User talk:Jbaumgar/sandbox

Robert R. Parker

Robert Roosevelt Parker Jr. is an African American man who was born in 1955 in Flint, Michigan. Mr. Parker works in the insurance industry and has suffered each day of his life from the injustice inflicted on him in Oregon more than 30 years ago. For 32 years, Robert R. Parker Jr. has tirelessly pursued justice to clear his name, restore his reputation and gain admission to the Oregon State Bar. The underlying charges presented against Mr. Parker in the court proceedings were flawed and unfairly prejudicial from beginning to end. Even years after these violations and mistreatments we still need justice and legal recourse. We see this happen in other legal contexts in which injustice and unfairness is uncovered for years after the initial proceedings and there is an avenue of legal recourse. This, however, is not the case for Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker respectfully requests that this Court exercise its original jurisdiction and its authority to regulate the practice of law in Oregon, vacate its opinion in In Re Parker, and order Parker’s admission to the Oregon State Bar, subject to reasonable conditions, such as modern Continuing Legal Education Requirements.

Early Years

Parker’s father died when he was 13 years old, thrusting the remaining family into severe poverty during Parker’s teenage years. Parker dropped out of high school in the 11th grade, eventually coming within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and was committed to a series of reform schools. After his release, Parker worked at a series of unskilled jobs until he obtained a GED diploma and enrolled as a student at Washtenaw Community College in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Parker then matriculated to the University of Michigan, where he was involved in campus activities and elected to a student government office. During his junior year at Michigan, Parker took the LSAT and was accepted to North Carolina Central University Law School, located in Durham, North Carolina. Parker graduated from law school in 1985. After law school graduation, Parker was employed in the insurance industry, worked in the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office, and eventually worked for the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) on a series of political races in the South. While working for the DNC in Alabama and Mississippi, Parker met and eventually married his wife, Pam. In December 1987, Parker and his wife, Pam, traveled to Vancouver, Washington, to visit Pam’s mother. They intended to visit for only a few weeks; however, during their visit, Parker accepted a job offer from Oregon State Senator Jim Hill to work as a legislative committee administrator during the 1987 legislative session. In July 1990, Parker passed the written examination administered by the BBX. However, in a 10 to 3 vote, the BBX subsequently recommended to the Oregon Supreme Court that Parker be denied admission to the Oregon State Bar based on character and fitness grounds.4 In 1992, the Oregon Supreme Court denied Parker’s application for admission to the Oregon State Bar. See In Re Parker (denying Parker admission to the Oregon State Bar).

The Robert R. Parker Case

Investigation—

The thirty (30) year saga of Bob Parker versus the State of Oregon began in May 1987 when then Senate President, John Kitzhaber, requested an investigation by the Oregon Attorney General of Mr. Parker which violated ORS 187.070(1) because Mr. Kitzhaber was not the Governor as the foregoing statute requires. After a complete and exhaustive investigation by the Organized Crime Task Force of the Oregon AG’s Office in conjunction with the Oregon State Police, a Marion County Grand Jury refused three (3) times to indict Mr. Parker on anything that grew out of that long running investigation. The Marion County District Attorney, Dale Penn, then filed three (3) “unrelated” misdemeanor offenses which were subsequently dismissed. Mr. Parker was never convicted of any crime, felony or misdemeanor arising from Mr. Kitzhaber’s investigatory request. At the end of the day, the Oregon AG Office even tried to have Mr. Parker sign a statement that the investigation by Oregon AG and the three ill-fated attempts for indictment were not racially motivated, knowing full well that they were.

OGEC and Supreme Court Review—

Dale Penn then sent over his investigation file to the OGEC and made it clear that he was not requesting they take action and was just submitting it for their review. The Executive Director of the OGEC, Betty Reynolds, then took it upon herself, in violation of ORS 244.060, to start an investigation of Mr. Parker even though there was no signed complaint by any person, nor was there an “own motion” procedure by the OGEC to initiate its jurisdiction as required by statute. Despite these actions, the OGEC took over two and a half years to conduct a contested case hearing in which Mr. Parker was found to have violated Oregon Ethics laws in four (4) out of the ten (10) charges against him. Mr. Parker filed his appeal only to have the Oregon Court of Appeals enter an order that affirmed without an opinion. This is strange and an error, given that in Oregon, as most other states, when a challenge is made to the jurisdiction of an agency, the reviewing court is required to issue a written opinion that points out the basis for jurisdiction relied upon by the agency and determine if that evidence meets the criteria set forth in the enabling statute of the agency. In this case, that analysis would have been ORS 244.060. The Supreme Court of Oregon refused to review the matter and the commission later vacated its underlying agency order. However, when Mr. Parker then sought relief from the Court of Appeals, he was again denied even though there was no underlying agency order. This was clearly another act of racially evoked denial of relief by the then serving Chief Judge.

