In re Moncier (550 F. Supp. 2d 768, 2008)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

CURTIS L. COLLIER, Chief Judge.

One of the lesser-known responsibilities placed upon the federal courts is the task of admitting attorneys to practice before them and, when necessary, disciplining those attorneys. Each federal court must regulate the requirements and procedures for admission; the requirements and standards for attorneys already practicing before the court; and the procedures and determinations for those attorneys who fail to adhere to the standards of that federal court. These are among the administrative or management responsibilities of the court.

The federal courts do not rely solely upon the states to determine the fitness of an attorney for admission to practice law in federal courts. The federal courts do require an attorney who desires admission into a federal bar to be admitted first to a state bar. However, such an attorney must still apply separately to practice law in a federal court, because the federal courts have their own distinct requirements and standards for attorneys practicing before them. The federal courts also have their own requirements and standards which must be maintained for members to continue to practice in federal court. Thus, the requirements for admission and continued practice in federal and state courts are distinct. Indeed, many lawyers enjoy a long and successful career practicing in state court without ever setting foot in federal court; admission to a federal bar is not a necessity to practice law.

The federal requirements and standards are not necessarily higher or lower than those of a state bar, but rather reflect the different nature and circumstances of the federal and state courts. As one example, practice in federal courts is generally more specialized and more formal than practice in state courts, often due to the nature of the legal issues which are addressed in federal courts. Additionally, a federal bar is made up of attorneys from all over the United States and its territories. This is certainly true in the Eastern District of Tennessee, where a large number of the attorneys that are members of the bar of this court are from not just Tennessee, but all across the country. Federal courts must establish their own standards of practice to create an effective, functional judicial system which involves attorneys practicing throughout the United States and its territories.

The existence and importance of varying standards and expectations in the federal courts is evident in the oath attorneys must pledge to become members of that federal bar. Attorneys admitted to federal court must take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear, that to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic____ And, that I will demean myself as an attorney, proctor and solicitor of this Court, uprightly and according to law; so help me God.

Upon taking this oath and being approved for admission, attorneys become officers of the court. At a minimum, this oath obligates attorneys admitted to the bar of a federal district court to demean themselves as an attorney uprightly and according to law. Judges of the Eastern District of Tennessee are very proud that the great majority of attorneys admitted to practice law in this district do so in a highly professional and civil manner, demonstrating respect for the court, opposing counsel, the judicial system, and the parties involved in the judicial action. The judges of this district likewise treat the attorneys before them with dignity, respect, civility, and as professionals.

Unfortunately, the Court is now confronted with one of those rare instances where an attorney admitted to the bar of the Eastern District of Tennessee has failed to “demean [himself] as an attorney, proctor and solicitor of this Court, uprightly and according to law,” as required by his oath; has engaged in unethical conduct tending to bring the court and the bar of the Eastern District of Tennessee into disrepute; and has engaged in professional misconduct of a nature that violated the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct as interpreted and applied by this Court. See Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Scivantage, 525 F.Supp.2d 448, 449-50 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (“From time to time, a lawyer’s misconduct is so grave and so blatant as to demand more. When such lapses occur in the federal courts, it is not only our prerogative but our responsibility to address them and, where appropriate, impose sanctions. Indeed, as Canon 3B(3) of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges makes clear: ‘A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a ... lawyer.’ ”) (footnotes omitted).

This case involves an attorney who refused to obey a court order, threatened to abandon a client during a court proceeding, and displayed disrespectful and contemptuous behavior towards the institutional role of the judge. The gravity of this attorney’s misconduct is exacerbated by his inability to recognize and apologize for his wrongdoings, his frivolous filings with this Court, and other aggravating factors. Accordingly, for the following reasons, the Court SUSPENDS Respondent, Herbert S. Moncier, from the bar of the Eastern District of Tennessee.

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

A. The Show Cause Order

On January 17, 2008, the Court ordered Respondent Herbert S. Moncier (“Respondent”) to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for unethical and unprofessional conduct. The Show Cause Order made certain factual allegations regarding Respondent’s conduct as counsel in a court proceeding before United States District Judge J. Ronnie Greer on November 17, 2006 (Court File No. 1). Specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged Respondent “repeatedly interrupted or spoke over the presiding judge,” “accused the prosecution of engaging in a conspiracy to prevent him from trying cases due to his success in past trials,” “threatened to ‘sit there and remain moot,’ i.e., not provide a defense for his client, due to a potential conflict Respondent perceived,” “eontradict[ed] the court’s admonishment,” and disobeyed a direct order from the court that he stop interrupting and not say another word (id, pp. 1-3).

The Show Cause Order informed Respondent that based upon those factual allegations, it appeared “Respondent’s actions constitute a violation of an order of the court, abuse of the court, disrespect for the court, contemptuous behavior directed at the court, interference and needless prolongation of the proceeding before the court, and obstructive behavior” (id, p. 1). The Show Cause Order quoted from Eastern District of Tennessee Local Rule 83.7 (“E.D.TN. LR” or “Local Rule”), which provides: “The court may impose discipline [for a violation] of the Rules of Professional Conduct [or for] unethical conduct tending to bring the court or the bar into disrepute.” (/d, p. 4).

The Show Cause Order gave Respondent twenty days to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him (id, p. 4). The Show Cause Order, citing E.D.TN. LR 83.7(d), specified what was required in Respondent’s response (id, pp. 4-5). The Show Cause Order directed Respondent to include in his response a specific request for a hearing or a statement specifically declining a hearing (id., p. 5). Last, the Show Cause Order required Respondent to inform other judicial officers in this district before whom he had cases of the initiation of this action (id.).

The Show Cause Order, and indeed the local rules which it cited, made it clear what specific information was required in a response — namely whether the factual allegations in the Show Cause Order were accurate and, if those factual allegations were accurate, why disciplinary action would not be warranted.

