Appellants Reply Brief — Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n

SEP 17 1982 ORIGINAL SEP ./ PAGE 3

SUPREME COURT, U.S. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -

KEN L. MICHAELIS, ) Case No. 81-6710

Appellant,

BRIEF OPPOSING APPELLEE'S

vs. ) MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

NEBRASKA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, )

Appellee. )

Comes now Ken L. Michaelis, appellant, and vigorously opposes

the Appellee-Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm for the following

reasonss

1. That the appellee Nebraska State Bar Association (NSBA) is

totally ignoring and whitewashing the appellee’s, NSBA‘s, useage of

such intimidating, drastic, and heinous tactics such as falsely alleging

that the appellant was “mentally 111“ amidst the 1978 political

campaign for Cuming County (Nebraska) Attorney. The Nebraska Supreme

Court did the cane thing! Absolutely no evidence existed in the least

to allege such a drastic charge. Such has been the arbitrary, capricious,

and malicious tactics appellant had to confront.

The appellant was and has always been shocked by such undertakings

and appellant’s consequent needs to defend himself against such evil

charges. They control the machinery? Power corrupts!

The Nebraska Supreme Court was utilized already in 1975 to effectuate

these tactics and maneuvers employed by a suspected small group of

lawyers considered influential in Northeast Nebraska.

That matters of this nature are never inconsequential given the

constitutional scheme of our democratic republic.

2. The Constitution was created and nurtured to protect the

sovereign citizenry from unscrupulous, arbitrary, capricious, and

malkious government action - whether it be carried out by the judicial

branch, legislative, or executive. This includes the NSBA!

The Supreme Court of Nebraska and the NSBA cannot be allowed to

act arbitrarily, capriciously, or maliciously. The Canons of Ethics

exist to protect the sovereign people and citizenry from unscrupulous

lawyers - not to protect the lawyers and the courts from the sovereign

people and their right to know the happenings and occurrences in their

courts, government, and legal profession.

14 3. The Canons of E*hics are not to be exploited by the Nebrasi:a

Supreme Court in far-fetched interpretations that trample upon the most

basic and fundamental constitutional rights and liberties of every

1 *

American - including lawyers. The Nebraska Supreme Court cannot act in

a vacuum completely ontrary to the basic and most fundamental freedoms

guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

4. Contrary to appellee's contentions, there is never “adequate

state ground” to violate the Constitution of the United States. The

United States Supreme Court has erected the proper standards and safeguards

such as clear and present danger, etc.

The Soviet Union might consider it has adequate “state ground” to

silence and quiet Soviet citizens by charging them with being “mentally

ill" and other tactics of despotism. This is not Soviet Russia.

5. That the true motives and basis of these actions by appellee

against the appellant is apparently the appellant's statement in 1978

that he somewhat agreed with Chief Justice Burger's assessment of the

legal profession and the article "Those % Lawyers” in the April 10,

1978 edition of Time Magazine.

6. If constitutional freedom of speech, free expression, due process,

and free conscience do not present substantial federal questions then,

indeed, there are few, if any, federal questions. The Constitution is

then a millity.

7. 411 the initial statements made by appellant were political

statements - most often made to rebut false charges by the opposition.

These were matters for the voters of Cuming County to decide - not the NS

Appellant was merely defending hinself throughout these matters as

best he knew how given the tactics, money, and influence and power of

the opposition. The so-called “legitimate channels” were the source of

the knowingly false charges of “mental illness” and many of the other

tactics of harassment and arbitrary and capricious activity.

8. The really horrendous and only “scurrilous attacks” occurred

against the appellant at the behest and contrivance of the appellee.

9. The relevant communications by appellant were solicited by the

press, media, and several times the radio after the appellee caused

press releases to be printed by the media against the name and reputation

of the appellant. Appellee prefers to employ the continuing tactics

of deception and misrepresentation that have succeedrd so far in causing

great harm and injury to the appellant.

In matters of political and governmental concern the public's right

to know is always paramount. Mistakes occur but this freedom must not

be chilled. 2

Pe 18 „B. . r

10. The appellee is intentionally deceiving this Court into

thinking others have been injured - and unjustlys The only party or

person injured has been the appellant, his wife, their three young

children, the Constitution of the United States, and the rights of the

people. The opposition controlled the media, press, had the power

and exploited it by very drastic and malicious tactics. Appellant's

greatest error was believing all he had to be was truthful and he would

eventually prevail over such intrigue. 8

11. Appellee desires that this highly esteemed and respected

Court accept the “brief reference to the record” as expounded by the

appellee and as set forth in the opinion of the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Nothing could be much further from the truth!

12. Having arbitrarily controlled and exploited the machinery

and tactics employed herein throughout the past four years, the appellee

now seeks to “stonewall” this case to prevent the first and only

chance for unbiased, objective, and truthful consideration, concern,

and review within the context of objectivity, propriety, justice, and

the Constitution of the United States.

