No. 24-234

Raymond Guzall III v. Grievance Administrator, Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan

Lower Court: Michigan
Docketed: 2024-08-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: court-manipulation due-process evidence-concealment fourteenth-amendment judicial-bias legal-procedure
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2024-10-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a state prosecute upon manipulated court records or withhold original court recordings that potentially exonerate a defendant?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED States cannot be allowed to prosecute upon altered _court recordings. The Michigan Court of Appeals gave Petitioner (Guzall herein) a copy of a court hearing with a judge’s voice dubbed in. Three witnesses confirmed Michigan courts gave him three altered court recordings of court proceedings involved in his grievance case, removing evidence of judicial bias. Respondent ignored the testimony of those three witnesses confirming those court recordings were manipulated and refused to produce the original recordings which exonerate him. Michigan’s process and procedures offend the Constitution, Guzall’s rights were violated. The questions presented are: 1. Can a state prosecute upon court records or recordings they manipulated? 2. Can a state conceal or withhold original court recordings and/or original grievance recordings where a state produced incomplete or altered copies? 3. Can a state maintain procedures allowing it to confiscate or withhold pleadings filed to a state attorney grievance panel? 4. Does a state violate the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment when refusing to apply a 3.5 year filing delay, concealing evidence of their reasons for delay, concealing docketed records, or by preventing witness confrontation? 5. Does a state violate the Fourteenth Amendment when selecting a grievance panel outside of their common practice to insure due process, when seating an agent of a grieved attorney’s adversary on a state ii panel, when creating facts to discipline an attorney or when a state panel refuses to hear a grieved attorney? 6. Can a state attorney grievance board order attorneys to unwanted medical treatment upon a manufactured record and/or upon their beliefs, to a state created agency without medical testimony or medical records? 7. Can a state compel an attorney’s speech to obtain and/or maintain their law license? 8. Can a state take an attorney’s law license by manufacturing jurisdiction or upon state court records or judgments where those state courts had no jurisdiction?

Docket Entries

2024-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-04
Waiver of right of respondent Attorney Grievance Commission to respond filed.
2024-08-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2024)

Attorneys

Attorney Grievance Commission
Kimberly L. UhuruMichigan Attorney Grievance Commission, Respondent
Kimberly L. UhuruMichigan Attorney Grievance Commission, Respondent
Raymond Guzall III
Lawrence John CooganLaw Office of Lawrence J. Coogan, PLLC, Petitioner
Lawrence John CooganLaw Office of Lawrence J. Coogan, PLLC, Petitioner