IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Colum! uit Appeal No. 14-5265 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAL, et al., PlaintifY/Appellee/ On Appeal from jge Rosemary M. Collyer Final Order 10/15/2014 Civil Action No, 13-2025(RMC) OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC ARANT, BOULT, CUMMINGS LLP, ROBERT R. MADDOX, J. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C. LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN, MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES, ALTISOURCE PORTOFLIO , KEVEN WILLCOX, WESTERN PROGRESSIVE-ARIXONA, PREMIUM ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLC, MITRA HORMOZI, JAMES [, 'T. ROBERT FINLAY, Respondents Christopher Stoller, Appellant/Petitioner si Christopher StoLLer, Appellant/Petitioner 6045 W. Grand Avenue Suite 414 Chicago, Illinois 60639 312-834-9717 email Ldms4@hotmail.com MOTION TO DISQUALIFY APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY'S Christopher Stoller, Appellant herby filed this Motion to Disqualify Defendant's Counsel Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, ROBERT R. MADDOX’, J. RILEY, KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C. LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES*. Respondent also represents Respondents/Appellees Ocwen Financial Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”). Appellant's Motion to disqualify is being presented to draw the court's attention to the situation ;where opposing counsel has violated the applicable DC Rules of Professional conduet, it is being made to point out that the opposing counsel has not obs ed the highest standards of integrity and fidelity. Appellant's motion to disqualify is being made with reasonable promptness after the Appellant discovered the facts which have lead to this motion, This is disqualification motion will be made upon the alleged unethical conduct of adverse counsel. courts have held that a litigant may have standing to assert a basis for disqualification of the opposing counsel even where there was no preexisting attorney -client relationship between that counsel and the moving party, Kennedy v.. Eldridge, 201 Cal. App. 4Th 1 197 (2 01 1 ). Third District Court of Appeal, found a basis for disqualification arising from an appearance of impropriety. in 1 Respondent Robert R. Maddox on page 9 of Defendant-Appellee Ocwen's Opposition to Appellant's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Document #1529030 at page 9 in a footnote stated “Undersigned counsel Robert R. Maddox joins in this response on behalf of himself, his firm Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip, and the individual attorneys of his firm who Mr. Stoller named as “Respondents” in his petition. 2 The Petitioner seeks disqualification of Robert R. Maddox and all ofthe other attomeys in the firm of Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip. Disqualification for a conflict of interest or for professional misconduct, fraud is not limited here to only the direct disqualification of Robert R. Maddox, other attorneys associated with Mr. Maddox are subject toKennedy, the party moving to disqualify opposing counsel was neither a present or former client, and the case did not involve loyalty or disclosure of confidential information, The court of appeal, referring to the trial court’s written ruling, noted that “no California case has held that only a client or former client may bring a disqualification motion.” Citing to other California authorities, the Kennedy court stated that the reason for this is simple: A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from the power inherent in every court to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it. Again quoting prior decisions, the court further stated that disqualification motions involve a conflict between the clients’ right to counsel of their choice and the need to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility . The paramount concern must be to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar. The important right to counsel of one’s choice must yield to ethical considerations that affect the fundamental principles of our judicial process.* Where a lawyer's ethical breach is “manifest and glaring” and so “infects the litigation ( as in the case at bar) in which disqualification is sought that it impacts the moving party’s interests in a just and lawful determination of [his or] her claim s, anon client might meet the standing requirements to bring a motion to disqualify based upon a third party conflict of interest or other ethical violation.” 231, citing to Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burm an, 1 86 Cal. App. 4th 1.9 47,13 55 (2 010), and {quoting People ex rl. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sy stem s, In.,20 Cal. 4th 113 5, 11431999) 4 Kennedy ,2 01 Cal. App. 4th at 12.04. 3THE PE ‘The Petitioner has standing to seek disqualification of opposing counsel. The First, Fourth and Fifth Circuits have reasoned that opposing parties are authorized to report any ethical violations committed in a case; therefore, opposing party aware of facts justifying a disqualification of counsel has standing, indeed is obligated, to call the matter to the attention of the court. Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844 (Ist Cit. 1984); United States v. Clarkson, 567 F.2d 270 (4th Cir. 1977) (citing Estates Theatres v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 345 F. Supp. 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), Brown & Williamson y, Daniel Int't., 563 F.2d 671 (Sth Cir, 1977). In effect, this rule provides standing to virtually any opposing party to move for disqualification based on any asserted ethical violation. Ina case that did not require standing, Planning & Control, Inc. v. MTS Group, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3004 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), the court said: Ethical concerns dictate that other persons, be permitted to raise the issue of attorney misconduct. The court believes that the general rule which restricts standing to raise a Canon 4 disqualification motion to one who is a client or former client of the challenged lav firm must give way to a maxim that adequately addresses the need to ensure both clients and the general public that lawyers will act within the bounds of ethical conduct. DeBlasio v, Stone, 2012 W. Va. LEXIS 976 (W. Va. Dec. 7, 2012). (standing not a requirement if the conflict calls “in question the fair and efficient administration of justice")PURPOSE OF ‘The purpose of a disqualification motion is to expose the Respondents ROBERT R. MADDOX‘, J. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C. LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES and to eliminate their unethical conduet in order to protect the interests of the public and the integrity of the bar.* District of Columbia Circuit looks to D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and standards developed under federal law. See Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2D 17, 20 (D.C. 2008). The Court's power to disqualify attorneys for a conflict of interest stems from the court’s duty to regulate the conduct of attorneys practicing before it.” 5. Respondent Robert R. Maddox on page 9 of Defendant-Appellee Oewen's Opposition to Appellant's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Document #1529030 at page 9 in a footnote stated “Undersigned counsel Robert R. Maddox joins in this response on behalf of himself, his firm Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip. and the individual attorneys of his firm who Mr. Stoller named as “Respondents” in his petition, 6 Iti the responsibility of the courts to supervise the conduct of atlomeys who practice before them. E.g.. United States v. Agosto, 675 F.2d 965, 969 (Sth Cir. 1982), Armstrong v, MeAlpin, 625 F.2d 433, 445-46 (2d Cir. 1980), vacated on other grounds, 449 U.S. 1106 (1981); Arkansas v. Dean Foods Prods. Co., 605 F.2d 380, 383 (8th Cir. 1979); Board of Educ. v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2d Cir. 1979}, Whiting Corp. v. White Mach, Corp., 567 F.2d 713, 716 (Tth Cir. 1977); Richardson v. Hamilton Intl Corp., 469 F.2d 1382, 1385 (3d Cir. 1972); Black v. Missouri, 492 F. Supp. 848, 859 (W.D. Mo. 1980); Price v. Admiral Ins, Co., 481 F. Supp. 374, 377 (E.D. Pa, 1979) 7 See Cerameo, Inc., v. Lee Pharmaceuticals, 510 F.2d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 1975) (“courts have not only the supervisory power but also the duty and responsibility to disqualify counsel for unethical conduct prejudicial to his adversaries”) see also Kevlik v. Goldstein, 724 F.2d 844, 847 (Ist Cir. 1984); Trust Corp. of Mont. v, Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1983), Central Milk Producers Coop. v, Sentry Food Stores, Inc., 573 F.2d 988, 992 (8th Cir. 1978), Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804, 810 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Ott, 489 F.2d 872, 874 (7th Cir. 1973); Richardson v. Hamilton Int'l Corp., 469 F.2d 1382,DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNS EL FOR THE APPEARANCE OF PROFESSIONAL IMPROPRIETY A lawyer's good faith, although essential in all his professional activity, is, nevertheless, an inadequate safeguard when standing alone. .. . The dynamies of litigation are far too subtle, the attorney's, role in that process is far too critical, and the public's interest in the outcome is far too great to leave room for even the slightest doubt concerning the ethical propriety of a lawyer's representation ina given case® BACKGROUND This case wolve the Consumer Protection Bureau and 49 Attorney Generals who have filed a suit (Doe 1) against Oewen/Respondents for their fraudulent Mortgage Foreclosure conduct in 49 states. Involving over 190,000 unlawful foreclosures with fabricated documents, All of the respondents’ had prior actual and constructive notice of 1385 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 986 (1973):E.F. Hutton & Co. y. Brown, 305 F. Supp. 371, 376 (S.D. Tex. 1969). That the court possesses the power to disqualify counsel for a conflict of interest has been recognized for nearly 100 years, See generally Brown v. Miller, 286 F. 994 (D.C.Cir. 1923) (attorney disqualified): In re Boone, 83 F. 944 (C.C.N_D. Cal, 1897) (attorney disbarred). & Emle Indus. v. Patentex, Inc., 478 F.2d 562, 571 (2d Cir. 1973). Good faith is generally considered irrelevant in evaluating allegedly improper conduct pursuant to a motion to disqualify counsel. See, e.g., EE Hutton & Co. v, Brown, 305 F. Supp. 371, 400 (S.D. Tex. 1969); 1.C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros, Pictures, 113 B. Supp. 263, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). 9. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC WILLIAM C, ERBEY, RONALD M. FARIS, WILLIAM H. LACY, WILBUR L, Re IR, ‘TTI, BARRY N. WISH, ROBERT ERBEY, TIMOTHY HAYES, BOULT, ARANT, BOULT, CUMMINGS LLP, ROBERT R. MADDOX, J. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C. LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN, MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES, ALTISOURCE PORTOFLIO SOLUTIONS 8.A, KEVEN WILLCOX, WESTERN PROGRESSIVE-ARIXONA, PREMIUM 6the February 26, 2014 consent judgment" (Doc.12) (Exhibit 1) and violated the said consent judgment (Doc 12) repeatedly, outside of the purview of the Court which such open and notorious continuous consumatious violations of the February 26, 2014 Consent Judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 1) has lead the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) responsible for the supervision and regulation of the Respondents/Ocwen Financial Corporation, which is a New York State Licensed mortgage banker and mortgage loan servicer, pursuant to the New York Bank Law, to force the Respondents to pay $150 million and enter into a another Consent Order dated December 19, 2014 (Exhibit 2) , for continued violations of the same fraudulent mortgage foreclosure practices which the respondents agreed to stop which are contained in the February 12, 2014 (Doc 12) (Exhibit 1) consent judgment. As part of the December 19, 2014 Consent Order (Exhibit 2), the “Boss” of the “organized” Oewen “family” of respondents William Erby, was ousted from the Oewen “family” of relates companies (Exhibit 3). ‘The second Consent Order, dated December 19, 2014 (Exhibit 2) in which the Ocwen/Respondents were forced to pay another $150 lion dollars for continued Mortgage foreclosure Fraud. The fact that the Respondents were forced to enter into a “second” consent Order (Exhibit 2) dated December 19, 2014, 11 months after the said Respondents entered into the February 12, 2014 Consent Judgment (Doc 12) (Exhibit 1), represents probably cause that the said Respondents/contemptors are in indirect criminal contempt for violating the terms and TITLE SERVICES INC., ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLC, MITRA HORMOZI, JAMES SOTTILE, WRIGHT, FINALY & ZAK LLP, ROBIN P. WRIGHT, T. ROBERT FINLAY, JONATHAN M. ZAK, KIM R. LEPORA, JOHN DOES 1-10 ET AL, 10 Ocwen had to pay $125 million fine and 2 ¥ billion in loan reduction (Doe 12) 7conditions of the February 12,2014 Consent Judgment(Doc 1) (Exhibit 1) and the Respondents with the advise and Counsel of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, ROBERT R. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C. LUMSD! PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES. Continue to aid and abetting the Ocwen Respondents in continuing to engage in thei mortgage foreclosure fraud”. The violations of the February 12, 2014 consent judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 1) continued after February 12, 2014 up and until this very date as evidenced by the fact that the Respondents have no lawful right to foreclose on the Petitioner's property, but are continuing to foreclose, based upon the advise and counsel of Robert R Maddox Notwithstanding the the charge of Indirect Criminal contempt, the violations of the February 12, 2014 Consent Judgment (Doc 12) (Exhibit! and the violations now of the Consent Order (Exhibit 2). ‘The Appellant requests that this court take judicial notice of the Prima facie and irrefutable evidence consisting of the “Second” Dec. 19,2014 Consent Order ($150 Million penalty for on going Mortgage foreclosure fraud) which clearly establishes the probably cause that the Respondents are guilty of Indirect Criminal Contempt for the Respondents violating the earlier February 26, 2014 Consent Judgment (Doc 12) and for forging 1e Adjustable Rate Note (shi 4) which the Respondents manufactured to give them standing to foreclosure on the 11 Respondent Robert R. Maddox on page 9 of Defendant-Appellee Ocwen's Opposition to Appellant's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Document #1529030 at page 9 in a footnote stated “Undersigned counsel Robert R. Maddox joins in this response on behalf of himself, his firm Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip, and the individual attorneys of his firm who Mr. Stoller named as “Respondents” in his petition. The most obvious situation giving rise to a conflict of interest is the concurrent representation of two or more clients who interests may clash. The most common is a joint defense ina criminal prosecution. If the defenses of the individuals defendants diverge or clash, the Attomey Mr. Robert Maddox, may be disqualified from representing either one or all of the defendants, Cf, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) (denial of sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel)Petitioner's family home, which is the Respondents common business practice aided and abetted by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, ROBERT R. MADDOX", J. RILEY KEY, DANA C. LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSO! KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES. ‘These attorneys did not deny that they aided and abetted the Oewen/Respondents violate the U.S. District Court Consent Judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 1). ‘These attorneys did not deny that they aided and abetted the Ocwen/Respondents create a fraudulent documents" ( Exhibit 10) to continue to conduct fraudulent foreclosure outside of the purview of this court. ‘The said Attorney/Respondents failure to advise and counsel their client Ocwen to comply with the court order (Doc 12) (Exhibit 1) was willful and with criminal intent that resulted in the obstruction of the administration of justice and lead to the New York State Department of Financial Services accessing a $150 million dollar penalty (Exhibit 2) against the Respondents a mere nine months later after the Respondents initial Consent Judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 12) the State of New York had to again curb the Respondents thirst for violating the said Consent Judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 1) by imposing a second Consent Order (Exhibit 2) Pursuant to New York Banking law §44 and extracting $150 Mil jon dollars from the said Respondents and expelling their “Boss” William Erby (Exhibit 3). 13 Respondent Robert R. Maddox on page 9 of Defendant-Appellee Oewen's Opposition to Appellant's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Document #1529030 at page 9 in a footnote stated “Undersigned counsel Robert R. Maddox joins in this response on behalf of himself, his firm Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip, and the individual attorneys of his firm who Mr. Stoller named as “Respondents” in his petition, 14 Indirect Criminal Contempt 9Evidencing that the Respondents are in fact unrepentant habitual contemptors, who have the ability to pay large sums of money ($150 Million) in order to avoid prosecution for their unlawful foreclosure acts (I/xhibit 3) as well known to Respondent Robert R. Maddox their mortgage banker foreclosure expert, Ocwen attempted to resolve the fraudulent mortgager foreclosure charges by paying 150 million in February 2014 and agreeing to a Consent Judgment (Doc 12) not to engage in continuing to unlawfully foreclose close on innocent home owners nine months later. Appellant filed a Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure filed on December 14, 2014. Service of process was had on the all of the said Respondents (on December 16, 2014) W m C. Erbey, Executive Chairman of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Board of Directors, Ronald M. Faris, William H. Lacy, Wilbur L. Ross, Jr, Robert A. Salcetti, Barry N. Wish, Mitra Hormozi, James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Timothy Hayes, General Counsel Oewen Financial Corporation, (Oewen” Soh related companies, Altisource Porto ns S.A., William Shepro, Legal Counsel and President of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. Western Progressive - Arizona, Premium Title Services Inc., Keven J, Wileox, General Counsel, Altisouree Portfolio Solutions S.A. , Keven J. Wilcox, General Counsel Altisource Portfolio Solutions 8.A. BRADLEY ARANT. BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Robert R. Maddox, J. Riley Key, Douglass Patin, Dana C. Lumsden, Phil Butler, Kimberly B. Martin, Margaret Oertling Cripples, Robert Patterson, Wright Finlay & Zak, Robin P. Wright, T. Robert Finlay, Jonathan M. Zak, Kim R. Lepore, herein after referred to as “Respondents”. ‘The Appellant file on December 28, 2014 Judicial Notice incorporated herein by referenee, 10which was filed in support of Petitioner's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt for violations of the the February 26, 2014 Consent Judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 1). For manufacturing and forging an Adjustable Rate Note (Exhibit 4 and a fraudulent Notice of Trustee Sale (Exhibit 5) in order for the said Attorneys to give the Ocwen/Respondents the standing to foreclose this is an undisputed fact which the said attorneys have not denied and is now admitted. The contumacious violations of the February 12, 2014 consent judgment (Doc 12) (Exhibit 1) continued after February 12, 2014 up and until until this very date as evidenced by the fact that the said attorneys still insist that the said foreclosure will be had. Respondents have 10 lawful right to foreclose Petitioner's property, but are continuing to foreclose notwithstanding the the charge of Indirect Criminal contempt, the violations of the February 12, 2014 Consent Judgment (Doc 12) (Exhibit1 and the violations now of the Consent Order (Exhibit 2) as well as the forged adjustable rate note. (Exhibit 10). REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION IS MANDATED ‘The respondents indirect consummations behavior was in or near the presence of the court. The accused Respondents/contemptors violated the Consent Judgment (Doc 12)(Exhibit 1) from February 12, 2014 up and until the present date. The Respondent/contemptors have not taking the remedial action to cure their contumacious conduet and to dismiss the Fraudulent Notice of Trustee Foreclosure" Sale (Exhibit 5) of the Petitioner's family home with prejudice 15 Respondents, their Ring leader, consigliere to the Oewen “family” and former Mortgage Banker, Robert R. Maddox on behalf of six Respondents, stated in Defendant-Appellee Oowen's Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Affirmance (Document 152654) USCA Case 14-5265 filed on 12/10/2014 at page 8”...the foreclosure (of the Petitioner’s family home) sale will be set again.” This despite the fraudulent Notice of Trustee Sale (Exhibit 5) and the fraudulent, forged Adjustable Rate Note (Exhibit 4). The court is also requested to take Judicial Notice of a Letter (Exhibit 6) from Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC's Altomney/Respondents Wright Finlay & Zak, Respondent Kim R. Lepore, The Trustee's Sale that was scheduled for November 2014 has been canceled. Although a new Trustee's Sale will be scheduled, a trustee's Sale on the subject property is not fraudulent.” 3 uwwhen the Respondents became aware that the Adjustable Rate Note (Exhibit 4) was a forgery containing a manufactured enforcement created to give the Respondents the right to foreclose on the Petitioner's Property in clear violation of the Consent Decree (Doe 12) Exhibit 1. The forged, fraudulent Adjustable Rate Note (Exhibit 4)represented a obstruction of justice to the judicial process, and was intended to disrespect the court. ‘The said attorneys have not denied that they aided and abetted their client Ocwen/Respondents manufacture and forgery of the signature of the vice president Laurie Meder on the fraudulent Adjustable Rate Note (Exhibit 4). Which the said attorneys knew or should have known that it constituted indirect criminal contempt and a criminal offense under the laws of the United States or the state in which the act was committed, This fraudulent document Exhibit 4) was manufactured by the Respondents, which its officers, directors and lawyers had actual and constructive notice of with the Willful intend to obstruct the administration of justice and they have not denied that fact. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, ROBERT R. MADDOX", J. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS: PATIN, DANA C, LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES MUST BE DISQUALIFIED AS A. MATTER OF LAW_ In resolving motions to disqualify, a Federal Court looks to local nules of the court, rules of professional responsibility adopted by the court and Federal Law. See Paul v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2D 17, 20 (D.D.C. 2008). “In the case at bar, the Court must consider two questions in turn: first, whether a violation of an page one 16 Respondent Robert R. Maddox on page 9 of Defendant-Appellee Ocwen's Opposition to Appellant's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Document #1529030 at page 9 in a footnote stated “Undersigned counsel Robert r. Maddox joins in this response on behalf of himself, his firm Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip, and the individual attorneys of his firm who Mr. Stoller named as “Respondents” in his petition. 12applicable rule of professional Conduct has occurred or is occurring, and if'so whether such violation provides sufficient grounds for disqualification, .it is clear that “a Federal Court has the power to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it” id Citing to Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., $01 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (citing Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat 529, 531, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824)).”The court bears responsibility for supervision the members of its bar and its exercise of this supervisory duty is discretionary”. Groper v. Taff, 717 F.2d 1415, 1418 (D.C.Cir. 1983). In addition motions to disqualify are governed by two sources of authority. Firs altorneys are bound by the local rules of the court in which they appear. Federal District Courts usually adopt the rules of Professional Conduct of the states where they are situated. Second because motions to disqualify counsel in federal proceedings are substantive motions affecting the rights of the parties they are decided by applying standards developed under federal lav. VIOLATION OF RULE 1.7 Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7--Conflict of Interest: General Rule Representation Absolutely Prohibited -Rule 1.7(a) (a) A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter. (b) Except as permitted by paragraph (c) below, a lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if: (1) That matter involves a specific party or parties and a position to be taken by that client in that matter is adverse to a position taken or to be taken by another client in the same matter even though that client is unrepresented or represented by a different lawyer, (2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of another client; (3) Representation of another client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by such representation; (4) The lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal interests. Respondent Robert R. Maddox, not only represents himself now but he also represents Owen 1BFinancial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, J. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C, LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES, (2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of all of these multiply clients. In addition Robert R. Maddox will also be called as a witness. Mr. Robert R. Maddox should be disqualified because of his simultaneous representation of himself and 9 other clients in As the Seventh Ci an Indirect Criminal Contempt proceedin; uit noted in Enoch », Gramiley 70 F. 3d 1490 (7" Cir. 1995) “actual conflicts of interest are most common where an attorney simultaneously represents two co-defendants in the same criminal case, since exculpating one client may depend on inculpating the other.” Respondent Robert R. Maddox is per se disqualified because he may “be constrained from making certain arguments on behalf of his client(s) because of his own involvement, or may be tempted to minimize his own conduct at the expense of his client(s) U.S. v. Matsa, United States District Court, $.D, Ohio, Eastern Division, Oct. 19, 2010 F. Supp 2d 2010 WL. 4117548. ‘The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the court to inquire into the likelihood of conflict whenever jointly charged defendants are represented by a single attorney Rule 44(c) US. v. Gonzalez, United States District Court, D.Rhode Island, March 25, 2014 F.Supp ed 2014 WI 1225675 ‘The probity of Robert R. Maddox's own conduct in the case at bar n serious question and it is impossible for Mr. Maddox to give his clients detached advice, to his multiple clients. There is no question that a “conflict of interests” exists as between Mr. Robert R. Maddox 14multiple representation of himself and all of these other clients at the same time, The probity of Mr. Maddox's own conduct in this case is in serious question, it is impossible for Mr. Maddox to give his clients detached advice. Mr. Maddox must be disqualified as well as the firm of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. IN THIS MATTER IS VIOLATION OF RULE 1.7 Applying the plaint language of rule 1.7, itis clear that Mr. Robert Maddox and his law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP representation of BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Robert R. Maddox, J. Riley Key, Douglass Patin, Dana C. Lumsden, Phil Butler, Kimberly B, Martin, Margaret Oertling Cripples, Robert Patterson, OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC in the present case is an unambiguous violation thereof. It is uncontested that Robert R, Maddox and his co respondents aided and abetted OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC in the preparation of the forged the Adjustable Rate Note (Exhibit 4) which the Respondents manufactured to give them standing to unlawfully foreclosure on the Petitioner's family home. It is also plain threat the interest of Mr. Maddox and all of the parties that he represents are materially adverse. There is also no question that Mr. Maddox has also violated Rule 8.4. MR. MADDUX VIOLATED THE Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4— Misconduct Itis professional misconduct for Mr. Maddox to have: (a) Violated or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; 135(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;(the forged Adjustable Rate Note Exhibit 4, the fraudulent Notice of Trust Sale Exhibit 5) (@) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice;(the use of the forged Adjustable Rate Note to have advised his client Ocwen/respondents to continue unlawfully foreclosing on the Petitioner's family home. DISQUALIFICATION Background Considerations ‘The only valid conclusion here is that Mr, Maddox in conjunction with his firm BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP are guilty of a clear violation of Rule 1.7 and Rule 8.4, The question for this court now to decide is whether these violations should result in the granting of Petitioner’s Motion to disqualify. The Fifth Circuit has stated that the Federal court is obliged to take measures against unethical conduet occurring in connection with any proceeding before it. American Airlines, 972 F, 2d at 615 (Citing Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F. 2d 804, 810 (5" 1976))) *23 Under this approach, a “motion to disqualify counsel is the proper method for a party-litigant to bring the issues of conflict of interest or beach of ethical duties to the attention of the court” id, At 611 (quoting Muicus ¥. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 621 F 2d 742, 744 (5" Cir, 1980)) Other Circuits have suggested a similar aflirmative duty on the part of the courts to discipline members of the bar through disqualification in the face of violations of applicable rules of professional conduct. See e.g. Kevlik . Goldstein, T24 F.2d 844, 847 (I Cir 1984)C“the court has the duty and responsibility of supervising the conduct of attorneys who appear before it a violation of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility sufficient grounds for disqualification; Trust Corp ¥. Piper Aircraft Corp.,.701 F 2d 85, 87 (9" Cir 1983) (same); Int 16Bus Mach Corp v. Levin, 379 F.2d 271, 279 (3 Cir 1978) ("If the facts found by the court establish that practitioners before it have acted in a way which disqualifies them under its rules and establishes standards of professional conduet, it would ordinarily be error the the court to fail to declare the disqualification.) ‘There are clear reasons to disqualify Mr. Maddox in conjunetion with his firm BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP in addition to the said ethical violations cited here. Mr, Maddox conduct have irreversible “tainted” these proceedings Smith v. Abbott, 311 S.W.3d 62, 73 (Tex. App.—-Austin 2010, no pet. h), This court is now also asked to take judicial notice of a letter (Exhibit ) from United State Court of Appeals Eleventh Cireuit dated January 5, 2015, igned by Ellen K. Garber, Deputy Clerk 404-335-6 164 stating that Respondent(s), Kimberly B. Martin, Philip H. Butler and Robert R. Maddox are not members of this Court's Bar. This letter from the Eleventh Circuit is in direct contradiction to bar Admissions claims of Ms. Kimberly B. Martin (Exhibit ), Philip Butler (Exhibit and Robert Maddox (Exhibit ) listed on their Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Web cite http:/Avww.babe.com/ which claims that the sai Respondent(s) Kimberly B. Mar in, Philip H. Butler and Robert R. Maddox are in fact members of the United States Court of Appeals 11" Circuit"’. In the event that this fact it is true, that Respondent(s) Kimberly B. Martin, Robert Maddox” and Philip Butler” are not 17 The distinction between puffing versus misrepresentation was again examined in Valentine v, Watters, 896 So. 2d 385 (Ala, 2004), wherein the Alabama Supreme Court recognized a cause of action against an attorney for alleged misrepresentation of his skills. See also n Baker v. Dorfinan, 239 F3rd 415 (2d Cir. 2000) 18 http://www:babe,com/robert-maddon’#t, VLFe2VdWSo 19 http://www:babe.com/phil-butler/#. VLFdhl VaWSo, 7members of the United States Court of Appeals 11" Circuit, they will have misrepresented” their credentials on the Bradley Arant Bout Cummings LLP web site, in violation of the DC Professional Rules of Conduct. RULE 8.4(c)— MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) Engage in conduet involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. All three of these respondents also claim to be members of the Alabama State Bar which also finds the misrepresentation of qualifications to be a violation of the Alabama State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct” 20 Like Alabama, other states have universally taken a dim view of attomeys misrepresenting their credentials. In the matter of Michael Hensley Wells, Opinion No. 26969 (May 9, 2011), the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued a public reprimand and monetary fine against an attomey for exaggeration of his law firm experience. See also DC Appeals case In Re Hadzi-Antich 497 A.2d 1062 (1985) 21 Beyond being sued for civil damages, an attomey’s misrepresentation of qualifications may lead to a Bar complaint and disciplinary action. Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct (ARPC) 1.1 outlines the requirement that an attomey provide competent representation. Helpful to attorney: the provision of ARPC 1.5, which allows an attomey to accept a matter in a wholly novel field if the attorney can gain an understanding of the matter through necessary study. The compliance with Rule 1.5, however, should include an understanding by the client that the attorney will in fact have to become educated on the particular matter. Otherwise, an attorneys stands to violate ARCP 7.1. ARPC 7.1 warns lawyers not to engage in conduct involving representations which create an “unjustified expectation” about the results: A lawyer shall not make or cause to be made a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it: (a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; (b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve. or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (c) compares the quality of the lawyer's services with the quality of other lawyers’ services, except as provided in Rule 7.4; or (d) communicated the certification of the lawyer by a certifying organization, except as provided in Rule 7.4. Given the broad perimeters of the ARPC, any misrepresentation of expertise and skill may be a ground for violation, 18WHEREFORE, for reasons stated above Appellant/Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to Disqualify Appellee's counsel Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, ROBERT R. MADDOX”, J. RILEY KEY, DOUGLASS PATIN, DANA C. LUMSDEN, PHIL BUTLER, ROBERT PATTERSON, KIMBERLY B. MARTIN and MARGARET OERTLING CRIPPLES Respectfully Submitted 's| Christopher StoUler, Appellant Legal Researcher 6045 W, Grand Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60639 312-834-9717 email Ldms4 22 Respondent Robert R. Maddox on page 9 of Defendant-Appellee Oowen's Opposition to Appellant's Petition for Adjudication of Indirect Criminal Contempt Document #1529030 at page 9 in a footnote stated “Undersigned counsel Robert R. Maddox joins in this response on behalf of himself, his firm Bradley Arant Bout Cummings Lip, and the individual attorneys of his firm who Mr. Stoller named as “Respondents” in his petition. 19IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbi: it Appeal No. 14-5265 CONSUMER FINANCIAL ) PROTECTION BUREAL, et al., ) Plaintiff’ Appellee! ) On Appeal from ) Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ) Final Order 10/15/2014 ¥ ) Civil Action No, 13-2025(RMC) ) OCWEN FINANCIAL ) CORPORATION, et al., ) Defendants/Appellee/Respondents —_) ) CHRISTOPHER STOLLER ) Intervenor/ppellant/Petitioner ) NOTICE OF FILING TO: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 10th day of January 2015, there was filed via First Class Mail with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit the attached 1) Motion to Disqualify s! Christopher Stoller, Appellant/Petitioner 6045 W. Grand Avenue Suite 414 Chicago, Illinois 60639 312-834-9717 email Ldms4@hotmail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Original electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Appeals Court using the CM/ECF System for filing this 10th' day of January, 2015 and via First Class. mail pre paid Mail to the parties listed on the attached service. si\Christopher Stoller 20Clerk of the Court SERVICE L E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse and Wiliam 8. Bryant Annex 333 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 William C. Erbey, Executive Chairman, Oewen Board of Directors Ronald M, Faris, Oowen Board of Directors Ronald J. Korn, Ocwen Board of Directors William H. Lacy, Oewen Board of Directors Wilbur L. Ross, Jr, Ocwen Board of Directors Robert A. Salcetti, Ocwen Board of Directors Barry N. Wish, Oowen Board of Directors Mitra Hormozi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP Timothy Hayes, General Counsel owen Financial Corporation 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL. 33409 Ocwen Financial Corporation, related companies William Shepro, Legal Counsel and President of of Altisource™ Portfolio Solutions S.A. And for 888-255-1791 Western Progressive — Arizona, Premium Title Services Inc., 2002 Summit Blvd, suite 600 Atlanta, Ga 30319 wwwaltisource com/ Keven J. Wilcox, General Counsel Ocwen Financial Corporation related company, Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. Western Progressive — Arizona, Premium Title Services Inc., 2002 Summit Blvd, suite 600 866-960-8299 Atlanta, Ga 30319 23 http:/‘www.marketwatch.com/story/altisouree-investigation-initiated-by-former-louisiana-attomey- general-kahn-swick-foti-Ile-investigates-altisource-portfolio-solutions-sa-following-disclosure-of- department-of-financial-services-2014-08-10 24 Western Progressive, Premium Title Services Inc. Altisource's wholly owned trustee subsidiaries, processes residential non-judicial foreclosures in California, Nevada and Arizona. Western Progressive-Arizona, Inc. 1150 E. University Drive Tempe, AZ 85281. Phone: 866-960-8299 : stephanie. spurlock@altisource.com 21Robert R. Maddox J. Riley Key BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 521-8454 Fax: (205) 488-6454 Email: rmaddox@babe.com Defendant/Respondent OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC represented by Robert R. Maddox, (See above for address) atin, Douglas L. (Doug) Bradley Arant Bout Cummings LL 1615 L Street, NW. Suite 1350 Washington, Dc 20086 P: 202:393,7150 dpatin@babe.com Lumsden, Dana C. Bradley Arant Bout Cummings LLP Bank of America Corporate Center 100 N. Tryon Street Suite 2600, Charlotte, NC 28202 P: 704,338,600 dlumsden@babe.com Phil Butler Bradley Arant Bout Cummings LLP RSA Dexter Avenue Building 445 Dexter Avenue Suite 2075 Montgomery, AL 36104 P: 534.956.7700 pbutier@babe.com Patterson, Robert S. (Bob) Bradley Arant Bout Cummings LL Roundabout Plaza 1600 Division Street Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37208 bpatterson@babe.com P: 616.244.2582 22Kimberly B, Martin Bradley Arant Bout Cummings LLP” 200 Clinton Avenue West Suite 900 Huntsville, AL 35801-4900 P: 2585175100 kmartin@babe-com Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP One Jackson Place 188 E. Capitol Street Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 P: 601.948.8000 Managing Partner Cupples, Margaret ertling Partner meupples@babe.com Kim R. Lepore Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP 18444 N. 25" Ave 420 Phoenix, Ax 85023 General Counsel Alabama State Bar Center for Professional Responsibility 415 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (800) 354-6154 (334) 269-1515 Fax: (334) 261-6311 Website: www.alabarorg Chief Bar Counsel State Bar of Arizona 4201 North 24th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266 (866) 482-9227 (602) 252-4804 Fax: (602) 271-4930 Website: www.azbar.org 23DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel 515 5th Street, NW Building A, Room 117 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 638-1501 Fax: (202) 638-0862 Website: www.debarorg FLORIDA Director of Lawyer Regulation ‘The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL. 32399-2300 (800) 342-8060 (850) 561-5776 Fax: (850) 561-9403 Website: www.flabar.org GEORGIA General Counsel State Bar of Geor 104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30303 (800) 334-6865 ext. 720 (404) 527-8720 Bax: (404) 527-8744 Website: www.gabar.org MISSISSIPPI General Counsel Mississippi State Bar 643 North State Street Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 948-0568 Fax: (601) 355-8635 Website: www.msbarorg 24NORTH CAROLINA Counsel North Carolina State Bar Post Office Box 25908 Raleigh, NC 27611-5908 (919) 828-4620 Fax: (919)834-8156 Website: www.nebar.gov U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001, AskDO.J@usdoj.gov New York State Department of Financial Services Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent One State Street New York, NY 10004-1511 25