Sablosky v McConnell Attorney Misconduct Complaint (full text) link to come

Attorney Misconduct Complaint Against Addison Mitchell McConnell

Violation of the oath taken by Addison Mitchell McConnell as an attorney, as a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The specific violation that complainant / plaintiff Bret Sablosky alleges is that Defendant Addison Mitchell McConnell is guilty of violating the oath of attorney where McConnell swore to support the Constitution of the United States so help him God.
Bret Sablosky alleges that Addison Mitchell McConnell has deliberately, maliciously, and intentionally violated the explicit commands, written in shall language, both procedureally and substantively with respect to nomination and appointment of United States Supreme Court Justices. Addison Mitchell McConnell, hereinafter McConnell, between about February 1, 2016 and January 19, 2017 and continuing through April 30, 2018 did obstruct, interfere with, prevent, subvert, and sabotage the procedures and legislative acts required to be performed by the majority leader of the majority party in the U.S. Senate, the members of the majority party of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate , who at the time were the Republican Party Senators, and the full membership of all political parties and independent Senators in the U.S. Senate to lawfully provide “advice and consent” to the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, to fill a vacant Judgeship / Justiceship on such Court, which vacancy occurred in the month of February 2016.
Defendant McConnell along with other Republican U.S. Senators, the Republican Senate Whip , Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican President Pro Tem, Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee acted to violate, subvert, interfere with, obstruct, and prevent the operation of the US. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 which says:
Note that the pronoun “he” refers to the President of the United States, who at the time of the alleged criminal and civilly illegal acts of misconduct were committed by McConnell, was Barack Obama.
“and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court.”
A clear reading of this section makes the job of advising and consenting by the U.S. Senate to nominees for Judges, now called Justices, of the U.S. Supreme Court, mandatory, when a vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court, under a sitting president The U.S. Senate is not given and does not have the right to refuse hearings [required under the Senate’s own rules] ,and the the U.S. Senate does not have the right to refuse a yay or nay vote of a quorum of the full Senate membership, to deliberately obstruct the President’s nominee, who in this case was Judge Merrick Garland. The fact that the leaders and or members of the Republican Party. or any party in power, dislike or hate the political party and political philosophy of the sitting elected president, does not give those Senators of the majority party, the Republican Party, and their majority leader, Defendant McConnell, the power to nullify President Obama’s specific duties, obligations and powers of his office, the Presidency, required by the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was written to require and mandate that the President be allowed and is always required to perform his designated duties, including the nomination and appointment of U.S. Supreme Court Judges, now called Justices by statute, despite opposition and disagreement by U.S. Senators, who may politically oppose the philosophy or qualifications of the Judge / Justice nominee, nominated by the President.
Senators like Defendant McConnell are not allowed to refuse to provide the “advice and consent duty which is required in Article II, Section2, Paragraph 2. Refusing to provide the advice and consent required to be provided, is completely different than advising and consenting. Providing Advice and consent includes the public hearings required, under the current Senate Rules, which have been required since 1916. The US. Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 does not require hearings, but the current U.S. Senate Rules do. The Constitution does require a yay or nay vote on every nominee by the full Senate on any nominee, nominated by a sitting President. Defendant McConnell maliciously, deliberately, with criminal intent, purposefully obstructed President Obama from performing his presidential duties, required by the Constitution of the United States in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2. Senators are allowed to refuse to consent by voting nay on a nominee, that the Senators wish to not be appointed to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. But Senators are not allowed to refuse to hold a yay or nay vote of the full Senate with a quorum of Senators present. McConnell holds that the Senate can refuse to hold Judiciary Committee hearings and refuse to hold a yay or nay vote on a nominee, and defendant McConnell falsely claims that is a refusal to consent. The advice is the consideration of the nominees qualifications and political / judicial philosophy. The consent is the vote yay or nay on the floor of the U.S. Senate by the full Senate with a quorum of Senators present under the U.S. Senate rules of what constitutes a quorum.
These are a clear, deliberate, malicious, premeditated intentional series of civilly illegal and of criminal acts committed by defendant McConnell to violate the sworn promise in the oath of officers and attorneys in Kentucky Constitution, Section 228.
