Full Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS SAIPAN LAU LAU DEVELOPMENT, ) ORIGINAL ACTION NO. 00-001 INC., SHIMIZU CORPORATION, and ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-1107 TOKIO MARINE & FIRE INS. CO., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) ) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ) COMMONWEALTH OF THE ) OPINION AND ORDER NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, ) RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) JUAN M. SAN NICOLAS, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) Argued and submitted November 9, 2000 Counsel for Petitioners: Randall Todd Thompson Glen Robles Matt Gregory Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson Saipan Vicente T. Salas Saipan Counsel for Mitchell: In pro per Saipan [p. 2] FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE: CASTRO, Associate Justice, ATALIG, Justice Pro Tem,1 and LAMORENA, Special Judge2 CASTRO, Associate Justice: I. INTRODUCTION On August 1, 2000 we suspended Theodore R. Mitchell fromthe practice of law in this jurisdiction, due to his conduct in the underlying petition for writ of mandamus involving the above parties. We must now decide whether that suspension should continue or, alternatively, whether Mitchell should be disbarred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as amended,3 and the Court’s inherent authority over matters of attorney misconduct.4 Because it is our duty to guard the administration of justice, to maintain the dignity of the courts and the integrity of the profession, and to protect the people of this Commonwealth, we must continue Mitchell’s suspension. [p. 3] 1 Honorable Pedro M. Atalig, retired associate justice of the Commonwealth Supreme Court, sitting by designation. 2 Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III, Presiding Judge of the Guam Superior Court, sitting by designation. 3 N.M.I. Const. art. IV, § 3 was amended by the passage of Legislative Initiative 10-3, ratified by the voters on November 1, 1997 and certified by the Board of Elections on December 13, 1997. 4 The courts have the inherent power to regulate the practice of law, whether in or out of court. See Com. Disc. R. 1 (declaring “Nothing herein contained shall be construed to deny any Court of the Commonwealth such powers as are necessary for that Court to maintain control over proceedings conducted before it”); In re the Matter of Villanueva, 1 CR 952, 956 (Dist. Ct. App. Div. 1984); In re Kramer, 193 F.3d 1131, 1132 (9th Cir. 1999); In re Crayton, 192 B.R. 970, 976 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996) (stating, “It is axiomatic that where a . . . court approves an attorney’s employment . . . , it has the power to determine actual competence after employment and to regulate the retention of that attorney”). II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND5 A. Conduct Leading up to Suspension On July 3, 2000, Petitioners filed with this Court their Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Stay (“writ petition”). That same day, we issued an Order Granting Motion for Stay and Directing Answer to Writ of Mandamus. On July 5, 2000, Petitioners moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Real Party in Interest Juan M. San Nicolas (“San Nicolas”) from disbursing certain funds outside the Commonwealth. The motion was necessitated by San Nicolas’ counsel having levied $800,056.38 (“subject funds”) in cash from Petitioners’ Saipan bank account on July 3, 2000, a few hours before this Court issued its order granting a stay. It appears from the parties’ statements during oral argument and from the record that counsel for Petitioners attempted to prevent the bank from delivering the subject funds to Mitchell. As of that date, Mitchell had known for two days of Petitioners’ writ petition and motion for stay, because Petitioners had hand-delivered these documents to his office.6 On July 6, 2000, this Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent San Nicolas from spending or disbursing outside the Commonwealth any funds levied pursuant to the Superior Court’s writ of execution, and set a hearing date on Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction.7 [p. 4] 5 In the absence of any objections, we GRANT all requests for judicial notice of the documents presented at the hearing on this matter on November 9, 2000. 6 Certificate of Service (July 3, 2000). 7 We extended the original hearing date on Petitioners’ motion for preliminary injunction at San Nicolas’ request, to afford him more time to prepare for the hearing. San Nicolas waited until the morning of the hearing, during oral argument, to present an opposition brief to the Court. Just before the hearing, San Nicolas filed a motion to recuse Chief Justice Demapan from the panel. We held a hearing on Friday, July 14, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. 