B. The Underlying Conduct

The Show Cause Order relates to conduct of Respondent in a court proceeding before United States District Judge J. Ronnie Greer on November 17, 2006 (see Vassar, No. 2:05-CR-75-3, Court File No. 683). Because of Respondent’s conduct during the course of the proceeding, Judge Greer had Respondent taken into custody. Subsequently, Judge Greer filed a Show Cause Order alleging Respondent had committed a criminal offense, i.e. contempt of court (id., Court File No. 677). This charge was referred to the United States Attorney for this district who reviewed the charge and decided to prosecute Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent was tried and found guilty of criminal contempt of court. Judge Greer issued a written opinion explaining his findings and conclusions. United States v. Moncier, 2007 WL 1577718 (E.D.Tenn. May 30, 2007) (“Moncier II”). In his opinion, Judge Greer noted Respondent had exhibited disrespect and contempt for the institutional role of the judge. Id. at *3-4. The Court will return to this later.

Prior to the contempt of court trial, Respondent filed a motion seeking to disqualify Judge Greer from presiding over the trial. Judge Greer denied this motion in a written opinion. United States v. Moncier, 2007 WL 1206731 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007) (“Moncier I ”). This opinion also contains relevant factual background in this matter.

II. EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE LOCAL RULE DEALING WITH DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MEMBERS OF ITS BAR

A. Federal Court Authority to Admit and Discipline

The very concept of a court carries with it certain authority necessary for it to function. “It has long been recognized that ‘[c]ertain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution,’ powers ‘which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others.’ ” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812)). Among these necessary powers is the power to demand submission to the authority and rules of the court. “Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821)). The necessary powers also include the powers to admit members to its bar and to regulate and discipline attorneys. “[T]he Court has held that a federal court has the power to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it.” Id.; see also, Ex Parte Burr, 9 Wheat. 529, 531, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824); In the Matter of Searer, 950 F.Supp. 811, 813 (W.D.Mich.1996). Disciplining an attorney includes the authority to suspend and disbar that attorney.

“Courts have long recognized their authority to suspend or disbar attorneys, an inherent power derived from the attorney’s role as an officer of the court that granted admission.” In Re Hoare, 155 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir.1998). As such, a court’s power to discipline members of its bar is “autonomous.” In re Attorney Discipline Matter, 98 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1957)).

In re Fletcher, 424 F.3d 783, 792 (8th Cir.2005).

The power of a court to admit members to its bar carries with it the power to disbar a member. “This power of removal from the bar is possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice.” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S.(13 Wall) 335, 354, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871).

Attorney disciplinary proceedings are not civil actions and not criminal prosecutions. Cunningham v. Ayers, 921 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir.1991) (“Disbarment proceedings are not for the purpose of punishment, but rather seek to determine the fitness of an official of the court to continue in that capacity and to protect the courts and the public from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice.”) (citations omitted); Searer, 950 F.Supp. at 813. These proceedings are investigations into the fitness and conduct of attorneys admitted to the court’s bar. In re Lehtinen, 332 B.R. 404, 412 (9th Cir. BAP 2005). However, attorney disciplinary proceedings are “adversarial and quasi-criminal in nature,” and “an attorney is entitled to procedural due process which includes notice and an opportunity to be heard in disbarment or suspension proceedings.” Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 229 (5th Cir.1998).

B. Local Rule 83.7

By local rules, the court of the Eastern District of Tennessee has adopted procedures for disciplining members of its bar who violate its standards. E.D.TN. LR 83.6 and 83.7. In part, Local Rule 83.7(a) reads:

Conduct Subject to Discipline. The court may impose discipline on any member of its bar who has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, or has engaged in unethical conduct tending to bring the court or the bar into disrepute. The court may also discipline any member who has been suspended or disbarred from the practice of law by the state in which he or she is a member, or by any court of record. Discipline which may be imposed includes disbarment, suspension, reprimand, or such other further disciplinary action as the court may deem appropriate and just.

By its text, the rule authorizes disciplinary actions against a member of the Eastern District of Tennessee bar who has (1) violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, or (2) engaged in unethical conduct tending to bring the court or the bar into disrepute. The rule reads in the disjunctive so that a violation of either prong of the rule is sufficient to warrant the imposition of discipline.

The rule assigns to the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of the entire court the responsibility of initiating disciplinary action. In pertinent part it reads:

Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings. Formal disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated by the issuance of an order to show cause signed by the Chief Judge. An order to show cause may be issued by the Chief Judge on his or her own initiative or upon a complaint filed by any counsel of record or party to an action in this court. When such order is issued on the court’s initiative, no separate complaint need be filed.

E.D.TN. LR 83.7(b).

The rule envisions a disciplinary action being initiated in either of two ways. First, an action can be initiated upon the receipt of a complaint filed by counsel of record in a lawsuit, or by a party to a lawsuit. If the action is based upon a complaint filed by counsel of record or a party, then the rule contains a list of items that must be included in the complaint. E.D.TN. LR 83.7(b)(1). In such an action, the counsel of record or the party is the complainant.

Second, an action can be initiated by the Chief Judge upon his own initiative. In such a case, no separate complaint is required. The Chief Judge may initiate action based upon facts personally observed or known by the Chief Judge, or which come to his knowledge through information provided to the Chief Judge by others. By either method, the initiation of the action begins an inquiry into the alleged conduct, as explained below; it is not in any way a determination of the truth of any matter.

In this case, no counsel of record or party filed a complaint with the Court. The Court authorized action on the Chief Judge’s own initiative.

Regardless of how the action was initiated, if the action proceeds to the disciplinary stage, the Chief Judge must issue a show cause order. E.D.TN. LR 83.7(c)(2). The rule also contains specific requirements that must be contained in any response to the show cause order. E.D.TN. LR 83.7(d). Again, the show cause order is an initial stage in the process, which sets out the alleged conduct so as to afford the attorney in question a full and fair opportunity to deny, correct, or explain that account of the behavior; it is not a determination of the truth of any matter.

The rule requires a response from the attorney within twenty days of the entry of the show cause order. E.D.TN. LR 83.7(c)(2). The response is required to contain the following:

(1) The name, address and telephone number of the respondent.