“I do solemnly swear [or affirm as the case may be], that I will support the Constitution of the United States…….so help me God.”
At the heart of the questions over whether Defendant McConnell committed serious acts of attorney misconduct is the question of his refusal, in conspiracy with Sen. Chuck Grassley R Iowa, chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator John Cornyn R. Texas, Senate Republican majority Whip, and Senator Orrin Hatch R. Utah, Senate President Pro Tem, in all of year 2016, to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and the refusal to hold a full Senate vote with a quorum of Senators present, that would have been a yay or nay vote, under the above “advice and consent” clause. The legal question here is: does Senator McConnell have the discretionary right to to prevent such nomination hearings from being held and does Senator McConnell have the discretionary right to prevent such yay or nay vote of the full Senate, with a quorum of Senators present from being held, after a serving president, has in presidential writing and in an official oral announcement, made a nomination, to attempt the bringing about of an appointment [called confirmation],of a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, upon the occurrence of a vacancy, of a judgeship on that court.
An examination of language, that Defendant McConnell refused to support, as required by the oath of attorney, and that Defendant McConnell worked hard maliciously, and evilly, to obstruct and to prevent, the “shall” commanded performance of Senate duties in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
“and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court.”
The “shall nominate” means the president must nominate a judge or judges to fill any vacant judgeship on the Supreme Court, when such vacancy occurs during a President’s term in office.
The “shall nominate” and “shall appoint” language makes at minimum a floor vote of all Senators with a quorum of senators present on the appointment mandatory.
The “shall appoint” language modifies the “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” phrase and is a prepositional phrase, that is also an adverbial clause. This adverbial clause modifies the”shall appoint” language and makes the work of the Senate mandatory, to perform the
advice and consent” duty to any nominee for Supreme Court Judge / Justice. If the Senate were allowed to deny hearings and or deny a yay or nay vote on presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, the term , “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” in that Section of the U.S.Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, would say instead, in a separate sentence following, that, “the senate may refuse to give advice and consent for the purpose of preventing the president from nominating and appointing Judges of the Supreme Court at the choosing of the full Senate,by a yay or nay vote of the full Senate with a quorum present”. The Constitution does not say that.
Defendant McConnell states Obama nominee, Merrick Garland, or any Obama nominee, will not be given Judiciary Committee hearings, or a vote of yea or nay by the full Senate with a quorum between February 1, 2016 and January 19, 2017, because this is Obama’s 4th and last year in Obama’s
2nd term which makes Obama a “lame duck President”. The key self incriminating statements made by defendant McConnell, as to his own guilt, civilly and criminally, is that McConnell in multiple statements, made on the Senate floor and to the news media, states that there will be no hearings, no yay or nay vote of the full Senate, on any nominee nominated by Obama. The plaintiff wishes to point out that had McConnell said, that his party had such a dislike, hatred, or strong feelings against Merrick Garland, but that the president should nominate another nominee instead, immediately, and that he, defendant McConnell would certainly see that the other nominee would be given hearings and a yay or nay full Senate vote [with a quorum of Senators present], under the strict and specific constitutional commands of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, then McConnell would still have obeyed the Constitutional commands, to honor the powers of the President, to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Judges / Justices. McConnell thought he was really a genius, by deciding that he would prevent members of his own Republican Party from voting on a lawful U.S. Supreme Court nominee. McConnell clearly believed that enough members of his own Republican party, who were Senators, would have voted yay in a floor vote on Judge Merrick Garland, that Garland would have been appointed [confirmed], with a majority of votes, in a floor vote of the full Senate, with a quorum of Senators present. This is clearly what defendant McConnell sought to prevent, by his civilly illegal and criminal subversion of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2. It is the duty of this disciplinary committee and the Judges of the Kentucky Supreme Court to punish defendant McConnell ,severely, for his serious crimes of attorney misconduct in obstructing, subverting, and interfering with the operation of the United States Constitution and the Presidency.
