Attorney Bob Grundstein is no fan of the corrupt WA State Bar. He has a lot of company. Of the 3000 WA State citizens who file complaints with the WA State Bar every year, and see those complaints dismissed, are no fans of the corrupt WA State Bar either.
So who is this attorney, Bob Grundstein, and why is he going after the WA State Bar?
1) Bob Grundstein lives and works in Vermont, not WA State. So, hmmmm, ahhhh… how does this involve the WA Bar?
2) It has something to do with what happened in Ohio. So, hmmmm, ahhh… how does what happened in Ohio involve the WA Bar?
3) That is a very interesting story …. just follow this link to read about it Corruption knows no bounds:The Robert Grundstein story
So now what?
Bob Grundstein has filed a federal complaint against the ‘corrupt WA State Bar’ in which he alleges:
63. Grundstein restates the prior contents of this Complaint;
64. Defendants Eide and Hammel maliciously, criminally and or negligently created a false
record by which Grundstein’s reputation was ruined;
65. Defendants had to commit the following crimes and torts to get a desired outcome:
Libel, Abuse of process, Conversion, Perjury under (Revised Code of Washington) RCW 9A
72 010, 020, 030, 040 / Conspiracy under state RCW 9A.28.040(1)/Obstruction of Justice-False
Swearing under state RCW 9A.40.12, Obstruction of Justice under Federal Statutes 18 USC
1503 and 1512(C);
66. This record was published in the Washington State Bar journal;
67. Grundstein has endured damage to his reputation and employability in Vermont and the
rest of the country;
68. Grundstein is not allowed to sit for the Vermont Bar.
Abuse of Process
Federal Law State Bar Status Does Not Confer Jurisdiction
69. Grundstein restates the contents of his Complaint
70. “Abuse of Process” in Vermont contains the following elements:
“In Vermont, a plaintiff alleging the tort of abuse of process is
required to plead and prove: “1) an illegal, improper or unauthorized
use of a court process; 2) an ulterior motive or an ulterior purpose;
and 3) resulting damage to the plaintiff.” Jacobsen v. Garzo, 149 Vt.
71. Grundstein could not be served in Vermont. Defendants had no jurisdiction or venue to
conduct a disciplinary hearing in Washington State;
72. Defendants held Grundstein’s bar license hostage in Washington to force him to attend
a hearing in Washington State;
73. Defendants could not serve Grundstein in Vermont. No personal jurisdiction could
74. Bar status alone does not confer jurisdiction on a forum. See “Diloreto v Costigan”,
Civ. A. No. 08-989, (E.D. Pa. 2008);
75. Defendants committed the tort of conversion to abuse process and force Grundstein to
travel to Washington State to defend a stale and meretricious action.
Action under 42 USC 1983
Violation of Rights Under the 1st
and 6th Amendments and “Brady v Maryland” 373 US 83
76. Grundstein restates the prior contents of this Complaint;
77. Defendants Eide, Hammel and all others had an affirmative Duty under the 6th
Amendment, “Brady v Maryland” 373 US 83 and the 5th
Amendment to acknowledge
exculpatory evidence and all evidence in his favor which would affect sanctions,
penalties and risk;
78. These Constitutional rights are applied to the states by way of the 14th
amendment and 42
79. Grundstein’s civil rights under the Constitution and 42 USC 1983 were violated by
defendants when they removed all his evidence from the record;
80. Defendants violated these rights when they refused to acknowledge the same exculpatory
evidence provided by Grundstein prior to hearing
Action under 42 USC 1985
Conspiracy to Hide Evidence and Violate Due Process
Consistent With Illegal Past Practices and Defective Disciplinary Design
81. Grundstein restates the contents of this Complaint;
82. 42 USC 1985 pertains to a conspiracy to violate civil rights;
83. Defendants agreed to conduct a hearing against Grundstein without jurisdiction or venue;
84. Defendants agreed to render a judgment from a proceeding in which all of his evidence
was illegally removed from the record;
85. Defendants agreed to conduct a hearing in which the Complaint was illegally amended to
contain charges and penalties (Disbarment) not included in the original Complaint;
86. Defendant Ende allowed his organization to conduct illegal hearings and hide evidence;
87. Defendant Ende allowed his organization to persistently practice illegal tactics. See WA
case “In re Karen Unger” WSBA Public No. 06 00071
88. “Unger” was a case in which a Disciplinary respondent was chased for two years.
Defense cost her tens of thousands of dollars;
89. A hearing officer finally dismissed the case and said “There is nothing here”. See EX 2.
90. Defendants Eide, Hammel and Ende work as part of the Washington State Bar
91. Douglas Ende is the director of the WSBA Office of Disciplinary Counsel;
92. The WSBA is an entity which can sue and be sued;
93. WSBA is responsible for the torts and negligence of its employees acting within the
scope of their authority
Now the Bar Must Respond and be held ACCOUNTABLE to their DUTY and NOT be a the “STREET GANG” that the WA State Bar has become.
THANK YOU BOB GRUNDSTEIN, Esq., … a profile of a COURAGEOUS LAWYER!