(2) A specific admission or denial of each of the factual allegations contained in the complaint and order to show cause and, in addition, a specific statement of any facts on which respondent relies, including all other material dates, places, persons and conduct relevant to the allegations of the order.

(3) All documents or other supporting evidence not previously filed with the complaint or order that are relevant to the charges of alleged misconduct.

(4) A specific request for a hearing or a statement specifically declining a hearing.

(5) A statement signed by the respondent under the penalty of perjury indicating that the respondent has read the response and that, to the best of respondent’s knowledge, the facts alleged therein are correct.

E.D.TN. LR 83.7(d).

The rule provides that Respondent has the right to representation by counsel and also the right to call witnesses at any hearing. E.D.TN. LR 83.7(h)(3). All filings under the rule are under seal to protect the reputation of the attorney. See E.D.TN. LR 83.7(b), (d), (h)(2). The reputation of an attorney is one of his or her most valued possessions. In re Williams, 156 F.3d 86, 90 (1st Cir.1998) (“It is trite, but true, that a lawyer’s professional reputation is his stock in trade, and blemishes may prove harmful in a myriad of ways.”). Most attorneys consider their reputation a badge of honor. Any complaint lodged against an attorney whether founded or unfounded is a stain on that badge. To quote from a very familiar formulation of the importance of an attorney’s reputation:

The reputation you develop for intellectual and ethical integrity will be your greatest asset or your worst enemy. You will be judged by your judgement. Treat every pleading, every brief, every contract, every letter, every daily task as if your career will be judged on it. There is no victory, no advantage, no fee, no favor, which is worth even a blemish on your reputation for intellect and integrity ... Dents to [your] reputation are irreparable.

The confidentiality rule serves to protect attorneys who may be charged with professional misconduct but have those charges later proven unfounded. However, it is important to note that the obligation of confidentiality is one-sided. The court and its staff are prohibited from disclosing the disciplinary action unless authorized by the Chief Judge. The accused attorney has First Amendment rights that are not diminished in the slightest by the court’s local rule. The Local Rule does not contain a single word which imposes any secrecy or confidentiality obligation on the accused attorney, nor did any, of the Court’s orders in this case. Nothing forbids the accused attorney from shouting to the world from the heights of Mount Le-Conte or Lookout Mountain that disciplinary action has been initiated against him or her.

Respondent, and any other accused attorney, would be free to disclose the initiation of the disciplinary process to anyone without any permission or authorization from the court. The court and its staff, however, would not be free to disclose the action, even to correct inaccurate information publically disclosed by the attorney, unless authorized by the Chief Judge. If an accused attorney desires the entire action open to the public, the attorney can waive the confidentiality protection afforded by the local rule and request the Court open the entire proceedings, as Respondent did in this case some weeks after the action was initiated.

Respondent’s claim that the Chief Judge has unfettered discretion to authorize the public disclosure of the disciplinary proceeding is false (Court File No. 68, pp. 4-5). The relevant Local Rule states:

All complaints relating to disciplinary matters under this rule shall be filed under seal with the clerk. All records pertaining to attorney disciplinary proceedings, except with respect to reinstatement proceedings, shall be confidential and kept under seal in the Clerk’s Office unless otherwise ordered by the court.

E.D.TN. LR 83.7(b).

Confidentiality is the presumptive norm throughout proceedings of this nature, for the reasons explained above. Confidentiality exists at two separate periods during the proceedings. First, at the initial phase when a show cause order is issued, Local Rule 83.7(b) provides, “All records pertaining to attorney disciplinary proceedings, except with respect to reinstatement proceedings, shall be confidential and kept under seal in the Clerk’s Office unless otherwise ordered by the court.” Here, this Court informed Respondent of the confidential nature of the proceedings in its Show Cause Order on January 17, 2008 (Court File No. 1, p. 5). The presumption of confidentiality is very strong at this phase, because a show cause order is issued prior to an attorney having any opportunity to address the allegations involved. The court can override this presumption, and open the record to the public, only upon compelling grounds, i.e. where failing to override the presumption of confidentiality would threaten immediate harm to the attorney’s current and prospective clients, the legal system, and the general public.

Second, if a disciplinary hearing has been requested and is determined to be necessary, Local Rule 83.7(h)(2) provides, “Such hearings, at the discretion of the judicial officer, shall be confidential and shall be recorded.” At this phase, the judicial officer presiding over the hearing has discretion to override the presumption of confidentiality and open the hearing to the public when there is a compelling reason to do so. This notion of “discretion” to override the confidentiality entails the legal definition of “discretion,” which requires any decision based on the exercise of that discretion to be supported by facts, law, and reason. See, e.g., Romstadt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir.1995) (where the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviews a district court’s exercise of “discretion” to assure it does not rely on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improper application of the law, or an erroneous legal standard.)

As previously stated, under the local rules, the judicial officer must have a compelling reason to override the confidentiality protections, which are afforded to an attorney during the disciplinary proceedings. One obvious reason to override that protection is when the attorney in question waives the confidentiality afforded to him or her, and formally requests that the hearing be open to the public-as occurred here. Upon receipt of Respondent’s signed waiver of confidentiality, Magistrate Judge Lee overrode the confidentiality provided in the local rules and the hearing was open to the public.

III. RESPONDENT’S LATE FILED RESPONSE

By the Court’s Show Cause Order and the court’s local rule, Respondent was required to file his response by February 6, 2008, addressing the accuracy of the factual assertions in the order and providing the other information required by E.D.TN. LR 83.7(d) (Court File No. 1, p. 4). Respondent did not file a response with any of this information by that time, disobeying the Court’s Show Cause Order and the local rule. He also did not request or decline a hearing as required. See E.D.TN. LR 83.7(d)(4). Instead, Respondent filed four non-responsive motions on February 4, 2008. The four motions were: (1) Motion for Extension (Court File No. 2); (2) Motion for Relief from Notification (Court File No. 3); (3) Motion for Disclosures (Court File No. 4); and (4) Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Court File No. 5). Finding that none of these motions was meritorious, the Court denied them on February 11, 2008 (Court File No. 6).