8 Later that day, given the urgency of the matter and the approaching weekend, the Court issued its Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ordering San Nicolas and his attorneys to turn over the subject funds to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July 24, 2000, to be placed in an interest-bearing account. The Court also ordered San Nicolas and his attorneys to provide an accounting as to any funds not turned over to the Clerk of Court. Lastly, the Court warned that it would issue sanctions for non-compliance.9 On July 18, 2000 the Court issued a supplemental order which detailed the Court’s factual findings and analysis. The Supplemental Order by its terms was directed to “San Nicolas, his agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them and each of them.” Supplemental Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Supplemental Order”) at 3-4 (July 18, 2000). The Supplemental Order made several observations regarding the conduct of Theodore R. Mitchell, counsel for San Nicolas, during the hearing: Throughout the hearing on Petitioners’ motion, Mr. Mitchell, counsel for San Nicolas, displayed highly inappropriate behavior. He became visibly agitated and his voice became unnecessarily loud and threatening while discussing matters preliminary to Petitioners’ motion. In response to the Court’s inquiry as to what happened to the subject funds, Mr. Mitchell moved towards the bench in a threatening manner, demanded that the Court explain by what authority it asked its question, and refused to answer the Court’s direct question. Supplemental Order at 1. The Supplemental Order concluded: Failure to comply with this order shall result in sanctions. All parties and their attorneys are placed on notice that any future conduct similar to that of Mr. Mitchell, described above, is subject to sanctions, including disciplinary action by this Court. All persons 8 Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro and Justice Pro Tem Pedro M. Atalig presided over the hearing after Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan recused himself. Special Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III was later appointed to complete the panel. 9 Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (July 14, 2000). appearing before this Court are expected to display common courtesy and civility, and to avoid engaging in unnecessarily loud or physically threatening behavior. Id. at 2. [p. 5] Despite this reprimand, Mitchell filed a Declaration “In Response to” the Supplemental Order on July 20, 2000. The Declaration not only denied the Court’s description of Mitchell’s conduct in the Supplemental Order, but also contained strong language unbecoming of an officer of this Court. Following are several examples of the tone of his declaration: ¶ 18: My “voice” did not become “threatening” at any time, unless by that statement means [sic] that the force of my ideas, my reasoning and my legal argument was perceived as intellectually threatening to the judges. Declaration of Theodore Mitchell in Response to Supplemental Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction (hereinafter “Mitchell Declaration”) at 5 (July 20, 2000) (emphasis added); ¶ 28: I rightfully demanded to know on what legal basis Justice Atalig was interrogating me on that subject. Mitchell Declaration at 7-8 (emphasis added); ¶ 52: For the Supreme Court to make such a false and slanderous statement [that Mitchell engaged in physically threatening behavior] is inexcusable, irresponsible and, in my opinion, it demeans the dignity of the court itself. ¶ 53: [T]hese threatening statements by the Court seem designed to intimidate me from representing my client . . . If it is intended to chill oral advocacy in this case and to put me in fear of sanctions before I have done anything wrong, then it is highly improper for the Court to make such a statement. Mitchell Declaration at 13-14 (emphasis added). Mitchell’s Declaration also criticized one panel member several times for being argumentative, hostile, biased, openly and frankly impatient, and discourteous. Moreover, Mitchell, admittedly without factual basis, criticized another attorney, not a party to the proceedings, and accused her of improper conduct: ¶ 25: Justice Atalig, according to my observation, was visibly irritated to hear me argue that he was wrong on these points of law. Furthermore, it appeared to me that he was reading his questions from some written notes on the table before him, notes which, perhaps, had been prepared by his law partner and former law clerk, Yoon Chang. ¶ 26: Throughout the hearing, upon information and belief, Yoon Chang, who was