Bar Admissions and Supreme Court Review—

After Mr. Parker had been subject to mistreatment in the case above, Parker was denied admission to the Oregon State Bar in proceedings that were flawed and unfairly prejudicial. First, the character and fitness proceedings conducted by The Oregon Board of Bar Examiners (BBX) were subjected to improper outside influence prejudicial to Parker. Second, two BBX hearing panel members had conflicts of interest or the appearances of conflicts of interest that were not disclosed to Parker or his attorneys and thus, should have been disqualified from participating in the proceedings. Third, the improper admission into the character and fitness hearing record of an OGEC investigative report was reflective of an investigation undertaken by the OGEC without jurisdiction and was unfairly prejudicial to Parker. Fourth, in its opinion denying Parker admission to the Oregon State Bar, the Oregon Supreme Court inexplicably ignored without comment, In Re Steffen, a case directly controlling the single issue on which this Court based its decision adverse to Parker. Had the Court acknowledged and applied In re Steffen, it would have concluded that Parker had not violated a criminal statute, nor had he engaged in behavior justifying the denial of his admission to the Oregon State Bar. These “irregularities,” singularly or combined in a proceeding likely are reflective of the pervasive institutional bias that the Oregon Supreme Court upholds. It is this same Court that denied Parker a fair and impartial tribunal in violation of the BBX’s Rules for Admission; Article I, Sections 10 and 11 of the Oregon Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Even years after these violations and mistreatments we still need justice and legal recourse. We see this happen in other legal contexts in which injustice and unfairness is uncovered for years after the initial proceedings and there is an avenue of legal recourse. This, however, is not the case for Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker respectfully requests that this Court exercise its original jurisdiction and its authority to regulate the practice of law in Oregon, vacate its opinion in In Re Parker, and order Parker’s admission to the Oregon State Bar, subject to reasonable conditions, such as modern Continuing Legal Education Requirements.

Michigan Case—

In 2005, Mr. Parker was charged with a felony for failing to pay child support. Mr. Parker spent forty (40) days incarcerated, charged him $15,000 and he even lost his job where he was making $240,000 annually. The white defendants used their power to wrongfully accuse Mr. Parker. They repeatedly made racially discriminatory references to the plaintiff’s religion during trial and on the appeal, which the record will reflect that these discriminatory acts took place. Subsequent to the unlawful trial, prosecution, conviction and incarceration, defendant, Mike Cox, “confessed error” in the Court of Appeals. Attorney General Mike Cox was facing re-election during the time his “confessed error” was pending in the Court of Appeals for him to approve wrongdoing. It took four (4) efforts to get the motion approved. At first blush it appeared to be a matter of incompetence by the Attorney General's office. But now you can see it was delayed intentionally for political reasons. Going forward this approved appeal resulted in a reversal of criminal matter, however, the $15,000 and other damages have yet to be returned to Mr. Parker. The defendants were again wrong by taking the $15,000 they were not entitled to because the Statute of Limitations had expired on both collection of the amounts claimed due and the prosecution for any failure to pay. This constitutes extortion since the defendants illegally used the justice system to take money from Mr. Parker. The way in which the defendants acted maliciously in the persecution is a clear violation of Statues of Limitations, the State and Federal Ex Post Facto Clauses, and in MCL 750.165-as carrying an arrearage is not a way in which the statue could be violated for purposes of criminal prostitution. The defendants denied Mr. Parker the full and equal enjoyment of services, facilities, privileges, advantages or public services in violation of MCL 37.2302 based on his race and/or religion. Lastly, all three of the attorneys were aware that this matter was “time barred.” These same attorneys perpetrated a “fraud upon the court” by alleging the initial and amended indictment that a Court Order purportedly ordered the undersigned during a period when he was fully emancipated. In reality, no such Court Order was ever issued by any Court and the three attorneys were fully aware prior to the initiation of the criminal prosecution.