By the terms of the Court’s Show Cause Order, Respondent was also ordered to notify all judicial officers in the district before whom he had pending cases of the initiation of the disciplinary action (Court File No. 1, p. 5). The Court assumed Respondent would make these notifications immediately upon receipt of the Show Cause Order. Respondent disobeyed this order and did not notify the other judicial officers immediately or even within the time frame for when a response was due.

Under the Local Rules, Respondent’s failure to address the substance of the Show Cause Order and failure to request a hearing would have permitted the Court to proceed without a response or hearing from Respondent. However, this Court was reluctant to proceed in such a serious matter without providing Respondent, perhaps to excess, every opportunity to address the issues before the Court. The Court viewed his non-responsive motions as a general denial of the facts contained in the Show Cause Order and as a request for a hearing, so as to be able to continue with the procedural and substantive protections afforded to Respondent by the Local Rules (Court File No. 7). Despite Respondent not timely requesting a hearing, the Court ordered a hearing to address the substance of the Show Cause Order. Put simply, the Court went out of its way to accommodate Respondent, despite Respondent’s disregard for the local rules and order of the Court.

In relation to the irrelevant and non-meritorious filings the Respondent did make, the Court was disturbed by the unprofessional nature, tone, and content of Respondent’s four motions, and “strongly urge[d] Respondent to obtain counsel to represent him in the hearing” (Court File No. 6, p. 5). The local rule was clear that Respondent had the right to legal representation, E.D.TN. LR 83.7(h)(3), and the Court’s encouragement for Respondent to exercise that right was based on the assumption that Respondent’s legal counsel would be better able to be objective and perform in a more professional manner.

The Court appointed Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee of this district as the judicial officer to investigate and conduct any hearing in this matter pursuant to Local Rule 83.7(g). In Magistrate Judge Lee’s first order to Respondent, she also signaled to Respondent the benefit of counsel (Court File No. 8, p. 2). This advice was not accepted by Respondent, who on February 24, 2008, filed a statement saying he intended to represent himself (Court File No. 14). Magistrate Judge Lee issued an order on February 13, 2008, setting a hearing date and, because she was unable to conduct the hearing without Respondent’s admissions or denials, required Respondent to file the response he had been ordered to file in the Show Cause Order but had failed to do (Court File No. 8).

Finally, on February 25, 2008, Respondent filed his response to the Show Cause Order, which had been due no later than February 6, 2008 (Court File No. 13).

IV. THE HEARING BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEE, HER RECOMMENDATION, AND RESPONDENT’S EXCEPTIONS

A. The Hearing and Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation

Pursuant to the Court’s appointment, Magistrate Judge Lee scheduled a hearing on the allegations in the Show Cause Order. On March 5, 2008 and March 6, 2008, Magistrate Judge Lee conducted the hearing (Court File Nos. 32, 33). Respondent was represented at the hearing by attorney Ralph E. Harwell, who entered his appearance on the morning of the first day of the hearing.

At the hearing, Magistrate Judge Lee provided Respondent an opportunity to present any evidence or other information he wished. Respondent presented exhibits. The only witness presented was Respondent. Respondent testified over two days. His testimony was rambling, convoluted, often disconnected, and rarely addressed his conduct at issue. With respect to the factual allegations in the Show Cause Order, Respondent attempted to explain them away; when pressed by Magistrate Judge Lee, Respondent largely admitted the accuracy of the allegations, but not without evasions, equivocations, dis-semblances, and justifications. Magistrate Judge Lee also listened to arguments of Respondent’s counsel. Furthermore, Respondent requested and was granted permission to submit additional evidence after the hearing. Respondent supplemented his own testimony and provided numerous statements from other witnesses, predominantly other attorneys who were not present at the hearing (see Court File Nos. 35-64).

Following the hearing, on April 7, 2008, Magistrate Judge Lee filed a very thorough, well-written and carefully reasoned Recommendation (Court File No. 65; In re Moneier, 2008 WL 1808547 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008)). In the Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lee carefully recounted what had transpired in the case up to the date of the hearing; what the transcript of the hearing before Judge Greer, which contained Respondent’s conduct leading to the Show Cause Order, showed; what transpired in the hearing before Magistrate Judge Lee; Respondent’s evidentia-ry submissions made during and after the hearing; Respondent’s testimony and responses to the Show Cause Order; and Respondent’s objections. She did so in a comprehensive manner. After considering Respondent’s evidence and arguments, Magistrate Judge Lee thoughtfully analyzed the factual allegations in the Show Cause Order, Local Rule 83.7, and other applicable authority, and concluded the factual allegations were accurate. In fact, she found that Respondent did not seriously dispute the factual allegations (Court File No. 65, p. 44). She also found by clear and convincing evidence Respondent had “engaged in: (a) disruptive behavior during the November 2006 hearing; (b) disobedience of a direct order of the court during the hearing; and (c) unprofessional and unethical behavior that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or brings the court or bar into disrepute during the hearing” (id. at 56). After noting Respondent had not apologized for his unethical and unprofessional conduct, but only for the results of his misbehavior (id. at 57), and that it is questionable “whether Respondent is likely to correct his unethical and unprofessional conduct without some form of meaningful discipline under Rule 83.7,” Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that this Court “impose appropriate discipline for Respondent’s conduct during the November 2006 hearing” (id. at 61).

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.7(i)(2), Magistrate Judge Lee provided notice to Respondent that any exceptions or objections to her report were to be submitted within ten days of her Recommendation (id.).

B. Respondent’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation

On April 18, 2008, Respondent filed his Exceptions to Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation (Court File No. 68). His twenty-five page Exceptions contain twenty individual exceptions or objections, and 123 individual paragraphs.

