# Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In re Teitelbaum > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0529%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1958 - **Citation:** 358 U.S. 881 ## Text ee IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Qhetonen Trernuy AL DP. 195s. No. 376. ¢ itt \LATTER. OF ABRATLAM TEITELBAUM, ax Arrorses. : } Prehatroney BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR’ WRIT | OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. CianbES Leviton, prise, | YO South duaSalle Street, (hicaye 3, Tilinois, Heretofore appearing as amieus curiae in the Supreme Court of [hinois for the Board of Managers and the Com Inittee on Girtevaneces of The ©hieave Bar Assoctation, Sitti as Comins Seners of the Supreme Court oof Pdineis under Rule Oo "hE OUR HORF @eekee Fe arse COmMPeRY, be Caeeo i INDEX. s PAGE Oe ee a er en ee 2 » The Basis for Jurisdiction ........ Se ae see . Questions Presented: ° (1) Has the petitioner set up any right, title, privi- lege or immunity under the Federal Constitu- SE Naa R AUK RA Reece eu reed c cana aca r ka es 3 (2) Will the Supreme Court of the United States take jurisdietion over a judgment involving a question peeulidrly of state law? ... 000 4..5.. a Argument : . . 1 The Petitioner Has Not Set Up Any Right, . Title, Privilege or Immunity Under the Federal POI ok bs cadets Vixdaeeee ea Pere ee a Il. The Question Below Is One Peculiarly Involv- NY crak Auadc ci vekcan che cenccus. 6 lll. Petitioner’s Petition ‘Is Frivolous and Vexa- OWS ...... ‘Seasce RENCE TTT wea atgas e's terme. Tt vuelusion : ee TT eCres Te ee ae ; , a ee a peaccas be \ b> | Supreme Court of the United States -Octoser Term, A. D. 1958. No. 376 Ix THE MATTER OF - ABRAHAM TEITELB AU M, an ATTORNEY, Petitioner. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT. OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME °' en OF ILLINOIS. (omes now Charles Leviton, heretofore ‘appearing as vicus curiae in-the matter of Abraham Teitelbaum, an attorney, petitioner, the opinion of which. is reported in ‘Ill? 2d 586, and says that a rev iew on writ of certiorari ‘ould-not be granted for the followi ing reasons: 1. There is no special or important reason therefor, as ‘quired by Rule 19 of this Court. ‘ The petitioner in the: Court below raised no question wer the Federal Constitution and the matters and things ‘wre presented were not within the contemplation of Rule 19, ‘ in view of the fact that the petition. for certiorari does ‘comply with the requisites of Rule 19 of this Court, and. an effort to bring order out of chaos, the undersigned tes the following suggestions, in as informal a manner | a 2 _ as possible, so that it wy be sanity apparent that the pe tion is frivolous in it# nature and the questions praise require no formal or extensive ‘briefing. “1. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW. The proceedings below were brought’ under the y visions of Rule 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Ilinois, which provides for the appointment of Coma | “wioners of the Court to make investigations concern practices of attorneys at law whielt tend to defeat *) administration of justice or to bring the courts and legal profession: 689. Bute v. People of the State. of Minors, 423 '.8 640, p. 659, 68 S. Ct.*763. . Er Parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, pp. 271, 20. Tinkoff v United States, 212 F. 2d 1s, pp. Vee - Phipps v. Wilson, 186 F. 2d 748, p. 752. Mitchell v. Greenough, 100 F. 2d 184, pp. Ts. Central Lanil Company v. Laidley, 0 US.) p. 112. ia | The Petitioner Has Not Set Up Any Right, Title, Privilege or Immunity Under the Federal Constitution. Nowhere in the record can any’ contention be. found ‘hal any part of the Federal Constitation was violated. The Judicial Code, Title 28, Section 1257, elearly pro- — vides that it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States by certiorari to certify for review and deterntination any cause wherein a final judgment or decree a> heen rendered by the highest court of a state in which 4 cision could be had, where *‘any title, right, privilege ; rT immunity “is specially set up or claimed under: the Vonstitufion, treatios or statuten of, or commission held i #.: authority exercised under, the United States.’ here wing no such right set up or Gaimed, there ix nothing for ‘his Court to review. r + In Hulbert ¥. Chicago, 202 US. 275, 50 L. Ed. 1026, the ‘ourt held that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the “alutory provision in setting up a right under the Con- ‘titution of the U nited States; that there was no evidence 6 the record to-show that the decision of either the trial “art or the Supreme Court of Illinois, whose judgment Was ° wstioned, was invoked by plaintiff in error upon a right aimed under the Constitution of the U nited States: The nt of error was therefore dismissed. Thix rule is so ‘mentary and of such long standing shat, no further x a ‘ : : ll 8 Cir, 63 F. 308, the Cireiit Court of Appeals held ‘that the « conspiracy to deprive a lawyer of his right to ‘practice law in the-state courts Was not a — to interfere with any right or privilege ‘granted, cured or protected by the Constitution of the U nited States."""° wae In Central Land Company v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 403, this Curt said (p. 112): . “When the parties have been fully heard i in the regu- lar course of judicial proceedings, - an erroneous deci- sion of a state court does not deprive the unsuccessful party of his property without dae process of law, witliin the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution “of the United States.”* f ee Petitioner’s Petition Is Frivolous and Vexatious. The undersigned does hot intend at this stage of the pro- dings to discuss the merits of the case at length or those vcisions “of the Supreme Court of the United States and ther Federal Courts which indicate that what respondent vas convieted of involved moral turpitude, No ground pears for are wersal of the decision of the Supreme Court Illinois constitutional’or otherwise, , Conclusion. It is submitted that Teitelbaum's petition for writ o certiorari should be denied,:and that the writ should nor ss ‘ granted. ~ Respectfully submitted, Cuartes Leviron, pro se, 29 South La Salle Street, Chicago 3, Ilineis, a Heretofore appearing as amicus cur in the’ Supreme Court of Tlinsis the Board of Managers and the Cow mittee on Grievances of The Chicw Bar Association, Sitting as Comms 4° aye sionefs of the Supreme Court Illinois under Rule 59. : --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0529%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.