The failure of this high court to review this matter will work an

extreme disservice upon the Constitution of the United States, upon the

American legal profession, and upon the sovereign American people and

their form of government.

13. The last thing this appellant ever wanted was to be caught

in any conflict with the NSBA or to be forced to defend himself.

Appellant was given no choice! The various matters throughout the past

four years have naturally angered the appellant and caused great despair.

What the appellant stated when he was contacted or forced to defend

himself from unfounded, malicious, and arbitrary charges has absolutely

no logical relevance with appellant's fitness to practice law.

As a fallible human being, appellant naturally made some mistakes

politically and legally in trying to defend himself. Nothing approaches

the severity of intentional tactics and wrongdoing undertaken by the

appellee and the few Nebraska lawyers who controlled the appellee.

14. The arbitrary and capricious action undertaken by the Nebraska

Supreme Court herein was an original action. For an appeal, appellant

is completely at the mercy of this Court.

Failure to reverse the Nebraska Supreme Court decision will “chill*

the freedom of expression of every lawyer who desires to sce good

government and a clean and honest legal profession. Lawyers will fear

that they cannot inform the public - the sovereign public - the least

about the most severe or even greatly criminal activities by state judges

or occupants of the Nebraska Supreme Court. Thus the judiciary arises

above the law, above accountability, and gods-unto-themselves. This is

how and why the heinous tactic of charging “mental illness” without

any basis other than arbitrary and capricious despotism was allowed

to occur in this matter. °

15. The sovereign people of Nebraska are forced to pay all the

costs and expenditures of the state courts but, without proper avenues

for knowledge about the judges and courts, the sovereign people can

exert absolutely no control, impact, or even concern about their courts.

The tactic of the Nebraska Supreme Court is that of making itself

and the judges above the lav“ and beyond accountability to the public.

This is unconstitutional privilege, caste, and immunity which the

United States Supreme Court has oftened denied for itself.

16. The United States Supreme Court has said the case best to

reverse the Nebraska Supreme Court's opinion herein. Appellant cited

forty-four (44) U.S. Supreme Court cases in his brief submitted to the

Nebraska Supreme Court. Appellee cited none to substantiate appellee’s

position - for none are to be found!

In its opinion of February 12, 1982, the Nebraska Supreme Court

quoted matters totally out-of-context, arbitrarily and capriciously

selected and stated matters to substantiate and justify the Nebraska

Court's predetermined desire to have revenge upon the appellant. The

Nebraska Supreme Court arbitrarily ignored each and every one of the

44 U.S. Supreme Court cases and the constitutional logic and precedents

set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.

17. The attitude, motivations, and pervasiveness of the appellee

and of the Nebraska Supreme Court is reflected in the Transcript’s

quotation of Mr. Melvin Kammerlohr (Deputy Nebraska Attorney General):

“As far as I'm concerned, the truthfulness is pretty much irrelevant.

But, it kind of worries me that you (Michaelis) think that just

because something is true, that you can publish it." (Transcript

of June 30, 1980 Hearing; page 206-207).

This reflects the arrogance, capriciousness, and arbitrariness of the

opposition.

18. Due to the dying and death of appellant's mother on March 23,

1982, and the consequent depths of his despair and remorse, appellant's

7

Jurisdictional Statement filed in this Court on May 13, 1982, was

performed in extreme haste and under the duress of great despair,

remorse, depression, and anger consequent to his mother’s death under

such trying circumstances.

Appellant has never prior as much as ever appealed a matter to

even the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Jurisdictional Statement was

hastily done by appellant typing night and day without little rest

as the deadline fastly approached. Amidst the despair appellant forced

himself to continue.

Said Jurisdictional Statement was not at that time edited or proof

read. Appellant apologizes for the poor drafting, mistakes, various

poor and undiplomatic word useages and phrases.

19. Contrary to the appellee's attempts to mislead this Court,

all of the major happenings herein occurred during and were part of

a political campaign and its aftermath. The opposition lawyers did

illegally and unconstitutionally (See Brown v. Hartlage, U.S. Supreme

Court No. 80-1285, 50 Law Week 4359, decided by a unanimous Supreme

Court April 5, 1982) remove appellant's name from the 1978 Primary

Election ard the Election Ballot. This commenced the whole matter.

Perceiving that the political activities of the opposition were

unconstitutional, appellant spoke out to so inform the sovereign people.