As an initial observation, the Court recognized a noticeable improvement in the tone and quality of the Exceptions when compared to Respondent’s previous filings. Much of the shoddiness, sloppiness, misspellings, and unprofessional tone the Court observed in Respondent’s earlier submissions was absent in Respondent’s Exceptions, although unfortunately the Exceptions still contain many of the same frivolous arguments, unsupported and underdeveloped contentions, and unfounded accusations of Respondent’s previous filings. Nevertheless, the quality improved — an indication the Court was correct when it strongly urged Respondent to obtain counsel to represent him in these proceedings. It is unfortunate he did not accept the Court’s suggestion initially, before Respondent’s earlier, wholly unprofessional filings became a part of the record. No one, not the Court, the public, the profession, or Respondent, benefitted from Respondent’s earlier shoddy and unprofessional filings.

The most telling aspect of Respondent’s Exceptions is the complete omission of even a single challenge to any of the substantive findings or recommendations in Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation. Respondent does not offer an objection to any of Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings or recommendations on the merits of this matter. The Court takes as a testament to the fine work performed by Magistrate Judge Lee that Respondent cannot lodge even a single objection of substance on the merits to her findings and recommendations.

Unfortunately, what is also glaringly absent from Respondent’s Exceptions is any appreciation on Respondent’s part that his behavior before Judge Greer in the November hearing was improper. Respondent’s Exceptions are entirely focused on avoiding blame or discipline for his unprofessional behavior, using shallow arguments based upon his misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the local rules, the disciplinary proceedings, and the law.

y. DISCUSSION

The Court will now consider Respondent’s Exceptions to Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation. In doing so, the Court also will discuss the Recommendation, Respondent’s testimony at the hearing, his response to the Show Cause Order, and other motions and filings Respondent submitted in this proceeding.

Some of these matters are not among the factual allegations in the Show Cause Order and will not inform this Court’s decision on whether Respondent engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct in the November 2006 hearing before Judge Greer. However, the Court also is charged with determining the appropriate disciplinary action to promote and maintain the standards of professional and ethical behavior required of Respondent and all attorneys before the federal courts of the Eastern District of Tennessee. As such, all of the matters considered here are highly pertinent to this second determination, because they demonstrate whether Respondent now accepts the professional and ethical obligations required of members of the bar of this court; whether his unethical and unprofessional behavior alleged in the Show Cause Order is likely to be repeated in the future; and what disciplinary measures are required to assure Respondent’s future compliance with the professional and ethical standards of this bar.

A. Respondent’s Exceptions to Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation

Although his Exceptions are numerous, they do not require extensive discussion. The Exceptions do not challenge any of the findings or recommendations Magistrate Judge Lee made regarding the merits of the proceedings. Respondent does not object to Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings that: (1) he interrupted Judge Greer during the November 2006 hearing; (2) he accused his opposing counsel of involvement in a conspiracy against him; (3) he threatened to abandon his client; (4) he willfully and intentionally disobeyed a direct order from Judge Greer; (5) he engaged in professional misconduct that violates the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct and constitutes unethical conduct that tends to bring the court and bar into disrepute; (6) he is not apologetic for his misconduct; (7) he is likely to repeat the misconduct because he fails to acknowledge his actions constitute unprofessional misconduct; and (8) discipline is necessary.

All of Respondent’s exceptions are procedural in nature and many merely regurgitate earlier arguments. They can be broken down into just a few categories, as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Lee and the undersigned must be disqualified because they are embroiled in a public controversy with Respondent (Exceptions I and II)

Respondent alleges that Magistrate Judge Lee and the undersigned are involved in a public controversy with him arising out of some unidentified newspaper articles in an unidentified newspaper (Court File No. 68, pp. 1-5). Respondent has not placed these in the record. Nothing in the record of these proceedings suggests any controversy involving members of this court. Federal judges are sometimes the subject of criticism or unflattering portrayals in the media based upon their decisions. This Court is no exception. However, media coverage or criticism, in and of itself, does not constitute “public controversy.” If it did, every judge that made an unpopular ruling that drew media coverage would be disqualified from further involvement with that particular case. The Court is not aware of any “public controversy” in which it or the Magistrate Judge is involved, or any which has “embroiled” the court (id).

2. Discipline is barred as double jeopardy because Judge Greer has already punished him (Exception III)

The Court finds no merit in Respondent’s double jeopardy argument. Double jeopardy prevents a person from being punished criminally for the same offense. Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1136 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 396, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995)). A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal proceeding, nor is attorney discipline equivalent to criminal punishment. See Searer, 950 F.Supp. at 813.

Disciplinary and criminal proceedings are of fundamentally different natures. Respondent’s conviction for criminal contempt and the proceedings here have two distinct purposes, operating in two distinct spheres. Judge Greer could not have disbarred Respondent from the federal bar for the Eastern District of Tennessee as a result of his criminal contempt conviction any more than this Court could convict Respondent of a crime for violating the ethical and professional standards of the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Respondent’s argument is ultimately most exasperating because, in addition to lacking any legal support, it defies logic. According to Respondent, double jeopardy prevents an attorney from being both convicted of a criminal offense and disciplined by a federal court in its maintenance of the ethical and professional standards of the members of its bar. If that were true, an attorney convicted of fraud, murder, treason, or any other criminal offense would be protected by double jeopardy from being disbarred for that underlying conduct. The federal court, in turn, might shield such an attorney from being criminally convicted if it disbarred the attorney based upon the same conduct which would support a criminal conviction.

3. Preclusive effect and consideration of Judge Greer’s factual findings (Exceptions IV, V, VI, IX, X)

Respondent makes numerous arguments disputing this Court’s ability to consider the factual findings made by Judge Greer in Respondent’s criminal contempt conviction (Court File No. 68, pp. 7-11, 14-17). Respondent argues the Court is precluded from doing so based on the Show Cause Order (id, p. 7); he was denied due process as a result (id, p. 9); he was “blindsided” by the use of those findings (id, p. 10); and use of Judge Greer’s factual findings constitutes issue preclusion, which Respondent then argues is impermissible (id, pp. 15-17).

