 View Page StatsSee who's visiting this page. |
This page was originally intended to index the links to documentation concerning my bar admission status for those I have asked to consider providing legal representation or a referral. It is being maintained for the present to provide access to the arguments in my briefs to others who may be interested in commenting on them or applying them in other contexts, as set forth on the main page of this site The Hidden Issue of Disability Discrimination in Attorney Licensure. To access a document, click on the link shown. Most documents are in PDF format. A few, as indicated, are in MS Word 97 format.
Motion for waiver of Rules 704(k)and 707(a)(6) or for Reconsideration filed December 2008, asserting the applicability of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 to my case. This motion was denied without explanation on January 22, 2009.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari as I filed with the United States Supreme Court (MS Word document).
United States Supreme court docket in my case, from the Court's website. No brief in opposition was ever filed, and the petition was denied on April 21, 2008.
Kansas Board of Law Examiners, Minority Dissenting Report
Kansas Board of Law Examiners, Majority Report
My Exceptions to the Board's Report, as filed with the Kansas Supreme Court
Kansas Supreme Court Order denying my application, 9/5/07
Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Kansas Supreme Court
Order denying Motion for Reconsideration, 9/28/07
Excerpt of Petition for Admission.
Excerpt of Petitioner's Hearing Brief.
Excerpt of the Admissions Attorney's Brief in response to Petitoner's Hearing Brief.
Excerpt of Petitioner's Reply Brief.
Complaint to U.S. Department of Justice under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 9/10/07; this document was an exhibit to Petitioner's Motion for reconsideration, above.
Form letter from U.S. Department of Justice declining to act on complaint
On December 10, 2007, I mailed to the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5 a motion for a 60 day extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, for the declared purpose of continuing my search for representation. This search has been greatly hindered by the lack of either savings or credit sufficient to guarantee prepayment of attorney's fees. This lack has limited the search primarily to advocacy organizations. On December 18, the Supreme Court, Breyer, J., granted me an extension until February 25, 2008, in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. On February 19, 2008, no legal representation being available, I filed a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied my petition on April 21, 2008.
Links to information about the co-authored book referenced in my financial Declaration, and about that book's Amazon.com sales ranking supporting the amount of royalty income disclosed.
Other possible explanations for the courts' distaste for me that are not reflected in the documents linked above: 1) My past active involvement in Christian religious right politics, and specifically a Bible as textbook referendum initiative in Iowa in 1981. 2) My past involvement in an officially highly disfavored cold nuclear fusion project that also involved some very wealthy and powerful people. I consider these unlikely explanations, in themselves, but include them because the Board of Law Examiners—in 1992 at least— was certainly aware of them and they may have had some subtle negative effect on my application. (I note that, in 1992, one member of the Board recused himself because his firm represented the firm that was sponsoring the cold nuclear fusion project). Two other factors that may have, with a low probability, influenced the process in 2006 (though they were not in existence in 1993) are: 1) my continued public advocacy of some unusual or unorthodox political positions and religious positions, though in later years these have often not been positions the "Religious Right" would wholeheartedly approve. 2) My prediction, in October 2000, of a coming economic collapse that looks strangely like what is now happening, and may have appeared strange in 2007 (before the collapse occurred). However, I believe the Board of Law Examiners most likely listed all of their reasons for recommending against me in its reports in both 1993 and 2007, and that the Kansas Supreme Court probably only acted upon the Board's reports. Moreover, the Board and the Court could not constitutionally have based their decision upon any of these unnamed considerations. Thus, I assume that these unnamed reasons probably were not considered, and I include them only for completeness.
|