No. 19-291
`
`In The
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`ANNE BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`WSBA, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States District Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
`
`REPLY TO RESPONDENT KENYON DISEND AND CITY OF GOLD BAR’S
`OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ANNE'JBLOCK
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 98272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`
`
`In The
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`ANNE BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`WSBA, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States District Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
`
`REPLY TO RESPONDENT KENYON DISEND AND CITY OF GOLD BAR’S
`OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ANNE'JBLOCK
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 98272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`444
`
`4 55 5 7
`
`INTRODUCTION
`THE RESPONDENTS INTRODUCTION
`I. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE PETITION
`(A) Procedural Facts:............................................
`(B) Substantive facts:............................................
`II. REPLY ARGUMENTS
`A. All three judges associated in this case have
`pre-existing conflicts of interest which require their
`disqualification.
`B. The plaintiff has properly pled first
`amendment retaliation claims.
`C. The Bar’s actions of retaliating for asserting
`her right to disassociate from the Bar violated her
`constitutional right to disassociate from
`organizations she disagrees with.
`CONCLUSION............................
`
`10
`11
`
`1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Acosta Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
`1992)............................................................................
`Allapattah Services Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 362 F.3d 739
`(11th Cir. 2004)..........................................................
`Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents,
`824 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2016)...........................
`Arrington v. Dickerson, 915 F. Supp. 1516.............
`Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1, 7 (1971).....
`Bd. ofCty. Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674
`10
`(1996)...........................................................................
`10
`Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976)...................
`Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994). 7
`11
`Harris v. Quinn, 134 S.Ct. 2618
`Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and
`Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585
`10, 11
`U.S.___(2018)
`Keller v. State Bar of California 496 U.S. 1, 4 (1990)
`11
`
`8,9
`10
`
`7 9 9
`
`Knox v. Service Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000
`11
`CSEIU”), 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012).....................
`11
`Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 843 (1961).
`Meehan v. County of L.A., 856 F.2d 102, 105 n.l (9th
`7
`Cir. 1988).
`New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
`10
`
`Plechner v. Widener College, Inc., 569 F.2d 1250,
`1262 n. 7 (3d Cir. 1977)...........................................
`6,7
`Republic of Kazakhstan v. Does 1-100, 192 Wn. App.
`773
`
`9
`
`2
`
`
`
`10
`
`7 7 68
`
`Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)....
`State v. Young, 89 Wn.2d 613, 625, 574 P.2d 1171
`(1978).....................................................................
`Other Authorities
`6 Goodrichamram 2d, Standard Pennsylvania
`Practice § 2158.1 (1977).......................................
`Rules
`Pa. R. Civ. P. 2158...................................................
`Supreme Court rule 10............................................
`
`3
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Respondents’ assert to this Court that there is
`nothing unique or unusual about a news reporter
`being disbarred for reporting and publishing on
`public officials’ corruption. They see nothing wrong
`with the bar association issuing a subpoena
`demanding Ms. Block to divulge confidential sources,
`turner over reporter files not related to a client,
`when RCW 5.68.010 (Media Shield), the First
`Amendment, and the Washington Constitution
`prohibits such infringement of citizen’s rights. They
`offer no explanation as to how their thinly disguised
`attempt at censor and punish a member of the press
`and free speech of lawyers has anything to do with
`the practice of law.
`This case is unique because it involves for the
`first time in United States history when a news
`reporter, who happened to be a licensed attorney, is
`disbarred because of she writes about public officials
`corrupt acts in a publication. If allow to stand, years
`of case law are virtually overturned simply because
`Ms. Block was a lawyer who chose to investigate and
`report on corruption inside Washington State
`agencies. Every American’s precious constitutional
`right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press
`suffers when government officials punish lawful
`First Amendment activity.
`The court should take notice that some of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`more active participants in the denial of first
`amendment rights of Anne Block, i.e. the Snohomish
`County, King County, WSBA, and Sky Valley
`defendants, have not even attempted to justify their
`actions against Ms. Block by submitting responses.
`Others who have, namely the Kenyon Disend, Gold
`Bar, and Port of Seattle defendants (collectively
`addressed here as “the respondents”), only provide
`inapplicable technical defenses, and provide no
`countervailing authority on substantive issues,
`essentially conceding that they have undermined
`important first amendment right established by
`previous Supreme Court precedents, as well as
`violated Block’s constitutional right to associate and
`disassociate with organizations of her own choosing.
