Filing a complaint of professional misconduct against California attorneys that include judges who deprive me of due process rights in adjudicating the case administratively without taking into account my rights as a pro say litigant representing myself and ruling on procedural matters instead of substantive issues. What professional misconduct or other bar association issues are at play here? > [!ai]+ AI > > **Professional Misconduct** > - **Denial of Due Process:** Judges have a duty to ensure that all parties receive fair and impartial treatment in legal proceedings. Depriving a pro se litigant of due process rights, such as the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, constitutes professional misconduct. > - **Failure to Consider Pro Se Status:** Judges must take into account the limitations and challenges faced by pro se litigants. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations or assistance to pro se litigants can be considered misconduct. > - **Ruling on Procedural Matters Instead of Substantive Issues:** Judges have a duty to focus on the merits of a case and avoid getting bogged down in procedural technicalities. Consistently ruling on procedural matters without addressing the underlying legal issues may indicate bias or a lack of understanding of the case. > **Other Bar Association Issues** > - **Violation of Bar Rules:** The California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct set forth ethical standards for attorneys. Judges are subject to these rules and may be disciplined for violating them. > - **Judicial Bias:** Judges are expected to be impartial and unbiased. A pattern of rulings against a pro se litigant without a legitimate basis may raise concerns about judicial bias. > - **Lack of Training or Education:** Judges who are not adequately trained or educated in handling pro se cases may make errors that violate due process rights. The bar association may provide training or resources to address this issue. > **Potential Remedies** > - **Formal Complaint:** Filing a formal complaint with the State Bar of California can initiate an investigation into the alleged misconduct. > - **Judicial Discipline:** If the complaint is substantiated, the judge may face disciplinary action, such as a reprimand, suspension, or removal from office. > - **Legal Action:** In some cases, pro se litigants may consider filing a lawsuit against the judge for violating their constitutional rights. > - **Bar Association Intervention:** The bar association may intervene to provide support to pro se litigants and advocate for their rights. Please outline the charges that may be applicable in this case against the judges who’ve ruled on procedural grounds without consideration from my substantial rights and due process or substantive issues and due process. > [!ai]+ AI > > **Charges Applicable Against Judges** > **Professional Misconduct** > - **Denial of Due Process:** > - Depriving the pro se litigant of the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses > - Failing to provide reasonable accommodations or assistance to the pro se litigant > - **Failure to Consider Pro Se Status:** > - Ignoring the limitations and challenges faced by the pro se litigant > - **Ruling on Procedural Matters Instead of Substantive Issues:** > - Consistently ruling on procedural technicalities without addressing the underlying legal issues > **Other Bar Association Issues** > - **Violation of Bar Rules:** > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct > - **Judicial Bias:** > - Exhibiting a pattern of rulings against the pro se litigant without a legitimate basis > - **Lack of Training or Education:** > - Failing to receive adequate training or education in handling pro se cases Names for reference, Judge Haynes was misrepresenting himself as a judge without being elected. The election was canceled, but Judge Haynes is still on the bench. Judge B ruled against defendants pro say opposition to the defendant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw for ethical reasons and ruled against the defendant and in favor of his counsel. Are there any formal concerns in the California Code of Professional Ethics for attorneys or the Bar Association Code or any chargeable concerns that should be investigated. If so, please list the name of each judge and the potential citations for specific concerns referencing relevant professional conduct statute. > [!ai]+ AI > > **Judge Haynes** > - **Potential Charges:** > - Misrepresenting himself as a judge (California Penal Code § 146a) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-400 (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation) > **Judge B** > - **Potential Charges:** > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700 (Withdrawal of Attorney) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100 (Competence) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > **Relevant Professional Conduct Statutes** > - California Business and Professions Code § 6068 (Misrepresentation of oneself as an attorney) > - California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-400 (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation) > - California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700 (Withdrawal of Attorney) > - California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100 (Competence) > - California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) Attorney Heck failed to represent the defendant, her client, and said he was wasting her time in attempting to assert his right to a jury trial, and instead tried to allow him to get evicted while pressuring him to accept a settlement agreement. Attorney Pruitt is Heck’s boss and also attempted to intimidate the defendant Rowan into accepting a settlement agreement and also attempted to intimidate Rowan into not pursuing ethics violation charges against her subordinate attorney hack. For these two individuals, please list under each potential violations. > [!ai]+ AI > > **Attorney Heck** > - **Potential Violations:** > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100 (Competence) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110 (Withdrawal of Attorney) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700 (Communication) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-100 (Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-100 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > **Attorney Pruitt** > - **Potential Violations:** > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100 (Competence) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110 (Withdrawal of Attorney) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700 (Communication) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-100 (Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-100 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8-400 (Misconduct) Attorney Bombard made false charges in court filings, including a restraining order and false unlawful detainer charges. The restraining order was used as bargaining chip in eviction proceedings. > [!ai]+ AI > > **Attorney Bombard** > - **Potential Violations:** > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100 (Competence) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-300 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110 (Withdrawal of Attorney) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-700 (Communication) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-100 (Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-100 (Unauthorized Practice of Law) > - Violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8-400 (Misconduct) > - Violating California Penal Code § 136.2 (False Accusations) > - Violating California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 (Filing False Restraining Orders)