The electors had a right to know what was occurring and the appellant

had a constitutional duty to inform the electorate. In retaliation

for the appellant undertaking this duty to the electorate, the appellee

has engaged in this reign of despotic arbitrariness, caprice, and

malice. Regretfully, once a transgression occurred against the

appellant, the opposition wanted him silenced. That is why this

matter has mushroomed. The opposition has some “sacred cows"! This

is wholly contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

20. The appellee, through the Committee on Inquiry, arbitrarily

demanded that the appellant tell them any and everything appellant

knew concerning other lawyers and their misdeeds. Appellant refused

unless the same demand was made upon all licensed Nebraska lawyers.

The committee insisted. Coercion and intimidation were used.

Appellant knew they would destroy him if he refused further. Appellant

finally succumbed to their demands. This is the basis then used »y

the committee and the Nebraska Supreme Court to attack the appellant -

5.

‘oo 7 *

stating the appellant made “scurrilous attacks” upon the bar and bench.

They forced the appellant to state matters and then arbitrarily, without

any investigation, proclaim it to be false and then attack the

appellant for stating falsehoods. This is very despotic, reprehensibie,

and unconstitutional. The NSBA cannot be allowed to police itself.

Appellant was forced, intimidated, and coerced into stating what

the then Mayor of West Point, Nebraska and several former school board

members had told appellant about the conflicts of interest and apparent

corruption by the Moodie law firm as City Attorney and School Board

Attorney for acts in 1961, 1962, and 1970 to 1972 (Periods prior to

appellant even being a lawyer). The appellee and the Nebraska Supreme

Court arbitrarily declared and god-like decreed that these were faise

statements without having any basis whatsoever to come to such a

conclusion other than an attempt to coverup or whitewash the truth.

These coerced statements were then used to attack the appellant.

One thing for certain, the public of West Point and Cuming County had

the right to know and judge the truth. Many already did know and suspec

Mot ies of having often self-served themselves in government. The

Moodie-controlled local press has never allowed a bit of this to be

aired publically even to this date.

21. That the appellee, NSBA, with the concurrence of the Nebraska

Supreme Court have refused all of appellants numerous Motions to make

the charges over the years against the appellant far more definite and

certain; to include pointing out what are the specific falsehoods

appellant is alleged to have uttered. The NSBA and Nebraska Supreme

Court refused these very legitimate requests. They knew appellant

could never defend himself against such general and broad charges 4s

the appellee arbitrarily chose to pursue and fabricated.

The closest to any certainty has been the many falsehoods stated

in the February 12, 1982 opinion of the Nebraska Supreme Court. Now

the appellee is content that they have gotten away with this travesty

of justice and due process. To them, the truth means nothing!

By imperial and god-like decree the appellee and the Nebraska

Supreme Court have stated some unknown something is false without

stating what exactly is the alleged falsehood for identity purposes.

Not a scintilla of proof or testimony exists that this unknown is false.

It is false merely because they say it is false. This is arbitra‘y,

capricious, and despotic government.

6.

fle

Cal 7

22. The wholly one-sided, intimidating, and coercive intrigues

by the Committee on Inquiry for the 9th Judicial District were discredi

from the outset. They were Star Chamber proceedings much in the vogue

of Gestapo Hearings and KGB inquisitions: to-wit; the “mental illness”

and other comparable gimmicks.

23. The appellant has urdertaken many readings of the documents

mentioned in the Nebraska Supreme Court opinion. Appellant has tried

to be very objective. In no way can appellant agree with the

subjective, arbitrary, and capricious attitude exhibited in the opinion.

Numerous intentional misrepresentations exist inorder to achieve the

court’s predetermined objectives. For example, no where does any

document allege “conspiracy on the part of three Cuming County officials”.

24. Appellant has uttered nothing that he knew to be false or

that he should have known to be false. This is a fabricated charge

just as the charge of “mental illness" was totally fabricated by the

same sources for political and occupational gains contrary to the

waocratic guarantees of the Constitution of the United States.

Appellant has never even hinted at certain defenses such as

“campaign rhetoric” which the Nebraska Supreme Court inaccurately or

falsely alleges and stater that the appellant utilized as a defense.

Many otier inaccuracies exist in the February 12, 1982 opinion of

the Nebraska Supreme Court.

For the foregoing reasons, especially to uphold and to defend

the Constitution of the United States, appellant respectfully requests

that this Court overrule the appellee‘s Motion and that this Court grant

the review and appeal so desperately necessary for proper Constitutional

due process and Constitutional freedom of expression, conscience,

and speech.

Respectfully submitted,

KEN L. MICHAELIS, Appellant.

.

S. Colfax Street West Point, NE

68788 Tels (402) 372-5614

STATE OF NEBRASKA ) gs,

County of Cuming ) AFFIDAVIT or PROOP OF SERVICE

I, ken L. Michaelis, appellant herein, being first duly sworn,

do hereby state under cath that on this date I served a copy of this

Brief upon the appellee by depositing said copy in the United States

Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Melvin Kent Kammerlohr, Assistant

>)

Fh

Posy

Pap ed

OPA