal bank accounts. Assistant Bar Counsel was provided

with all documentation and information regarding Petitioner’s

representation, but she determined, solely on her own, that she

did not believe any of Petitioner’s statements and would not

accept any of her documentation. While at the same time

Assistant Bar Counsel did not require the client, Mr. Wolst, to

produce any documents to support his allegations.

As well, during the investigation stage of the

Commission’s action, it disregarded Petitioner’s right to

confidentiality advising an unrelated pro bono client of the

Petitioner that this complaint had been filed, and upon which

that client almost immediately filed a complaint.

-9-

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The issues presented in this matter are of critical

constitutional and national importance, as it presents a

fundamental question and conflict among the States Supreme

Courts, as to an attorney’s right to assert constitutional

challenges of violations of protections afforded by the United

States Constitution during the course of a state disciplinary

proceedings. See, Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Bar

Assn.,457 U.S. 423 (1982); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80,

92 S. Ct. 1983, 1994 (1972); Loudermill u. Cleveland Bd. Of

Educ., 721 F.2d 550, 563 (6th Cir. 1983), affd, 470 U.S. 532, 105

S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed. 2d 494 (1985). In this instance, the

Supreme Court has held that, “The fundamental requirement

of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful

time and in a meaningful manner.” McKesson Corp. v. Div. of

Alcoholic Bevs. & Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 39 n.22, 110 S.Ct.

2238, 2251 (1990).

The United States Supreme Court has considered this

issue in an attorney’s assertion of his First Amendment rights

under the United States Constitution during the course of a

-10-

New Jersey State Court attorney disciplinary proceeding. See,

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar

Association, et al., 457 U.S. 423 (1982).

In the Middlesex case, the New Jersey Court questioned

public statements made by the attorney and made the

pertinent inquiry of whether the state proceedings afforded an

adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claim. See,

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar

Association, et al., 457 U.S. 423 (1982).

In analyzing when abstention is appropriate, the Court

provided that abstention by the federal court is appropriate for

an ongoing state proceeding that is (1) judicial in nature, (2)

implicates important state interests, and (3) provides an

adequate opportunity to raise federal challenges. Equally,

important, to the determination was, as long as there is no bad

faith or harassment on the part of the State and the State

disciplinary rules were not “flagrantly and patently”

unconstitutional or any extraordinary circumstances, then the

federal courts would abstain from intervening in the case.

See, Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar

Association, et al., 457 U.S. 423 (1982).

-11-

Previously, the United States Supreme Court’s doctrine

enunciated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) had been

of abstention of the federal courts from pending state or

administrative proceedings, as the governing principle. See,

Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411

U.S. 564 (1973).

However, in the Middlesex case, the New Jersey

Supreme Court and local Ethics Committee was able to

establish that it was a judicial proceeding, in which it provided

an “adequate opportunity” for the attorney to raise his

constitutional claims. As well, the Court further stated:

“That any doubt as to the matter was laid to rest

by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s subsequent

actions when, prior to the filing of the petition for

certiorari in this Court, it sua sponte entertained

the constitutional issues raised by Hinds”.

See, Middlesex County Ethics Committee v.

Garden State Bar Association 457 U.S. 423 (1982).

However, even if all three of the requirements set forth in

the Middlesex case are satisfied, abstention is not appropriate

if, bad faith prosecution or harassment is present, or where a

statute flagrantly violates constitutional provisions. See,

World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820

F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1987).

-12-

A. This Court Should Grant Certiorari as the

Maryland Rules and Court of Appeals Do Not

Allow the Attorney to Assert a Constitutional

Challenge

The Maryland Court of Appeals, unlike in the Middlesex

case involving the New Jersey Supreme Court that provided

an opportunity for the attorney in its disciplinary process to

have his constitutional claims adjudicated within its process,

does not have such a procedure, and in fact, denied without

explanation Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus, foreclosing all and

any opportunity to be heard on these issues.

As well, the Maryland Court of Appeals, acting by and

through its Attorney Grievance Commission and Bar Counsel,

does not have a process similar to the New Jersey Court where

there is first a determination as to whether a prima facie case

has been asserted by the complainant.

