Appendix — Curry v. State Bar of Wisconsin

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX __ PAGES

Opinion at 81-C-802, Order and dismissal

of complaints, September 30, 1981. . APP. 9

Opinion at 81-C-802 .. . APP... 10-11

U. S. Ast. Ct. For The Eastern Dist. Of Wise,

October 2, 1981 ,

Opinion at 81-2748... 6 6 „IPP. q 12-14

Dismissal and oreder for fifteen new

briefs.to be filed by petitioners Dec.23,

1981.

Opinion at 81-2796. . PP. 116

U.S. Ct. Of Appeals ordered all first

briefs sent back to petitioner, Dec. 23,

1981

Opinion at 81-2768... „ „IP.. 17-18

Respondents ordered to file BRIEFS.

and to show cause. April 8, 1982.

Opinion at 81-2748 „6 2 2 0 „ APP... 219-21

Case Dismissed, U. S. Ct. Of Appeals For

The 7th Cire, May 2h, 1982.

Opinion at 81-2748... PP. 42

Nespondents did not apply for costs or

award. August 16, 1982.

2

(continued from page one) PAGES

Opinion at 81-2748... . . 0 „ „P. 2223

Petitioners filed for Default judgment

in the U.S. Ct. Of Appeals, April 2, 1982.

Opinion at 81-2748. „ „ IP.. 22 25

Responden.s refused to file briefs,

as ordered by the Court, April 13, 1982.

Opinion at 80-6577 . PP.... 26.

THE U.S. 8. CT. Denied Petitioners per»

mission to file under forma pauperis,

June 15, 1982.

Opinion of Victor A. Miller, Chrm. Board

of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,

assured petitioners grievances would be

processed, January 1, 1980... . APP. 27-28

Opinion of Richard Cayo, Board of Atto:ney

Professional Responsibility, stating our

grievances would be investigated, Jan. 18,

1980. PP. 2629-31

Opinion of Cayo, Dismissed petitioners ,

grievances, March 25, 1980. App. 32-33

Opinion at 467-023 cccccccccccesAPPe 3-6

Petitioners action was dismissed. They

knew nothing about, June 7, 1979.

) 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN

DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

FRANCES R. CURRY, ET Ale,

PLAINTIFF,

Ve

81-C-802

STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN, ET Ale,

DEFENDANTS.

DECISION and ORDER

This action is brought under 42 U.S.C.

1983. The plaintiff alleges that the de-

fendants failed to perform their duties to

investigate allegations made by Frances

Curry against an attorney who represented

her in another action. The plaintiffs al-

lege: "Defendants have continued to refuse

to prosecute grievances filed with Board on

or about January 8, 1980." They also allege

"Defendants filed "Cease and Decist Orders"

against the plaintiff, illegally."Complaint

filed July 8, 1981, . The defendants move

to dismiss, for attorney's fees, and for an

injunction against the plaintiffs.

4

The complaint in this action is identical

to the complaint filed in an earlier case,

Curry V. State Bar Of Wisconsin, 80-C-192

(E. D. Ms., filed June 2, 1980). In fact, the

complaint filed in this action bears the

docketing number and filing stamps of that

earlier case. In No,. 80=C-492, The plain-

tiffs sought leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Judge Robert . Warren denied that request.

"United States district courts have limit-

ed subject matter jurisdiction. A plaintiff

must demostrate that such jurisdiction exe

ists. Although the plaintiff relies upor di-

versity of citizenship as a jurisdictional

foundation, quite clearly the parties are

not of diverse citizenship and, therefore,

jurisdiction does not exist on that basis.

plaintiff also cites, however, 28 U.S.C.1343

(3) which gives the court jurisdiction if

the complaint states a cause of action for a

violation of constitutional rights under 42-

U. 8. C. 1983. The proposed complaint does not

state a cause of action over which this et.

would have jurisdiction and, therefore, leave

to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

In the instant case, the petitioner ap-

pears to attack the Board's decision that

his complaint is groundless,

Such a determination however, is not sub

ject to review by this court. The federal

Courts have no authority to intervene in

the disciplining of attorneys by the State

Licensing authority. In addition, the col-

lateral consequences of the Board's de-

cision in this case does not crez‘te a sit-

uation in which the petitioner's constitut

ional rights are impinged.

The refusal of an attorney to take her

case does not infringe on eny constitute

ional richts of vetitioncer. There is no

constitutional right to an attorncy in

civil cases end each attorney has the dis-

erection to accept or regect any case of f-

ered to hin.