Respondent does not factually or legally develop most of these arguments so as to provide this Court with a solid basis to analyze his exceptions. Instead, Respondent states vague conclusions and provides very little else with which this Court might decipher the nature, purpose, and relevancy of his arguments. Put simply, this Court cannot consider and respond to what is not provided. See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir.1997) (“Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to ... put flesh on its bones.”).

However, the Court endeavors here to respond as best as it is able in light of the predominantly inadequately-explained, legally-unsupported, and factually-barren arguments presented. In relation to Exception IV, despite Respondent’s continued assertion these proceedings rely upon his criminal contempt conviction (Court File No. 68, pp. 7-9), the Show Cause Order clearly states the Court is reviewing the conduct at the November 2006 hearing, not the conviction that resulted from it (Court File No. 1, p. 3 n. 1). The Court’s determination here, and Magistrate Judge Lee’s Recommendation, is based upon the conduct at the November 2006 hearing; the Court is not concerned here with whether that conduct fulfills the legal requirements for a criminal contempt conviction.

Addressing Exceptions V, VI, and IX, Respondent’s claim that he was somehow “blindsided” by the consideration of Judge Greer’s factual account of his conduct, provided in his written opinion, is surprising (see Court File No. 68, pp. 9-11, 14). Respondent was certainly aware of those factual findings, discussed in detail in his contempt conviction. See Moncier II, 2007 WL 1577718. It defies credibility that Respondent had not read the opinion accompanying his criminal contempt conviction. Perhaps more troubling, however, is Respondent’s expectation that the Court would ignore Judge Greer’s clearly-detailed impressions of the events, and it would blindly accept Respondent’s often evasive, revisionist, and self-serving account of his conduct — including representations of how Judge Greer actually perceived his behavior which completely contradict Judge Greer’s own account.

In relation to Exception X, Respondent’s argument based upon issue preclusion is to no avail (Court File No. 68, pp. 15-17). Magistrate Judge Lee thoroughly addressed this issue at length in her Recommendation as it pertained to Respondent’s violation of the court order and the obstruction it caused (Court File No. 65, pp. 46-51). This Court will also make a few additional points here. First, courts regularly give preclusive effect in disciplinary proceedings to factual findings of judges who witnessed the conduct, because those judges, having been physically present and having heard, seen, and reviewed the relevant evidence and conduct firsthand, are in the best position to assess the nature, demeanor, and atmosphere involved. See In re Peters, 543 F.Supp.2d 326, 329-331 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (providing preclusive effect in a disciplinary proceeding to factual findings of the judge’s opinion ordering sanctions).

Second, even if this Court did not give preclusive effect to Judge Greer’s factual findings, those findings would be given substantial deference for the same reasons as above. See id. at 331. This concept is no different than the traditional deference an appellate court gives to the factual findings of a trial judge, who is best-positioned to make observations of a witness’ demeanor, having been present in the courtroom during the testimony. See United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 737 (6th Cir.2006) (“The district court’s credibility findings are entitled to particular deference, because the district court is in a better position than [the appellate court] to observe a witness’s demeanor.”) (citing United States v. Johnson, 344 F.3d 562, 567 (6th Cir.2003)).

Third, this Court’s only use of Judge Greer’s opinion is the factual findings as to Respondent’s disrespectful and unprofessional conduct. Respondent provides no argument why Judge Greer’s carefully and thoroughly written opinion somehow misrepresents how Judge Greer actually perceived Respondent’s conduct. This appears to be yet another spurious argument in Respondent’s attempts to deliberately delay these proceedings.

4.Respondent should be allowed to cross-examine Judge Greer and this Court (Exceptions VII, VIII)

Respondent argues he was denied his rights pursuant to E.D.TN. LR 83.7(h)(3) because he was not permitted to call Judge Greer as a witness for cross-examination (Court File No. 68, pp. 12-14). It is unclear what alleged deprivation Respondent believes he suffered by not having Judge Greer as a witness. As Magistrate Judge Lee correctly stated, “judges speak through them orders” (Court File No. 65, p. 42 n. 16). See Crenshaw v. Dywan, 34 F.Supp.2d 707, 710 (N.D.Ind.1999) (citing Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276, 307, 25 S.Ct. 58, 49 L.Ed. 193 (1904)). Respondent has not provided any reason why Judge Greer’s written opinion, detailing his factual findings and perceptions concerning Respondent’s conduct, was inadequate here.

Furthermore, Respondent argues he had a right to cross-examine this Court, because this Court issued the Show Cause Order (Court File No. 68, pp. 13-14). Respondent argues cross-examination of this Court is necessary to solicit the Court’s “opinions and conclusions” on the matter (id.). This basis is confused on two grounds. First, the Show Cause Order is, by its nature, not a conclusion, but rather the initiation of proceedings aimed at determining the appropriate conclusions to be drawn from the behavior set forth in the Show Cause Order. Second, any information Respondent required from this Court was put forth in the Show Cause Order, which is, in fact, the entire purpose of the Show Cause Order.

5. Respondent did not have twenty days notice of hearing (Exceptions XI)

Respondent argues he did not have a twenty-day notice before the scheduled hearing pursuant to E.D.TN. LR 83.7(h)(1) (Court File No. 68, pp. 17-20). On February 13, 2008, Magistrate Judge Lee issued an order setting the hearing date for March 5, 2008 (Court File No. 8). The period of time between the order and the hearing was twenty-one days. Respondent’s Exception is without merit.

6. Court did not sufficiently apply In Re Snyder (Exception XII)

Respondent claims Magistrate Judge Lee “failed to apply the correct Supreme Court standard in [In Re) Snyder [472 U.S. 634, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 (1985)]” (Court File No. 68, pp. 20-21). Respondent does not actually state in what way he alleges Magistrate Judge Lee failed to do so. To the extent Respondent seeks an assurance that this Court is familiar with the requirements of In Re Snyder and considers those requirements here accordingly, this Court has done so.