Specifically, the Maryland Rule(s) 19-707 and 19-725,

provide that:

(1) Attorney to have confidentiality and privacy prior to

the fifing of the Petition for Disciplinary Action; but

(2) Prohibited the attorney that is the subject of the

disciplinary proceeding from fifing anything other than

the Answer, and states:

-13-

Attorney Rule 19-707 Confidentiality and Privacy

At the time prior to the filing of the Petition for

Disciplinary Action, the proceedings of the Commission

are:

Confidential as per Rule 19-707, which provides in

part:

(a) Peer Review Meetings,

(1) Confidentiality Generally. All communications,

whether written or oral, and all non-criminal

conduct made or occurring at a meeting of a peer

review panel are confidential and not open to

public disclosure or inspection. Except as

otherwise expressly permitted in this Rule,

(2) individuals present at the meeting shall maintain

that confidentiality and may not disclose or be

compelled to disclose such communication or

conduct in any judicial, administrative or other

proceeding.

(b)Other Confidential Material.

Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, the

records and proceedings listed in this section

and the contents of those records and proceedings are

(1) confidential and not open to the public inspection

and

(2) may not be disclosed by Bar Counsel, the staff and

investigators of the Office of Bar Counsel, any

member of the Commission, the staff of the

Commission; the Peer Review Committee;

any attorney involved in the proceeding, or, in any

civil action or proceeding, by the complainant or

an attorney for the complainant.

(A) the records of an investigation by Bar Counsel,

including the existence and content of any

complaint or response, until Bar Counsel files a

petition for disciplinary or remedial action

pursuant to Rule 19-721__

-14-

Attorney Rule 19-725 -Pleadings; Motions:

Amendments

(a) Pleadings. Except as provided in section (b) of

of this Rtde or otherwise expressly permitted by

these Rules or ordered by the Court of Appeals, the

only pleadings permitted in an action for Disciplinary

or Remedial Action are the petition and an answer.

(b)Amendments. Bar Counsel may amend a petition

and the attorney may amend an answer in

accordance with the applicable provisions of

Rule 2-341.

As well, the Committee note for this section of

Rule 19-725 also confirm that there is no forum to

address constitutional claims, as stated:

Committee note: Proceedings on a Petition for

Disciplinary or Remedial Action are conducted

pursuant to the original jurisdiction of the Court

of Appeals to regulate the practice of law and are not

the place for collateral actions or such things as

counterclaims. Moreover, because the authority

of the circuit court judge designated by the Court

of Appeals pursuant to Rule 19-722 is limited to

taking evidence and making findings of fact and

proposed conclusions of law, that judge is not

empowered to dismiss a petition. Defenses

to the petition may be raised in the answer and

may be addressed by the designated judge, but

only the Court of Appeals has the authority

to dismiss all or part of a petition.

Thus, the Petitioner while in one instance had already

had her right to confidentiality violated under Rule 19-707, by

the Attorney Grievance Commission, by and through its’

-15-

employees by informing another of Petitioner’s pro bono clients

of the investigation of this matter, before the Petition for

Disciplinary Action was filed in Court; and facing the

limitations of Rule 19-725 that the Attorney subject to the

Disciplinary action can only file an Answer and the last

opportunity to challenge the State’s actions, the Petition for

Writ of Mandamus having been summarily denied and closed;

this Petitioner, no possibility of the constitutional due process

violations being addressed in the State Court proceedings

B. This Court Should Grant Certiorari Due to the

Bad Faith. Harassment and Extraordinary

Circumstances:

(1) The Maryland Court of Appeals, acting by and through

the Attorney Grievance Commission, proceeding to a

disciplinary trial, despite the Complainant/client;

admitting he had no evidence of the alleged acts;

and would not communicate with the Petitioner

because he had filed a complaint; and

(2) The Attorney Grievance Commission disclosing what

was confidential information to a different pro bono

client of Petitioner, of the Complainant/Client’s

investigation; and then that client filing a grievance; and

(3) Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie Celeste,

publishing Petitioner’s home address to the public; and

(4) Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie Celeste, mailing

numerous versions of her pleadings in this disciplinary

matter to Petitioner’s home, at the height of the COVID19 pandemic, when receipt of large packages was

discouraged; and providing Petitioner’s family members

with notice of the disciplinary proceeding;

-16-

(5) Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie Celeste,

propounding her Requests for Admissions addressed to a

different attorney, “Neda Biggs” and then having those

admissions admitted against Petitioner in the court

proceedings; and

(6) Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine Marie Celeste, moving

to have Petitioner’s Answer and Affirmative Defense

Stricken from the record, after the Petition for Writ of

Mandamus was filed.