Finally, the petitioner has presented to

this court no evidonce that the Board is

doing anything to prevent petitioner fron

obteining counsel. Therefore, the court

finds that the petitioner's proposed con-

plain is frivolous", Ide, slip Opeat 2=3

(filed June 27, 1980); “ccord. Jesse Sing-

Teton J. State Bar Of “lise, Ho. 80-C-482

J. 9. As. filed July 9, 1980); tiller v.

State Bar of “ise, No. 80—Ca521 (M.D. 18.

6

Filed Jume 20, 1980); Garlin Singleton, V.

State Bar of Ms., No. 80=C-483(E.D. Wise,

June 6, 1980). In an instant order dated

July 25, 1980, judge Warren denied plain-

tiffs leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Frances Curry, V. State Bar, No. 80-C-492

Supra. The plaintiffs then appealed. The

court of appeals for this Cir. acting pur-

suant to Rule 2, Federal Rules of Appellate

procedure, reviewed the action on the me-

rits and concluded that it was frivolous.

Id., No. 80-2035 (7th Cir. filed February

6, 1981), Clarified, No. 80-2055 filed

March 20, 1980). The plaintiff's petition

for a writ of certiorari was denied by this

courte Ide, U.S. No. 80-6577,

49, U. 8. L. J. 391 (filed June 155 1981). I

find nothing in this repetive complaint

that sets out any violation of a constitut»

ional right The motion to dismiss will be

granted. See Jesse Singleton V. State Bar

Of Ms., No. 81-C-1981 (B. D. Wise, filed

September 30, 1981);

Garlin Singleton V. State Bar Of Wise, No.

81-C-712( E. D. Vise 9

7

(continued from page 6)

Filed September 20, 1981); Miller V. State

Bar of Wises No. 80-C-1091 (E. D. Wis. June

6, 1980). State Bar Of Wise, No. 80-C-1091

(Z. D. Filed September 25, 1981); Burns v.

State Bar Of Wise, No. 80-C-780 (E. D. Wis.

filed September 22, 1981).

The defendants also move for an award of

costs and attorney's fees, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 1988. Under such a section a defen-

dant may recover attorney's fees upon a

finding that the plaintiff's action was

frivolous, unreasonable, or without foun-

dation, even though not brought in subjec-

tive bad faith."

Christianburg Garment Co., Vs. Equal .

ployment Opportunity Comm'n 434, U.S. 412,

421 (1978). I am mindful of the concerns

expressed by Judge Terence Evans in Burns

Ve State Bar, Supra, But I am satisfied

that this case is approiate for an award

of attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiffs at bar have done nothing

more than refile an action which they pur-

sued with no success through every level

of the federal courts.

8

The Christanburg language is an accurate

description of this lawsuit, Accordingly,

I will award costs to the defendant's and

the award costs shall include attorneys

fees in the amount of $250. The defendant

also move for an injunction pursuant to

28 U. 8. C. 1651, to prevent the plaintiffs

from once again pursuing this action.

I am not persuaded that the defendants

have met the burden to justify this ex-

treme form of relief. There has not yet

been a large number of cases brought sole-

ly for vexatious purposes appropriate here

See Garlin Singleton V. State Bar, No.

81-C-712, and the cases cited therein.

Accordingly, the motion for injunctive re-

lief will be denied. Therefore, IT IS OR-

dered that the defendants’ motion to dis-

miss and for injunctive relief be and

hereby is granted in part and denied in

part. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the defen-

dants' motion be and hereby is granted in

9

(continued from page 8)

insofar it seeks to dismiss and seek an

award of costs and attorney's fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defen-

dants be and hereby are awarded costs,

and the award of costs, and the award of

costs shall include attorney's fees in

the amount of $250.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defen-

dants' motion be and hereby is denied in

all other respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action

be and is hereby is dismissed.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30

day of September, 1981.

10

JUDGMENT ON DECISION BY THE COURT.

UNITEL STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

FRANCES R. CURRY, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION

PLAINTIFFS, FILE NO. 81-C-

VS. 802

STATE BAR OF WISe, et Aley JUDGMENT

DEFENDANTS.

This action came on for consideration be-

fore the Court, Hone Myron Le Gordon, U.S.

District Judge, presiding, and the issues

having been duly and a decision having been

duly rendered,

It is ordered and adjudged that defendants’

motion be and hereby is granted insofar as

it seeks to dismiss this action and seek an

award of costs and attorney's fees.

It is ALSO ORDERED that the defendants be

and hereby are awarded costs, such costs to

include an award of attorney's fees in the

amount of $250. It IS Further ORDERED that

this action be and hereby is dismissed.

11

(continued from page 10)

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin ,This 2nd day

of October, 1981.

e 0 u

b Chee

12

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

60604

BEFORE

Garlin Singleton, Jr., Reverand

Jesse Lee Singleton, Jr., FRANCIS

R. CURRY and GEORGE TAYLOR,

plaintiffs-Appellants, Appeals

Nos. 81-2723, 81<-272k, from the U.

and 81-2748 VS. S. Dist.