7.Respondent sufficiently apologized for his conduct, or cannot be punished for failing to do so (Exceptions XIII)

Respondent asserts he cannot be disciplined for declining to apologize for his conduct or for giving an insufficient apology. As an initial point, this Exception is a non-issue. The Court considers only Respondent’s conduct at the November 2006 hearing in determining whether Respondent is subject to attorney discipline pursuant to E.D.TN. LR 83.7.

The nature of Respondent’s apology is relevant, however, to this Court’s consideration of whether Respondent appreciates the unprofessional and unethical nature of his conduct, whether he is likely to repeat such conduct, and what discipline is necessarily to maintain the professional and ethical standards of attorneys in the Eastern District of Tennessee. Respondent’s apology can be best explained in Respondent’s own words:

I reiterate what I said from the time I was taken into custody and that is, I deeply regret and apologize that my actions were considered by District Judge Greer to be a violation of his orders and that now, my actions have been considered by Senior [sic] District Judge Collier to be violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(Court File No. 57, unnumbered p. 3).

Essentially, Respondent is sorry Judge Greer and the Court think Respondent did something wrong, and he is sorry he has been adversely affected by that. Nowhere in his “apology” does Respondent recognize his conduct was inappropriate nor does he express any regret for conducting himself unprofessionally, showing disrespect for the court and opposing counsel, and directly violating a court order. The Court sees Respondent’s back-handed, ethereal apology as part of a larger course of conduct. As Magistrate Judge Lee aptly phrased it, “His refusal to recognize his conduct was inappropriate, unprofessional, unethical, and unbecoming an officer of the court calls into question whether Respondent is likely to correct his improper conduct without some form of meaningful discipline under Local Rule 83.7” (Court File No. 65, p. 59).

8.Magistrate Judge Lee impermissibly reserved issues for this Court’s consideration (Exception XIY)

Respondent argues Magistrate Judge Lee was not permitted to make a recommendation that discipline was appropriate without also making a recommendation as to the appropriate disciplinary action (Court File No. 68, pp. 21-22). Local Rule 83.7(i) reads: “The judicial officer [conducting the hearing] shall prepare a written recommendation which shall include a proposed disposition of the disciplinary charges.” The rule clearly provides for a “proposed disposition of the disciplinary charges.” A charge is disposed of when it is determined that discipline is warranted or not warranted. Magistrate Judge Lee recommended a disposition of the charge, writing, based upon Respondent’s conduct, “the court [should] impose appropriate discipline for Respondent’s conduct during the November 2006 hearing” (Court File No. 65, p. 61). It is now the obligation of this Court to determine whether Magistrate Judge Lee’s recommendation should be accepted, and if so, what the appropriate disciplinary action is.

9.Adopted and renewed exceptions (Exceptions XV — XIX)

Respondent superficially argues numerous “adopted and renewed exceptions to pre-hearing rulings” (Court File No. 68, pp. 22-25). These exceptions would be unlikely to make any legal or logical sense even if Respondent had dedicated more than a few cursory, vague sentences to each exception. Due to Respondent’s failure to substantiate his assertions with law or reason, the Court is unable to fully address them. See McPherson, 125 F.3d at 995-96. However, the Court will endeavor to address them to the best of its ability, despite Respondent’s lack of explanation of the clear contours, substance, and legal and factual support for the exceptions.

Exception XV. Respondent argues a Magistrate Judge does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 631 to recommend discipline (Court File No. 68, p. 22). This statute is inapplicable here. Federal courts have the authority to adopt and enforce standards of conduct for the attorneys practicing before them. See, e.g., NASCO, 501 U.S. at 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123. This Court has done so and, in accordance with E.D.T.N. LR 83.7(g), permits appointment of a judicial officer, such as a Magistrate Judge, to investigate potential misconduct, conduct disciplinary hearings, and issue a written recommendation.

Exception XVI. Respondent argues Magistrate Judge Lee and this Court harbor some secret bias against him (Court File No. 68, p. 22). Respondent has shown no evidence or valid basis for such bias, nor does any exist.

Exception XVII. Respondent appears to be raising two objections here. First, Respondent argues he was unfairly saddled with a burden of proof to explain his conduct (Court File No. 68, pp. 22-23). The transcript of the November 2006 hearing is clear and convincing evidence of what was said at that hearing, which Respondent does not appear to dispute. Judge Greer’s factual findings in Respondent’s criminal contempt conviction are clear and convincing evidence of Judge Greer’s perceptions of what occurred at the hearing. Rather than being saddled with a burden of proof, Respondent was provided an opportunity to explain his conduct at that hearing to the Court.

Second, Respondent’s argument seems to be asserting a belief that a show cause order is in some way an inadequate basis in which to proceed with a disciplinary hearing (see id.). A show cause order is the method by which disciplinary proceedings are initiated in this court, see E.D. TN. 83.7(b), and provides Respondent with a notice of the allegations involved. All the evidence upon which the Show Cause Order was based was available to Respondent at all times during these proceedings. The Show Cause Order provided adequate notice to Respondent of the allegations and basis of those allegations.

Exception XVIII. Respondent claims he had no right to present evidence and witnesses, pursuant to E.D.TN. LR 83.7(h)(3) (Court File No. 68, p. 24). This is false. In fact, Respondent was permitted to call witnesses, and Respondent was clearly informed of this by Local Rule 83.7(h)(3) and Magistrate Judge Lee’s order of February 13, 2008 (Court File No. 8, p. 2) (“[Respondent] is entitled to be represented by counsel, to present witnesses and other evidence, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses, if any.”). Respondent was the only witness present at the hearing; no other witnesses were present for any of the two-day hearing. Nevertheless, Magistrate Judge Lee still permitted Respondent to testify as to what he expected other witnesses would say. This testimony, on the whole, was cumulative, when relevant, and proved immaterial to the ultimate decision. In addition, Respondent was permitted to submit evidence after the hearing, and filed nearly two dozen declarations from other witnesses. These witnesses possess no personal knowledge of the November 2006 hearing, as none of the witnesses are claimed to have been present, and are thus not material to that issue.