`The Court should take notice that Ms. Block
`has never been sued by anyone for defamation.
`
`THE RESPONDENTS INTRODUCTION
`In their introduction, the respondents
`repeatedly refer to the plaintiff as “vexatious” while
`also mentioning the fact that a “vexatious litigant”
`order was entered. They conveniently leave out the
`fact that the vexatious litigant order was reversed
`and remanded to the trial court for further action.
`I. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE PETITION
`(A) PROCEDURAL FACTS:
`There are no significant disputes as to the
`procedural posture of this case.
`
`5
`
`
`
`(B) SUBSTANTIVE FACTS:
`There are no significant disputes as to the
`substantive facts of this case. The respondents have
`not challenged any of the substantive allegations
`given in the petition, and their version simply lists
`the allegations made in the complaint.
`
`II. REPLY ARGUMENTS
`A. All three judges associated in this case have pre
`existing conflicts of interest which require their
`disqualification.
`The gravamen of the respondents’ argument is
`that the plaintiff has not pointed out to any
`significant disputes among the circuits as to warrant
`Supreme Court review. They ignore completely the
`apparent dispute of the ninth circuit with the third
`circuit in the case of Plechner v. Widener College,
`Inc., 569 F.2d 1250, 1262 n. 7 (3d Cir.1977), which
`supports Block.
`That case ruled that the amenability of an
`unincorporated association to suit is governed by the
`law of the state in which the court sits. Underwood v.
`Maloney, 256 F.2d 334 (3d Cir. 1957), cert, denied,
`358 U.S. 864, 3 L. Ed. 2d 97, 79 S. Ct. 93 (1958); See
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). In Plechner, the forum state
`was Pennsylvania, which, allows suit to be brought
`against an unincorporated association either in its
`own name or that of an officer as trustee ad litem.
`Pa. R. Civ. P. 2153. A judgment entered against an
`association alone in Pennsylvania, will support
`
`6
`
`
`
`execution upon its property but not that of an
`individual member. Pa. R. Civ. P. 2158. 6
`Goodrichamram 2d, Standard Pennsyvania Practice
`§ 2158.1 <1977).
`That is not the case in Washington, where the
`common law prevails, which make all Washington
`federal judges liable if Block prevails. The
`respondents did not make any argument as to why
`Block’s analysis of Washington State case law was
`erroneous.
`In Washington, courts may assume that where
`no authority is cited, counsel has found none after
`search. State v. Young, 89 Wn.2d 613, 625, 574 P.2d
`1171 (1978).
`Similarly, the respondents ignored the
`apparent dispute with the third circuit in Plechner,
`id.
`
`The ninth circuit has made similar rulings to
`Washington’s State v. Young id- See Acosta Huerta v.
`Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992); see also
`Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994);
`Meehan v. County of L.A., 856 F.2d 102, 105 n.l (9th
`Cir. 1988).
`B. The plaintiff has properly pled first amendment
`retaliation claims.
`For a private citizen, the tests for establishing
`a prima facie case for first amendment retaliation
`are covered under the following three-part test, (l)
`that his or her speech is protected by the First
`Amendment; (2) that the defendants took an adverse
`
`7
`
`
`
`action against the plaintiff and (3) that the adverse
`action was prompted or caused by the plaintiffs
`exercise of his or her First Amendment rights.
`Arrington v. Dickerson, 915 F. Supp. 1516.
`This is essentially the same three-part test
`that was articulated in Arizona Students’Ass’n v.
`Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir.
`2016) (discussing requirements for retaliation claim),
`which the panel cited as the basis for its dismissal.
`Significantly, this was the only test mentioned in
`Arizona Students id, as that case was primarily a
`case involving damage immunity for those who
`possessed 11th amendment immunity.
`The joint briefing does not address this
`analysis that resulted in the dismissal of her claim.
`Instead, they claim that there is no basis for appeal
`to the United States Supreme Court, contending this
`appeal is primarily “fact bound”. In support of this
`they cite to Supreme Court rule 10, which talks
`about erroneous factual findings. The petitioner is
`not claiming any factual errors, because this was a
`motion on the pleadings in which there is no factual
`findings as all allegations are construed in favor of
`the non-moving party. The petitioner is claiming
`there was an error of law, in the way the law was
`applied to a series of allegations that were
`unchallenged for the purpose of a motion of the
`pleadings.