Court For the

STATE BAR OF MS., et al., Eastern Dist.

Defendants-Appellees. Of Wise, Nos.

81-C-712, 8i-

C-781 and 8l-

C-802 Judge

Myron L.Cord-

On.

ER

This matter comes before the court for

its consideration upon the "MOTION TO DIS-

MISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE" filed herein on

December 18, 1981, 3 tor the de-

fendants-appellees. On consideration

thereo,, IT IS ORDERED that these appeals

are consolidated for the purposes of brief

ing and disposition. It IS FURTHER ORDERED

that said motion is hereby GRANTED to the

extent that the brief filed in No. 81-2748

is stricken as vile and abusive. The court

notes that briefs in Nos. 81-2723 and 8l-

2724 have not been filed. The following

briefing schedule shall be adopted:

leThe brief of plaintiffs-appellants

shall be due on or before January 20, 1982.

Since these appeals have been consolidat-

ed, only fifteen copies need be filed.

Plaintiffs-appellants, who are not now pro-

ceeding in forma pauperis, are admonishe?

to submit briefs in conformity with Fed. R.

App. P. 32 and the Circuit Rules. The court

directs plaintiffs to consider addressing

these issues on appeal:

APPEAL Nos. 81-2723, 81-272, and 81-2748

(a) Whether the district court correctly

determined that their complaint failed to

state a violation of constitutional law;

(continued from page ).

and (b) whether the district court correct-

ly awarded attorneys' fee against plain

tiffs.

Z. The brief of defendants-appellees shall

be due on or before February 22, 1982.

3. The reply brief of the plaintiffs-ap-

pelants, if any, shall be due on or before

March 8, 1982.

Plaintiffs are expressly admonished to pre

sent in their brief only legal arguments,

and factual materials presented to the dist

rict court. Scandlous material will be

stricken. Plaintiffs are invited to con-

sider the sanctions for frivolous and vex-

atious conduct specified in Fed. R. App. P.

38.

United States Court 82 Appeals

For The Seventh Circuit

219 8. Dearborn St.

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Thomas F. Strubbe, clerk

312-435-3850.

Dear Madam or Sir:

The enclosed document is being returned

to your office for the following reason(s)

Document received after due date.

xxxx Document lacks a certificate of service.

Document received is illegible.

Document lacks required affidavit.

xxxx insufficient number of copies of do-

cument tendered.

Record withdrarm from clerk's office not

re turned. .

C. R. 11 Additional authority is argument

tative.

Brief, petition for rehearing or answer

to petition for rehearing lacks a table

of contents. Brief, petition for rehear-

ing or answer to petition for rehearing

exceeds page limitation.

Appellant's brief lacks required short

appendix.

Motion to affirm w/o oral argument and

16

(continued from page 15)

proposed order not filed simultaneously

with appellee's brief.

Special leave of court is required to file

document.

Motion was denyed.

If the due date of the returned document

has passed at the time you resubmit the

corrected document, a motion for leave to

file the document instanter is required.

Inquiries regarding Seventh Circuit Court

of Appeals' filing procedures may be made

to the clerk's office:

Commercial No. =312=435-5850

F. Te Se Mo. = 387-5850

Thank You,

Charles R. Nea,

Deputy Clerk

* Note, 15 copies of a brief are required

per FRAP and Circuit Rules, and per Courts

order of 23 December, 1981. Please return

this letter along with the corrected

document.

( Another 15 BRIEFS ORDERED FILED BY FEDER

AL JUDGE “JALTER J. CUMMINGS, CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE ‘JAS IN FIRST 15 BRIEF).

17

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

APPELLEE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SEVENTH CIRCUIT

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 15

— April 8. 1982.

By the Court:

No. 81-2748

FRANCIS R. CURRY and GEORGE Appeal

TAYLOR, from the U.S.

Plaintiffs-Appellants, District Ct,

State Bar Of Asconsin, for the East-

et Ales ern Dist. Of

De fendants-Appellees. Wise No. 81-C

802.

Myron L.Gord-

on, judge.

It appears to the Court that the appelant's

brief was filed on=-__ January 18. 1962 ,

that the appellees brief was due to be file

filed on or before_FEBRUARY 22, 1982, and

that the appellee(s) has (have) failed to

file a brief. No motion for an extension

of time within which to file appellee(s)

brief has been made pursuant to Circuit

Rule 8(a)e

It IS ORDERED that the appellee(s) re-

18

(continued from page 17)

spond within fourteen days of the date of

this order as to why this appeal should

not be submitted to the Court for decision

without the filing of a brief by the ap-

pellee(s) and without oral argument by the

appellee (s), pursuant to Circuit Rule 8

(c).