Exception XIX. Respondent summarily lists numerous other exceptions which he calls “defenses,” including double jeopardy and collateral estoppel and — presumably in an attempt to excuse or justify his misconduct — necessity, coercion, and entrapment by Assistant United States Attorney M. Neil Smith (Court File No. 68, p. 24). This Court cannot properly address arguments which are nothing more than invocations of legal doctrines without any explanation of their application to this case. See McPherson, 125 F.3d at 995-96. However, even if Respondent had actually argued these defenses to any significant degree, none of these defenses can excuse or justify Respondent’s conduct throughout the November 17, 2006 hearing. They do not somehow erase the disrespect and unprofessional behavior he exhibited; his failure to obey a direct order of the Court; or, indeed, his subsequent refusal, as these defenses further show, to recognize and take steps to assure he does not repeat his unprofessional and unethical conduct in the future.

The Court feels compelled to address the shifting, post-hoc rationalizations Respondent has made in attempting to avoid the consequences of his actions. Respondent, as presumably is the unstated basis of his justification defenses (see Court File No. 68, p. 24), has asserted he was either somehow obligated to speak to his client in violation of the order of the court to refrain from continuing to interrupt Judge Greer (e.g., Tr. 127), or he was otherwise seeking clarification of Judge Greer’s unequivocal order not to speak {e.g., Tr. 133). The result of either argument is that Respondent believes he did nothing unprofessional or unethical.

However, Respondent also argues his allegedly professional, ethical, and duty-bound conduct was a result of “entrapment by AUSA M. Neil Smith’s letter of November 16, 2008” (Court File No. 68, p. 24) and was a product of being “goaded” by the prosecution (Court File No. 13, p. 26) (where Respondent asserted being goaded as an affirmative defense for his misconduct).

It speaks volumes of Respondent’s lack of respect for this court when he asserts, “I believed I had a duty to do what I did, and I would have done it before any district court judge” (Tr. 127), only to then immediately blame opposing counsel for somehow entrapping or goading him into behaving in a way he then seems to concede was inappropriate (Court File Nos. 13, p. 26; 68, p. 24). Either Respondent is arguing he was tricked or goaded into conduct he believed was ethical, or he is asserting two contradictory positions to this Court. Such conduct is not only exasperating but also incredibly disappointing from a member of the bar of the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Exception XX. Respondent argues this Court cannot proceed with any disciplinary determination or action against him until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has made a final ruling on his criminal contempt conviction (Court File No. 68, pp. 24-25). As previously and repeatedly stated, this Court’s disciplinary proceeding and determination is independent of any criminal contempt conviction. The Sixth Circuit, in its March 5, 2008 denial of Respondent’s motion to stay these proceedings pending his appeal, wrote: “The disciplinary proceedings now pending before the district court are distinct from this appeal from a criminal conviction. [Respondent] does not cite any legal authority that there is a requirement that the appeal of the criminal contempt proceedings must be concluded before the disciplinary proceedings can go forward.” Furthermore, whether the Sixth Circuit determines Respondent’s conduct satisfied the legal requirements to establish criminal contempt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) and (3) has no bearing on the determinations of this Court pursuant to E.D.T.N. LR 83.6, 83.7.

Respondent further argues Magistrate Judge Lee cannot rely on the factual findings of Judge Greer, concerning Judge Greer’s own, first-hand perception of Respondent’s conduct, because those findings are on appeal. Respondent’s argument is absurd; the Sixth Circuit will not, nor could it logically, “overturn” Judge Greer’s own factual account and perceptions of the offensive nature of Respondent’s behavior. See Moncier II, 2007 WL 1577718.

10. Conclusion

As explained above, Respondent’s Exceptions to the Recommendation (Court File No. 68) are devoid of merit and denied by this Court.

B. Response to Order to Show Cause (Court File No. 13)

On February 25, 2008, Respondent filed the response required by the Show Cause Order. The response is twenty-seven pages in length and, while Respondent does address the factual allegations in the Show Cause Order, he often does not provide a specific admission or denial of the factual allegations. Those factual allegations to which he does not offer a specific denial the Court will deem to be true and admitted.

As to the factual allegations in the Show Cause Order, Respondent responded as follows:

(1) Respondent repeatedly interrupted or spoke over the presiding judge. Allegation III

Response III. 4. “Respondent admits that the transcript reflect [sic] uncompleted sentences by both the District Judge and Respondent.” (Id., p. 17).

(2) Respondent accused the prosecution of engaging in a conspiracy to prevent him from trying cases due to his success in past trials. Allegation IV

Response IV. 5. “Respondent avers and will offer evidence at a hearing that Respondent had a reasonable basis to make the statements cited in the Show Cause Order pertaining to AUSA Smith and the prosecution team in Greeneville Division (sic) of this Court.” (Id., p. 18).

(3) Respondent threatened to abandon client. Allegation V.

Response V. 2. “Respondent admits making the cited statement.” (Id., p. 18).

(4) Respondent disobeyed order of Judge Greer. Allegation IX.

Response IX. 2. “Respondent admits the transcript of November 17, 2006 and the pages cited in the Show Cause Order. 3. Respondent avers that the transcript of November 17, 2006 speaks for itself.” (Id., p. 25).

Based upon Respondent’s admissions or failure to deny the above factual allegations, the Court deems Respondent to have admitted (1) he repeatedly interrupted and spoke over Judge Greer, (2) he accused the prosecution of engaging in a conspiracy against him, (3) he threatened to abandon his client, and (4) he disobeyed a direct order of Judge Greer.

In addition to the above-quoted passages, Respondent’s response also includes a great deal of rambling, irrelevant material. Respondent goes on for many pages discussing the prosecution of Harold Grooms and others who are unrelated to the inquiry here. He spends time discussing what he perceives as bias against him by government agents.

In a remarkable admission, Respondent in his (Second) Affirmative Response 3, says: “Respondent affirmatively asserts that his con