This Court Should Grant the Petition Due to the

Abuse of Judicial Discretion

In considering the requirements of due process, that,

The basic requirement of constitutional due

process is a fair and impartial tribunal, whether

at the hands of a court, an administrative agency

or a government hearing officer. The Supreme Court

has consistently enforced this basic procedural

right and held that decision makers are

constitutionally unacceptable in the following

circumstances [including]...where an adjudicator

has been the target of personal abuse or

criticism from the party before him...

Valley et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board,

118 F.3d 1047 (5* cir,. 1997) at 1052.

As well there can be no greater due process violations or

travesty of justice, than to have an attorney facing a

disciplinary matter, with the presiding Judge being one that

the attorney appeared before for trial or even worse, having a

Judge included in the disciplinary case and/or trial, while

presently making rulings, (some adversely), in a current case of

a client of the attorney.

-17-

That caselaw clearly sets forth the dilemma to be one

that an individual should be free of, and so states:

That a judge who is otherwise qualified to preside

at trial or other proceeding must be sufficiently

neutral and free of disposition to be able to render

a fair decision. No person should be required

to stand trial before a judge with a ‘bent of

mind.’ Collins v. Diode Transport, Inc.,

543 So.2d 160 (1989), at 166 citing

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 33, 41 S.Ct.230,

233, 65 L.Ed. 481 (1921).

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has stated that:

“For where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or

integrity is at stake because of what the government is

doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are

essential”. See, Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S.

433 (1937).

As well the Supreme Court has consistently held that

“A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of

law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons

that contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. See, Schware v. Board of Bar Eocaminers, 353

U.S. 232 (1957).

(l)Lack of Judicial Independence

And thus, in assigning, the Honorable Jeffrey M. Geller

who had already been the trial judge in another of Petitioner,

pro bono client’s divorce case, absolutely denied Petitioner the

basic constitutional due process protection for which she was

entitled. See, Handy v. Handy, Baltimore City Circuit Court

Case No.: 24-D-17-000503.

-18-

As well, the Honorable Jeffery M. Geller was deciding,

pursuant of the request of Assistant Bar Counsel, Christine

Celeste to admit the Requests for Admissions that were

propounded to another attorney; striking Petitioner Answer

with her Affirmative Defenses and then entering his Findings

of Fact that Petitioner had committed the offenses.

2. Lack of Judicial Independence

Then, equally violative of the fundamental principles of

fairness and requirements of due process, was permitting the

Honorable Lawrence V. Fletcher-Hill to be included in this

disciplinary proceeding, while he is currently presiding over

and ruling (often adversely and demonstrating his animus for

Petitioner at every hearing) in another of Petitioner client’s

cases in Smith v. City Neighbor, et. al, Baltimore City Circuit

Court Case No. 24-C-19-004212

When the Fifth Circuit federal case, when the court had

an opportunity to consider a somewhat analogous case of a lack

of judicial independence, where the facts involved a defendant

Avilez-Reyes, the Court vacated the sentence and remanded

the case to the district court because the defendant’s attorney

-19-

had participated in a judicial disciplinary proceeding a month

earlier against the trial judge, who then erroneously failed to

recuse himself, the Court held:

That Judge McBryde abused his discretion and

reversibly erred by failing to recuse himself from

The Avilez-Reyes’ case. We conclude that a

reasonable person, advised of all the circumstances

of this case, would harbor doubts about Judge McBryde’s

impartiality. See, U.S. v. Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258 (5th

Cir. 1998).

-20-

CONCLUSION

This Petition seeks to resolve one of the fundamental

constitutional challenges in seeking Due Process in accordance

with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, to

include a full and fair opportunity to challenge governmental

actions, before a tribunal that is unbiased and fair.

Equally important, are the issues raised in this Petition

that are of national importance to all attorneys and licensed

individuals, since if there are no Due Process protections

applicable when a client or individual alleges misconduct, or a

requirement to establish a prima facie case, then the essential

freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution will

have be rendered null and void. For all the foregoing reasons,

the Petitioner, Mitzi Elaine Dailey, respectfully requests that

this Court grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and any

other relief deemed appropriated.

Respectfully submitted,

Mitzi E

The DaileyLaw Group, LLC

P.O. Box 22297

Baltimore, MD 21203

Tel: (443)915-3149

daileylaw@aol.com

Petitioner, Pro Se

-21-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.