(Respondent did not file BRIEFS ON TIME

AS ORDERED BY THIS COURT, PETITIONERS

ASKED FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT)

5 2.4

19

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

Before

No. 81-2723 Appeal From U.S.

GARLIN SINGLETON, R., Dist. Ct. For

Plaintiffs-Appellants, The Eastern Dist.

VS. Of Wisconsin.

STATE BAR OF WIS., ET No. 81-C-712

AL., Defendents- Myron L. Gordon,

Appellees. Judge

(RRR RRERRRERRLRLLERE LEE E EERE TET ETE ET ETT

No. 81-2724 Appeal from U.States

REVERAND JESSE LEE Dist. Court For The

SINGLETON, SR., ET Eastern Dist Of Wis.,

A. Plaintiffs-Appel- C. *l-C-781

lants, V. STATE BAR Myron L. Gordon,

OF MS. et Ales Judge.

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-2748 APPEAL FROM THE U.

20

(continued from page)

FRANCIS R. CURRY and S. Dist. Court

GEORGE TAYLOR, for the Eastern

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Dist. of Wise,

VSe

STATE BAR OF WIS, et al, No. 81-C-802

et ales

Defendants-Appellees. Myron L. Gordon,

Judge

On December 23, 1981, this court directed

the plaintiffs-appellants to consider ad

dressing the following issues in their

Briefs in these consolidated appeals:

whether the district Court correctly deter-

mined that their complaint failed to state

a violation of constitutional law; and,

whether the District Court correctly award-

ed attorneys' fees against plaintiffs-ap-

pelants.

In their brief, plaintiffs have suggest-

ed no legally acceptable basis for disturb-

ing the trial court's decision dismissing

the plaintiffs' cases for failure to state

a constitutional violation. They also have

failed to present any reasons why the dist.

Court was wrong in awarding attorneys! fees

of $250.00 to the state for its defense of

this frivolous and repetitive lawsuit.

21

(continued from page 20)

Nos. 81-2723, 81-272, and 81-2748

For these reasons, the District Court's

Order dismissing the lawsuits and award-

ing attorneys' fees are hereby AFFIRMED.

The “Rules To Show Cause“ entered on March

16, 1982 in Appeal Nos. 81-2723 and 81-2724

and 81-2748 and April 8, 1982 in Appeal Nos.

81-2748 are hereby DISCHARGED,

22

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILL. 60604

August 16, 1982

By The Court:

FRANCIS R. CURRY AND Appeal from

GEORGE TAYLOR, PLAINTIFFS- U. 8. DIST.

Appellants, Vs. Court For

STATE BAR OF MS., ET AL., The Eastern

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, District Of

Wise, No.

81-C-802

Myron L. Gordon, Judge

SHHASHHHSKAHHHHHHSHHHHHH SASH HHEHHRHEHEHE HEE EE EES

This matter comes before the court for its

consideration upon "Opposition TO BILL OF

COSTS" FILED HEREIN on June 24, 1982 by pro

se plaintiff-appellant Francis R. Curry.

Defendant did not apply for costs in this

appeal, nor were costs awarded.

The Clerk shall file said Opposition

without action.

23

918-A W. Nash Street

April 2, 1982, Apte Ae

Milwaukee, Wis. 55206

Mr. Thomas F. Strubbe, Clerk,

U. S. Court Of Appeals For The

Seventh Circuit, 219 S. Dearborn

Ste, Chicago, Ill. 60604

Dear Mr. Strubbe:

FRANCES R. CURRY AND GEORGE TAYLOR VS.

State Bar Of Hs., ET AL, CASE NO.81-2748.

The Honorable Walter J. Cummings, Cir.,

Judge issued and order on December 23,

1981 in that order, the defendants were to

file REPLY BRIEFS NO LATER THAN ABOUT

FEBRUARY 20, 1982. AS OF THIS DATE NO BRIEF

HAS BEEN FILED BY DEFENDANTS. WE ARE ASKING

JUDGMENT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS

EXPIRED TOR DEFENDANTS TO HONOR THE COURTS

_ ORDER OF DECEMBER 23, 1981.

please notice my new address.

ATTN: LEROY L. DALTON, FRANCES R. CURRY.

ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPT.

OF JUSTICE, ROOM 114 EAST, MADISON, WIS.