No section of the US. Constitution says that a president of the United States has no powers of his office during the 4th year of any term, that he or she is elected to, while the president serves his term to which that president was elected. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 does not limit or nullify or strip a serving president of his powers to nominate and appoint U.S. Supreme Court Justices in any year of a president’s term in office. McConnell acted to sabotage, subvert, obstruct, interfere with, and disobey, the clear shall language commands of Article II, section 2, Paragraph 2 of U.S Constitution quoted above. Defendant McConnell did not support the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to support, so help him God. Defendant McConnell’s malicious, illegal goal was, and is, to interfere with the operation of the U.S. Constitution as a Kentucky licensed attorney and as a U.S. Senator so that his Republican Party has 5 or more Judgeships, a majority of Judges / Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is contrary to the clear dictates of Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution both in procedural law and substantive law.
According to defendant McConnell, the word “president” as used in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 means next president, not the current serving president. Mysteriously, the word “next” is nowhere to be found in the text of the U.S. Constitution. “President” means the currently serving president, the president serving in office at the time, that the vacancy in the Judgeship on the U.S Supreme Court occurred, whether due to death or resignation. President does not mean next president, and skip the current serving president.
Defendant McConnell said,“Let the voters decide”, what nominee will fill this judgeship seat on the U.S. Supreme Court in the upcoming November 2016 election. That is clearly not what the U.S. Constitution says, about who fills a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, which says that the president nominates, nominees, for positions of Judge [Justice}on the Supreme Court. Voters are not mentioned, as deciding who such judge nominees will be. Defendant McConnell lies about “Let the voters decide” are contrary to the clear text of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, Paragraph 2. Defendant McConnell’s clear intention was to disobey, act contrary to, obstruct, subvert, and sabotage the procedural commands, as to procedures and the substantive commands as to substantive law, that all Senators in the Senate and Senators on the Judiciary Committee were to perform. The required duties were for all Senators to perform the “advice and consent” functions.
Defendant McConnell is clearly guilty of obstructing, interfering with, sabotaging, disobeying the operation and functioning of the executive branch of government, the presidency of the United States.
Why? Because when President Obama nominated nominee Merrick Garland. Defendant McConnell, in cooperation with Sen..Chuck Grassley, Sen.Orrin Hatch, Sen John Cornyn, and all Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, chose to not perform the required mandatory duties explicitly required by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2. Obstruction, subversion, and interference with the exercise of powers of the presidency, the executive branch of the United States government, is disloyalty, disobedience, obstruction, subversion, and refusal to support the Constitution of the United states, and a malicious, evil, calculated, premeditated action to obstruct, interfere with, nullify, and overthrow the elected executive branch of the United States government. It should be noted that Sen. Orrin Hatch was the President Pro Tem of the U.S. Senate and Sen. John Cornyn was the Republican Senate Whip of the Republican Party majority in the U.S. Senate.
On Sunday August 6, 2016 Defendant McConnell appeared on a Kentucky Educational Television Show titled “Fancy Farm” and said “One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama “You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.” This quote segment is available on snopes.comfactcheckspolitics. This quote proves malicious, evil premeditated criminal intent by defendant McConnell to obstruct, interfere with, nullify the powers of the presidency, the executive branch and prevent the operation of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the nomination and appointment of Supreme Court Justices..
Defendant McConnell has committed felony criminal acts of attorney misconduct to frustrate, disobey, disable, impede, obstruct, sabotage and interfere with the operation of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Presidency of Barack Obama, which is the executive branch of the U.S. Government.
Defendant McConnell must be punished with the most severe punishment for these criminal acts of attorney misconduct by revocation of his Kentucky license to practice law.
Under established federal case law, Justices of the Kentucky Supreme Court and the staff attorneys, who work for the State Bar of Kentucky disciplinary panels, can interpret the meaning of provisions of the U.S. Constitution including Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of determining if Defendant McConnell committed crimes of attorney misconduct by violating explicit commands and instructions, both procedural and substantive, of those constitutional provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which command the performance of duties of U.S. Senators to provide advice and consent on U.S. Supreme Court nominations.