`At no point did the plaintiff contend that this
`set of facts were so unique as to not be capable of
`
`8
`
`
`
`repetition as in Allapattah Services Inc. v. Exxon
`Corp., 362 F.3d 739 (llth Cir. 2004). In fact, just the
`opposite could be argued. If the kind of analysis used
`by the district court and the court of appeals were
`used on all first amendment cases, then it is difficult
`to imagine any kind of first amendment case
`surviving, because the respondents have basically
`admitted that all three prongs of Arrington v.
`Dickerson, 915 F. Supp. 1516, and Arizona Students’
`Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 867
`(9th Cir. 2016) were met because they refused to
`apply any analysis as to why they were not met.
`In fact, none of the cases cited by the
`respondents apply because those cases involved
`disputed issues of fact. Here, since the case was won
`on a motion on the pleadings, and the respondents
`did not dispute the plausibility of any of the
`allegation in their response, the facts are essentially
`conceded and the appeal cannot be considered as
`“fact bound.”
`The Kenyon respondents claim there is no
`basis for concluding that any of the district court
`findings contradicted established U.S. Supreme court
`precedents. However, by failing to even address
`arguments based upon first amendment, such as the
`three part test in Arrington v. Dickerson, supra, and
`Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents
`
`9
`
`
`
`supra, or media shield in RCW 5.68.0101, the
`respondents have undermined the protections given
`in all the Supreme Court cases cited in the petition
`including Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14
`(l976)(broadest first amendment protections given
`for political speech), Roth v. United States, 354 U.S.
`476, 484 (1957), Bd. ofCty. Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518
`U.S. 668, 674 (1996);( threatening or causing
`pecuniary harm), Baird v. State Bar ofAriz., 401
`U.S. 1, 7 (1971); (withholding a license, right, or
`benefit), In Re Rufallo, 390 US 544 (denying due
`process for convicting of bar violations without
`charging them), as well as undermining principles in
`New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
`(which put restrictions on the power of public
`officials to sue for defamation.)
`C. The Bar’s actions of retaliating for asserting
`her right to disassociate from the Bar violated her
`constitutional right to disassociate from
`organizations she disagrees with.
`In her petition, the appellant brought forth
`detailed arguments on how compulsory subsidies
`such as mandatory bar association dues cannot be
`sustained under existing case law. She also supplied
`detailed briefing demonstrating how her appeal was
`an issue of first impression as to how mandatory bars
`
`1 First Amend, extended to online publications such as the
`Gold Bar Reporter in Republic of Kazakhstan v. Does 1-
`100, 192 Wn. App. 773. It protects against subpoenas which
`disclosure would identity of a source of any news source.
`10
`
`
`
`can be legal following this court’s decision in Janus v.
`American Federation of State, County, and
`Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585
`U.S.__ (2018).
`Contrary to the respondents assertion, Block
`has pointed out this case has raised an unsettled
`area of the law, namely, whether the finding in
`Janus should now be applied to bar associations,
`who, like public unions coerce members of a
`profession to join an organization. The respondents
`confusingly assert that Block has not argued how
`this case violates principles established in other
`supreme court cases, but provide no authority which
`contradicts her arguments as to how the ninth circuit
`violated principles established in Knox v. Service
`Emps. Inti Union, Local 1000 CSEIU”), 132 S. Ct.
`2277 (2012), Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 843
`(1961), Keller v. State Bar of California 496 U.S. 1, 4
`(1990), Harris v. Quinn, 134 S.Ct. 2618 and other
`cases cited to by her in her petition.
`For the most part, the respondents have
`ignored substantive arguments raised by the
`petition, instead asking this court to summarily
`reject the petition on their unproven assertion that
`this appeal is “fact bound.” As argued earlier,
`respondents cannot ignore these substantive
`arguments by not providing countervailing authority.
`It is not up to the United States Supreme Court to
`provide arguments for them.
`
`11
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`For all the foregoing reasons, petitioner
`respectfully requests the US Supreme Court to reject
`the reply arguments raised by the limited number of
`respondents and grant review in this case.
`
`Dated this 12 day of November, 2019.
`
`Anne Block, Pro Se
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 98272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`12
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