53702. THREE COPIES SENT TO COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANTS.

. 2k

THE STATE OF ‘YISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

April 13, 1982

LeRoy L. Dalton Bronson LaFol-

Asst. Attorney Gene, Lette, Wis. Attye,

(608) 266-3863 Gen., F. Joseph

123 J. Jashington Ave., Sensenbrenner,

Mailing Address: Deputy Atty. Gene,

P. O. Box 7857,

Madison, ‘lise 53707-7857

Mr. Thomas F. Strubbe, Clerk,

United States Court Of Appeals

For The Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Ill. 60604

22 u St Of *

a e Case No.

Dear Mr. Strubbe:

The court's rule to show cause dated April

8, 1982, was received upon my return from va-

cation this date. In examining the file I

find that our motion to dismiss and motion to

strike was filed with the court on December

16, 1981, and a memorandum in support of the

motions was filed on that same date.

I am enclosing copies of the

25

‘continued from page 21,)

motion, memorandum and cover letter here-

with. Je consider the issues to be ade-

quately covered in the above memorandum

and do not desire permission to file any

further brief in this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

LeRoy Le Dalton, Asst.

Attorney General

LLD: bd

enclosures

cc: Hr. Francis R. Curry

(RESPONDENTS DID NOT FILZ BRIEF AS ORDERED.

BY APPEALS COURT ON DECEMBER 23, 1982).

26

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543

June 15, 1981

Hr. Frances R. Curry

3026<A North 21st Street

Milwaukee, 1. 53206

Re: Frances R. Curry,

ve State Bar of Asconsin

et al., lo. 80-6577

Dear Mr. Curry:

The Court today entered the following

order in the above entitled case: The pe-

tition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Very truly yours,

Alexander L. Stevas, Clerk

THE PETITIONERS ONLY FILED MOTION(1981)

ITH THIS COURT 30 ‘f= “OULD NOT HAVE TO PAY

TH. LEGAL FEES FOR PROCESS SERVICE, THE U.S.

MARSHALLS OFFICE AND COURT COSTS. WE PAID

THE U.S. MARSHALL TO SERVE RESPONDENTS. ALL

COPIES SHOULD BE IN PETITIONERS FILE. ‘Jz

OUR FEES FOR THIS ACTION,

.

27

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

BOARD OF ATTORNEYS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI-

BILITY, 110 E. Main St., Madison, Wis.

John B. McCarthy, room 406

Administrator,

Michael 8. Price January 14,

Deputy Adm, 1980

Ph. (608) 266-9760 Victor A. Miller,

Chrm. St., Nazianz, Wis.

James H. Plier, Oconto, James J. Willian

son, Oshkosh, Vice Chrm., Leonard V. Brady

Milwaukee, Werner J. Schaeffer, Milwaukee,

Robert P. Harland, Milwaukee, Marjorie

Kinney, Superior, Mary Bowman, Madison,

Courtland A. Sperger, Sr., Waupun.

119977

lirs. Frances Curry:

3026-A North Ast St.

Milwaukee, Wis. 53206

Dear Mrs. Curry:

Your correspondence with reference to a

grievance has been received. I am the Chrm.

of the Board of Attorneys Professional Re-

sponsibility, but the administration of the

Board is under the direction of the

28

(continued from page 27).

office of the Administrator at 110 E. Main

Stes Suite 406, Madison, Ms., 53703 His

powers are defined by Supreme Court Rules

I have, therefore, forwarded your corres

pondence to Madison to be made part of

the file so that it may be PROCESSED

under the regulations, Please be certain

that it will have the concern of the Ad-

ministrator's office, and the concern of

the Board as the PROCESS may require.

Yours Truly,

dvds Victor A. Miller

cc: Board of Attorneys

Professional Responsibility,

Madison, Wie

cc: Attorney Richard J. Cayo, Professional

' Responsibility, Admin. Milwaukee, Wi.

( These respondents never processed pe-

titioners grievances. This lawyer knew no

PROCESSING was going to come, ever. Law

was commenced because of these falsehoods.

5 29

; SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

BOARD OF ATTORNEYS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI-

BILITY, Room 204, 610 N. Jackson Ste,

Milwaukee, Wis. 53202.

Richard Cayo January 18, 1980

Staff counsel

Phe lh 22h—46 25 Victor A.

CONFIDENTIAL Miller, St.

Manz, Vis.,Chrm.

James H. Plier,

Oconto, “ise, James J.‘/illamson, Oshkosh,‘/i

Vice Chairman, Leonard V. Brady, Milwaukee,

“se, erner J. Schaeffer, Milwaukee, “ise,

Robert P. Harland, Milwaukee, “ise, Marjor-

ie Kinney, Superior, “ise, Mary Borman,

Madison, “ise, Courtland A. Sperger, Sr.,

zaupun, “ise

Dear Bernard Freudenfeld

536 J Asconsin Ave.,

Milwaukee, 1s 53203

Re: Ms. Frances Curry

Dear Hr. Freudenfeld:

This office has received a complain against

you submitted by the above referenced party

closed is copy of Ms. Currg's complaint

cated January 8, 1980.