Defendant McConnell as an elected public official who has served as a Senator in the United States Senate and who has a solemn responsibility, under the oath of attorney, as an officer of the courts of Kentucky, to uphold the United States Constitution, as he swore to do so. This responsibility to uphold the U.S. Constitution exists, even though in performing his duties in the U.S. Senate, defendant McConnell is not representing a client in a private or public law practice.

The plaintiff has attached a Table of Points and Authorities with evidence which includes both printed articles covering McConnell and news conferences given by defendant McConnell on video clips from TV news and C-Span on the Senate Floor.
On NPRpolitics newscast of March 16, 2016 See exhibit 2 attached: defendant McConnell states at page 3 paragraph 2
“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be,” McConnell said.
In the above paragraph, McConnell incriminates himself of the crime of attorney misconduct that he committed successfully. Donald Trump won the November 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump was inaugurated in Washington, D.C. On January 20, 2017. Between January 20, 2017 and April 1, 2017, Senator McConnell led the Senate Republican Party effort to get Judge Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated by Donald Trump, appointed to fill the vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat. That vacant U.S. Supreme Court Judgeship was illegally held vacant by Defendant McConnell, Senate Whip Sen. John Cornyn R-Texas, Senate Pro Tem leader Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Utah, and the Republican majority of Senators on the U.S. Senate who held a 54 seat majority of the U.S. Senate during all of the year 2016. . Judge Neil Gorsuch was sworn in to fill the U.S. Supreme Court Judgeship, that was illegally kept open by Defendant McConnell. Complainant points this out, to show that the success of defendant McConnell crimes of attorney misconduct, resulted in the filling of the Judgeship by the wrong President, specifically, Donald Trump, who legally was not entitled to, or empowered by the Constitutional commands, both procedural and substantive, Of Article II, Section 2 Paragraph 2, to fill a vacant Judgeship that occurred during the last year of the prior president, Barack Obama’s term, calendar year 2016. In the common law, when a criminal, in this case defendant McConnell, commits a crime, and the crime is completed successfully, and then the alleged criminal actor, defendant McConnell, has benefited from the successful committing of such criminal act of attorney misconduct, then the criminal actor can be held guilty, of the crime of which he is accused, in this case of the crime of attorney misconduct. This was not an attempted crime. This was a crime that was successfully committed to completion by the defendant McConnell. The fact that the Judgeship on the U.S. Supreme Court was still vacant, at the time that Donald Trump was sworn in to be President of the United States , on January 20, 2017, and the fact that later in April 2017, the vacant Judgeship was filled by a President, other that Barack Obama after the term of President Barack Obama was expired, is proof of defendant McConnell’s success and guilt of committing his crime of attorney misconduct, and his failure to uphold the United States Constitution. Complainant prays that this Kentucky State Bar disciplinary court drafts the accusation of attorney misconduct alleged herein, puts defendant Addison Mitchell McConnell on trial for wrongful acts of attorney misconduct, alleged in this complaint, and convicts the defendant McConnell of these alleged crimes.
There are at least 3 criminal counts of attorney misconduct of failure to support the Constitution of the United States, that defendant McConnell should be charged with.
Count 1 is interfering with, obstructing, nullifying the powers of the Presidency, the Executive branch of government.
Count 2 is preventing, interfering, obstructing any Senate Judiciary Committee hearings from being conducted by Senator Chuck Grassley R-Iowa Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2016
Count 3 is preventing a yay or nay vote by the full Senate, with a quorum of Senators present on the Merrick Garland nomination or any nomination of any nominee to fill the vacant Judgeship on the U.S. Supreme Court made by President Barack Obama in 2016.

TABLES OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: EVIDENCE FROM
TELEVISION NEWS, RADIO NEWS, AND NEWSPAPERS.

AUTHORITIES BROADCAST ON TELEVISION AND RADIO NEWS
Exhibit 1 a USB memory stick is enclosed which contains all of the following television news shows where Senator McConnell makes self incriminating statements of offenses of attorney misconduct he is in process of committing.
1 AP archive February 23 2016 “GOP Senate Won’t Consider [Obama] Supreme Court Nominee”

2 Wall Street Journal “McConnell Next President Should Nominate [Supreme Court] Justice”

3 SCOTUS Battle GOP vow to block nominee Merrick Garland

4 Meet the Press Mitch McConnell on Supreme Court Showdown [full interview]

5 Wall Street Journal GOP Senators Say No To SCOTUS Hearings For Garland

6 Fancy Farm Kentucky Educational Television Show August 6, 2016. See quote in text of complaint.
AUTHORITIES IN PRINT
Exhibit 2 in print attached: NPR Politics Newscast March 16, 2016
NPR Politics Newscast March 16, 2016 McConnell: Blocking Supreme Court Nomination ‘About a principle not a person’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *