In re Jordan

518 P.3d 1203

In the MATTER OF Jack R.T. JORDAN, Respondent.

No. 124,956

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion Filed October 21, 2022.

Alice L. Walker, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Julia A. Hart, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, and Gayle B. Larkin, Disciplinary Administrator, were with her on the brief for petitioner.

Jack R.T. Jordan, respondent, argued the cause and was on the briefs pro se.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

Per Curiam:

This is a contested attorney discipline proceeding against Jack R.T. Jordan, of North Kansas City, Missouri, who was admitted to practice law in Kansas in 2019. A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys concluded Jordan violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct during federal court proceedings initiated to obtain a document known as the "Powers e-mail" under the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2018). Across various pleadings, Jordan persistently accused multiple federal judges of lying about that e-mail's contents, lying about the law, and committing crimes including conspiring with others to conceal the document.

The panel unanimously found Jordan's conduct violated KRPC 3.1 (frivolous claims and contentions) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 390); 3.4(c) (disobeying obligations under tribunal rules) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 395); 8.2(a) (making false or reckless statement regarding qualifications or integrity of a judge) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 432); 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 434); and 8.4(g) (conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 434). The panel recommends disbarment, and the Disciplinary Administrator's office agrees. Jordan filed exceptions to the panel's report and argues discipline cannot be imposed because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects his statements. He also claims his assertions have not been proven false.

We hold clear and convincing evidence establishes Jordan's violations of KRPC 3.1, 3.4(c), 8.2(a), and 8.4(d) and (g). And based on that, we disbar him from practicing law in this state.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint alleging various KRPC violations against Jordan on August 27, 2021. He answered on September 16, 2021. The panel conducted a one-day hearing on January 12, 2022. Respondent appeared pro se. The Disciplinary Administrator called Jordan and its investigator W. Thomas Stratton Jr. as witnesses. Jordan repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about his conduct. Stratton's testimony established that Jordan had previously admitted he carefully considered his actions, and that Jordan did not supply any evidence he had ever viewed the Powers e-mail before accusing federal judges of lying about its contents. The panel issued an 87-page report that provides in relevant part:

"Findings of Fact

"42. The hearing panel finds the following facts, by clear and convincing evidence:

"Administrative Proceedings and Lawsuit in District of Columbia

"43. The respondent's wife, M.J., was injured at the U.S. Consulate in Erbil, Iraq. The respondent represented M.J. in an action under the Defense Base Act.

"44. During administrative proceedings, the respondent sought production of an email that the respondent referred to as ‘Powers’ email".

"45. Administrative Law Judge Merck denied production of an unredacted version of Powers' email to the respondent based on attorney-client privileged information within the email.

"46. The respondent filed interlocutory appeals and requests for reconsideration of Administrative Law Judge Merck's decision regarding Powers' email.

"47. The respondent submitted a Freedom of Information Act (‘FOIA’) request to the U.S. Department of Labor (‘DOL’) for certain documents, including Powers' email, which was denied.

"48. On September 19, 2016, the respondent filed a lawsuit against the DOL, Jordan v. United States Department of Labor , 17-cv-02702 (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, September 19, 2016).

"49. This matter was assigned to the Honorable Judge Rudolph Contreras, District Court Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"50. Judge Contreras reviewed Powers' email in camera .

"51. After Judge Contreras conducted an in camera review of Powers' email, he ruled that the email was protected by attorney-client privilege.

"52. Judge Contreras' decision was affirmed on appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Jordan v. U.S. Department of Labor (18-cv-6129) in Western District of Missouri

"53. On August 29, 2018, the respondent filed a lawsuit pro se on his own behalf, Jordan v. U.S. Department of Labor , 18-cv-6129, challenging the denial of FOIA requests for Powers' email in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

"54. The Honorable Judge Ortrie Smith, District Court Judge for the Western District of Missouri, presided over this matter.

"55. The DOL filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the respondent's complaint relating to Powers' email.

"56. Judge Smith granted the DOL's motion to dismiss relating to Powers' email.

"57. On April 9, 2019, the respondent appealed the matter to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"58. On February 21, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

"[F.T.] v. U.S. Department of Labor (19-cv-00493) in Western District of Missouri "59. On June 26, 2019, F.T. filed a lawsuit against the DOL in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri, [F.T.] v. U.S. Department of Labor , 19-cv-00493, seeking a court order that the DOL release Powers' email. F.T. filed this suit after having filed FOIA requests for certain documents, including Powers' email.

"60. The Honorable Judge Ortrie Smith presided over this matter.

"61. On July 25, 2019, Judge Smith issued an order staying the matter pending the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of the appeal in Jordan v. U.S. Department of Labor , 18-cv-6129.

"62. On October 17, 2019, the respondent entered his appearance to represent F.T. in [F.T .] v. U.S. Department of Labor , 19-cv-00493. F.T.'s former attorneys were granted leave to withdraw the next week. At the time of the former attorneys' withdrawal, the respondent was F.T.'s only attorney.

"63. On November 19, 2019, the respondent filed a document titled, ‘Plaintiff's Suggestions Supporting Motion to Remedy Judge Smith's Lies and Crimes and Lift the Stay or Disqualify Judge Smith’.

"64. Within that filing, the respondent wrote headlines that included, in part, the following statements:

• ‘Judge Smith Is Knowingly and Willfully Violating Federal Law and the Constitution’,

• ‘Judge Smith Is Knowingly and Willfully Abusing Any Potential Discretion’,

• ‘Judge Smith Is Knowingly and Willfully (Criminally) Failing to Comply with the APA and Clear and Controlling Supreme Court Precedent’,

• ‘Judge Smith Is Committing Crimes and Helping Ray and other DOL and DOJ Employees Commit Crimes’, and

• ‘Judge Smith Must Be Disqualified If He Fails to Promptly Remedy His Knowing and Willful Violations of the Constitution and Federal Law’.

([T]he respondent acknowledged during his testimony that what is stated in public court filings filed by him was indeed written by him....)

"65. The respondent wrote in the body of that filing further statements about Judge Smith, including:

‘Plaintiff, [F.T.], respectfully requests that the Court very promptly remedy each knowing and willful falsehood ("Lie") and violation of the Constitution or federal law and crime by Judge Smith below or promptly disqualify Judge Smith for the following reasons.

* * *

‘To demonstrate how truly exceptional Judge Smith's conduct and contentions are, Plaintiff shows below that each such contention was a Lie, and Judge Smith is violating his oaths of office and the Constitution and committing crimes, specifically, to help DOL and DOJ employees violate their oaths and the Constitution and commit crimes.

* * *

‘For the foregoing reasons, Judge Smith's mere contention that he (secretly and silently) "already considered" every issue and legal authority presented by Plaintiff is irrelevant and wholly inadequate. It also necessarily is either a Lie or a confession to a crime. It certainly could be both. If he "considered" such authorities, he necessarily knew that he never had any power to knowingly violate or disregard any provision of the Constitution or federal law to deny Plaintiff any constitutional or statutory right. He swore or affirmed he would not engage in such egregious misconduct. Neither Judge Smith nor the DOL or DOJ ever even contended that he had any such power under any circumstances. He merely pretends to have such power. Such pretense has been wholly unjustified, and it cannot be justified. It is a violation of federal law; it is a violation of Judge Smith's oaths of office; it is criminal; and it is "treason to the Constitution."

* * * ‘Judge Smith's contentions and conduct for years in Jordan and in this case demonstrate that his primary goal is to knowingly violate and help the DOL and DOJ knowingly violate federal law to conceal evidence that DOL and DOJ employees asserted Lies (in a DOL adjudication or to the D.C. District Court or D.C. Circuit Court) when they purported to quote a privilege notation or they represented that Powers’ email contains an express or explicit request for legal advice. Judge Smith's actions (and refusals to act) are so inimical to our entire systems of government and law that they are criminal.

* * *

‘Judge Smith committed criminal conspiracy: he and DOJ [sic ] and DOJ employees "joined in" an "understanding," and each "knew the purpose" was to deprive Plaintiff or Jordan of clearly-established constitutional and statutory rights.

* * *

‘Judge Smith implied that he had "broad discretion" and "inherent power" to violate or disregard clear plain language of the Constitution, federal law, and

...