6 Si ee

a

a

30

(continued from page 29)

It is our policy to contact attorneys re-

garding grievances in which they are named.

Our initial inquiries are not intended to

lend credence to the complaint, and do not

indicate that any judgment has been formed

concerning the merits of those allegations.

Our purpose is to notify you of the exe

istance of this complaint and to afford you

an opportunity to provide a written respon-

se to it. Accordingly, I would appreciate

receiving a letter from you setting forth

all of the material facts in connection

with this matter within ten days of the

date of this correspondence. A copy of your

response may be provided to Ms. Curry.

By copy of this letter to Ms. Curry, I ac-

knowledge receipt of this complaint and as- |

sure her that she will be kept fully infor-

med with respect to the status of my in-

vestib ation.

The Supreme Court's Order and the Rules

Governing Discipline of attorneys are re-

printed in the December, 1976 and January,

1978 issues of the ‘isconsin Bar Bulletin.

Should you care to discuss this matter with

31

(continued from page 50)

me before preparing your written resonse,

please do not hesitate to contact me.

Your anticipated cooperation is appreci-

etede

Very truly yours

Richard Cayo, Counsel

RC: be

cc: Mse Frances Curry

( THESES RUSPCID NTS NEVER LOOKED AT TIE

RULZS GIVE! BY THT 18. SUPREME CCURT. 822

RULES, ROGULATIONS IN PETITIONERS ERNI,

SXHIBIT 34-49).

32

SUPREME COURT OF ‘YISCONSIN

BOARD OF ATTORITEYS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI-

BILITY. Room 204, 610 h. Jackson St.

Milwaukee 7 As. 33202

Richard Cayo

Staff Counsel

Ph elly=22h—46 23

March 255 1980

Victor A. Miller,

Ste, Nazianz, Chairman, James H. Plier,

Oconto, James J. 1111anson, Oshkosh, Vice

Chairman, Leonard /. Brady, Milwaukee,

“erner J. Schaeffer, Milwaukee, Robert P.

Harland, Itilwaukee, Marjorie Kinney,

Superior, liary Borman, Madison, Courtland

Ae Sperger, Sr., aupun.

7 7 7221.

Re: Attorney Bernard Freuden-

feld.

Dear Ms., Curry:

Your complaint has been reviewed by the

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsi-

bility. It has approved my recommendation

that the matter be dismissed. Accordingly,

our file is closed.

33

(continued from page 32 ).

Thank you for bringing this matter to our

attention. It is through the receipt of

such information that we are made aware

of practices which are of concern to the

public.

Very truly yours,

Richard Cayo, Counsel

RC: rh

cc: Attorney Bernard Freudenfeld

536 J. Wisconsin Ave.

Suite 402

Milwaukee, “lie 53203

THIS IS A CEASE AND DECIST ORDER. THAT

MEANS PETITIONER CANNOT FILE IT AGAIN,

EVER. AS YOU WILL NOTICE, THEY ONLY REVIEW

ED PETITIONERS GRIEVANCE, NOT INVESTIGATED

THEM).

34

STATE OF WIS. CIRCUIT COURT MIL‘/.,COUNTY

CIVIL DIV.

FRANCIS R. CURRY,

3026-A N. Ast Ste, (Second and Ird

Milwaukee, ‘iis. 53206 party case)

and George Taylor, 1706

McKinley Ave.

Jackson, Misse 39203, SUMMONS

Pleintifts Case No. =

-Vs-

BOYNTON CAB COMPANY, (There is no men

a domestic Corpe, 1232 tion of the de-

N. Edison Ste, Milwaukee, fendants ins,

As. and Maurice Ford, 3171 CO. “THY )?

Ne 6th St., Milwaukee, “is.

53212.

Defendants

THE STATE OF “YISCONSIN, To the above

named defendants, and each of thems

You are hereby summoned and required to

serve upon BURNARD I. FRUUDENFILD, plain-

tiff's attorney, whose address is Suite

402,Carpenter Building, 536 J. Asconsin

Ave., Milwaukee, “’ise 53203, an answer to

the complaint within twenty (20) days

after service of this summons upon you, ex

35

(continued from page 34)

clusive of the day of service, and in case

of your failure so to do, Judgment vill be

rendered against you according to the de-

mend of the complaint.

APPROVED BY:

Bernard li, Freudenfeld

Attorney for plaintiffs

Suite 402, Carpenter DCuilding,

536 “. Asconsin venue

Milwaukee, “lisconsin 53203

Telephone: (414) 273=5774

COPY

FILID JULY 18, 1978 0 0

FRANCIS X. HcCORMACK, CLERK

Tae. 2

36

STATE OF MHS: CIRCUIT COURT MIL'Y.COUNTY

Civil Division

FRANCIS R. CURRY

3026- Ne 21 St St. (no action

Milwaukee, 18. 53206 was taken a-

and gainst de-

GEORGE TAYLOR fendants ins,

1707 McKinley Ave. Co. Why?)

Jackson, Misse 39204

Plaaintiffs, COMPLAINT

-Vs-

BOYNTON CAB COMPANY

a domestic Corp., Case No.467-023

1232 N. Edison St., Milwaukee, 1s. 53202

and Maurice Ford, 3171 N. &th Ste,

Milwaukee, “lisconsin 53212

Defendants.

Now comes the above-named plaintiffs,

and each of them, by their attorney, BER-

NARD N. FREUDENFELD, and as for claims

for relief against the named defendants,

and each of them, allege and show to the

court averments of claim as follows:

le That the plaintiff, Francis R.

Curry, is an adult natural present and

37

(continued from page 36)

domiciled in the State of Wisconsin, pre-

sently residing at 3026-A N. Ast St, in

the City and County of Milwaukee, and is

by occupation, employed by Oliver's Tap,

and that at all times material to this

action was not only the owner but also a

passenger of a certain 1969 Blue Four

Door pontiac-Catalina motor vehicle, 1978

Wisconsin License Number J 56-432, and;

2. That the plaintiff, George TAYLOR,

is an adult natural person present and

domiciled in the State Of Miss., present-

ly residing at 1706 McKinley Ave., in the

City of Jackson,

and that at all times material to this ect

ion, GEORGE’ TAYLOR, was a passenger of

the above-described 1969 Blue-Four- Door

pontiac- catalina motor vehicle; and,

© FILED O JULY 18, 1978.

FRANCIS x. McCORMACK, Clerk

38

(continued from page 37)

3. That upon information and belief, the

defendant, BOYNTON CAB CO., is a donest-

ic corpe, duly organized and existing

under the laws of the State of isconsin

with its home office located at 1232 N.

Edison Street, in the City and County of

Milwaukee, and that at all times materi-

al to this action, said defendant was

duly licensed to engage in, and in fact

engaged in, the business of operatin a

public taxi service for profit in the

City and County of Milwaukee, State of

Wisconsin; and,

4. That upon information and belief, the

defendant, Maurice FORD, is an adult

natural person residing at 3171 N. 6th

Street, in the City and County of Mil-

waukee, state of Wisconsin, and that as

an agent for the defendant, BOYNTON CAB

Co,, a domesic corpe, he in fact operat-

ed a certain taxi cab, 1977 Wisconsin Li-

cense Number N57-764, in the City and

County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin;

and,

5. That upon information and belief, at

all times material to this action,

39

(continued from page 38)

the defendant, BOYNTON CAB co., a domest-

ic Corp., owned and operated a certain

1975 Chevrolet-Nova motor vehicle, 1977

Wisconsin License Number N57=-764, as a

taxi cab in the City and County of Mil-

waukee, State of Wisconsin; and,

6. That at about 12:15 A. M., on or about

the 12th day of August, 1977, the defend-

ant, Maurice FORD, While operating the

above-described taxi cab in a southbound

direction at or about 2903 N. 6th Ste, in

the City and County of Milwaukee, State

of Wise, then and there negligently

caused said motor vehicle to strike the

above-described 1969 Blue Four~Door Pon-

tiac-Catalina motor vehicle, which was

then and there occupied by the plaintiffs,

FRANCIS R. CURRY and GEORGE TAYLOR, and,

7e That the defendant, BOYNTON CAB co., a

domestic Corp., by its agent, the defen«

dant, MAURICE FORD, was then and there

negligent in the operation of the above-

described taxi cab in the following re-

spects:

A. It operated said vehicle at an ex-

cessive rate of speed and failed to have

ä 40

(continued from page 39 )

regard for the actual and potential

hazards which then existed and,

be It failed to properly manage and con-

trol said vehicle; and,

Ce It failed to maintain a proper look-

out for for actual and potential hazards

which then existed; and,

d. It failed to properly apply and use

the brakes of a motor vehicle; and

e It endangered the safety of the pen

son and property of each of the plain-

tiffs; and,

f. It failed to exercise the care,

prudence and practice of a reasonable

person under the same or similar circum

stances having due regard for the risk

of harm to the plaintiffs, and each of

them, to be free from unreasonable risk

of injury; and

8. That the negligence of the defen-

dant, BOYNTON CAB co., a domestic Corp.,

and MAURICE FORD, was the direct and

proximate cause of the injuries and dan-

ages of the plaintiffs, and each of them

as more specifically set forth herein-

after; and

ü 41

(continued from page 40)

9. That as a direct result of the above-

described negligence of BOYNTON CAB CO.,

A DOMESTIC Corp., and its agent, MAURICE

FORD, the plaintiff, FRANCIS R. CURRY,

suffered injuries to her person consist-

ing of acute low back strain, with

tenderness in the lumbosacral area with

pain over most of her body, with cramp-

ing discomfort in her left arm, lower

back and buttock pain accompanied by dis-

comfort with hyperextension and lateral

bending, by reason of all of which plain

tiff was jncapacitated and prevented

from performing her domestic, occupation-

al and employment duties, from engaging

in normal activities and functions to

which she was accustomed,

and thereby suffered a loss of earning

capacity as well as a loss of wages, and

by reason of said collision, plaintiff

sustained property damage to her above-

described motor vehicle, by reason of

all of which her enjoyment of life was

Greatly diminished and she was forced to

incur expenses and obligations of hosp-

ital and medical care, all to her damage

in the sum of fifteen thousand (%$15,000-

00) dollars; and,

' 42

(continued from page 41)

10. That as a direct result of the above-

described negligence of BOYNTON CAB co.,

a domestic Corp., and its agent, MAURICE

FORD, the plaintiff, GDORGE TAYLOR,

suffered injuries to his person, and by

reason of said injuries, plaintiff was

incanvacited and prevented from perfor-

ming his occuvational and domestic

duties, from engaging in normal

ectivities and functions to which he was

accustomed and thereby suffered a loss

of earnings capacity, by reason of all

of which his enjoyment of life was

Greatly diminished and was forced to ine

cur expenses and obligations of hospital

and medical care, all to his damage in

the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00)

dollars; and,

“herefore, plaintiffs, and each of

them, pray that Judgment may be rendered

and entered against the defendants, and

each of them, in favor of the plaintiffs,

end each of them , granting such

relief as the Court may determine each

plaintiff to be entitled, and in the

event defendants, and each of them,

N

43

(continued from page 12)

in a sum not to exceed Fifteen ($15,000.-

00) dollars for for FRANCIS R. CURRY, and

a sum not to exceed Five thousand ($5,00.

00) dollars for GEORGE TAYLOR, together

with costs, disbursements, attorneys fees

and such relief as the Court may deter-

mine to be just and equitable.

Dated this ]2 day of July, 1978 at

Milwaukee, ‘/isconsin.

Bernard N. Freuden feld, Attorney

for plaintiffs

P.O. ADDRESS:

Suite 402, Carpenter Building,

536 J. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Hs.

53203. Telephone (414) 27577.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COMES the aboveenamed plaintiffs, and

each of them, and demands a trial by jury

pursuant to Section 805.01(2), Wis. Stat.

„ uden 7 orney

for plaintiffs

STATS OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE COUNTY

I, the undersigned, Clerk of the Cir.and

44

(continued from page43)

County Court of Milwaukee County, Wis-

consin, do hereby certify that I have

compared this document with the original

on file and that the same is a full,

true and correct copy of said original

and of the whole thereof, as the same

remains of record in my office. In

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto

set MY hand and affixed the seal of said

Court, this_ JANUARY 8, 1960.

date

e Mc » Clerk 6 rc

Court, and Director of Court Services.

45

BURKE AND SCHOLT

RTTORNEYS AT LA‘)

MTL AUR EE, IS.,

STATE OF “IS. CIRCUIT COURT LAN., COUNTY

“CIVIL SIVIsTON

FRANCES , CURRY AND

GBORGE TAYLOR, CASE NO. 467-023

Plaintiffs,

vs. STIPULATION AND

Boynton CAB CO. Tr N

A domestic Corp.,, ACTION

and UMC FORN,

Defendants.

IT IS HERSBY STIPU!.AT"D by and between the

above named parties, by their respective

attorneys, that the above entitlec action

may be dismissed on its merits without costs

to either party,

and that a judgment may be entered to that

effectcct without further notice to either

party.

Dated at Milwaukee, “’isconsin, June 5th,

1922.

BERNARD . FROUDMNF ELD, Attorney for

plaintiffs.

COPY

. 46

(continued from page 45)

FILED June 7, 1979. FRANCIS MCCORMACK,

Clerk

N AND SCHOnTZ, by Jonn Jeburke,

Attorney for Defendant Boyanton Cab

Co. only.

Upon the foregoing Stipulation,

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the above en-

titled action be dismissed on its merits

without costs to either party.

Dated at Milwaukee, s., June 7, 1979.

by m coun: 4gude- Gest.

215

2447

(Plaintiff knew nothing of this illegal

Action).