present in the courtroom gallery, was seen nodding her head up and down or side to side in response to various parts of my presentation. I do not know whether she made those gestures in an attempt to communicate with Justice Atalig, or not. Mitchell Declaration at 25-26 (emphases added). [p. 6] On July 24, 2000, the date and time prescribed for San Nicolas and his attorneys to comply with this Court’s Supplemental Order, San Nicolas instead filed a Motion for Review by the Full Court and Motion for Stay (“Motion for Review”), and a “Response” of San Nicolas to the preliminary injunction orders. The documents do not provide any legal authority to justify San Nicolas’ or his attorney’s refusal to comply with the court order. In his Response, San Nicolas states his attorney advised him against turning the subject funds over to the Clerk of Court or providing an accounting because “I may lose my right to claim that all of the money is rightfully mine.” Response of Plaintiff Juan M. San Nicolas to Preliminary Injunctions at 3 (July 24, 2000). The Motion for Review attacks the validity of the Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supplemental Order, but does not explain why San Nicolas should not be required to comply with the Court’s order that he deposit the subject funds with the Clerk of Court. On July 26, 2000 San Nicolas filed his first motions to disqualify Justices Castro and Atalig. In its order denying these motions, the Court found them wholly without merit, designed to harass and intimidate the justices, and instituted for an improper purpose.10 On August 1, 2000 Mitchell’s unjustified refusal to comply with a Court order, his advice to his 10 Order Denying Motions for Disqualification at 3 (July 31, 2000). client to similarly refuse, his unprofessional personal attacks on the justices, and his numerous attempts to file procedural roadblocks that would prevent a ruling on the writ petition finally resulted in this Court’s Order of Suspension and Order to Show Cause (“Order to Show Cause”), temporarily suspending Mitchell and ordering him to show cause why the suspension should not continue or, alternatively, why he should not be disbarred for the above conduct.11 The Court ordered that Mitchell file a brief responsive to the Order to Show Cause, and that he notify all jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice of his suspension in the Commonwealth. The Court also gave San Nicolas one last chance to comply with the preliminary injunction and either turn over the subject funds to the Clerk of Court, or provide an accounting. [p. 7] B. Conduct During Suspension Since the Court issued its Order to Show Cause, Mitchell has engaged in conduct similar to that which precipitated the Order. 1. Dilatory Conduct On August 15, 2000 Mitchell12 filed a motion to stay the proceedings herein pending a Ninth Circuit appeal of several orders, including the Order to Show Cause. The Court subsequently denied this motion.13 The Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.14 11 Order of Suspension and Order to Show Cause (Aug. 1, 2000). 12 Although Mitchell stopped signing his Court filings as an attorney for San Nicolas, his associate Jeanne H. Rayphand signed most if not all filings as Mitchell’s and San Nicolas’ attorney. As the quality and tone of the filings suggests Mitchell continued to draft them, and as his office is still preparing and filing them, we will refer to all documents dated after August 1, 2000 as if Mitchell himself had filed them. 13 Order Denying Motion for Stay (Sept. 21, 2000). 14 Saipan Lau Lau Dev., Inc. v. Superior Court, No. 00-16677 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2000) (Order). On August 18, 2000 Mitchell moved to disqualify Special Judge Lamorena for bias.15 The Court had to appoint a separate justice pro tem to hear this unmeritorious motion, which was denied due to an insufficient showing of any basis for disqualification.16 On August 23, 2000 Mitchell filed another set of motions to disqualify Justices Castro and Atalig. The Court determined these motions to be equally without merit, because Mitchell had again failed to point to any evidence of bias stemming from an extrajudicial source.17 The Court also noted that, instead of submitting a brief pursuant to the Order to Show Cause, Mitchell elected to prolong [p. 8] his suspension and delay a hearing on the order by filing a federal lawsuit which was ultimately dismissed.18 The Court subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration of its order.19 On September 13, 2000 Mitchell filed a motion to continue the hearing on the underlying writ petition, which the Court had scheduled for September 22, 2000.20 The Court denied this motion.21 On September 15, 2000 Mitchell attempted to depose the three panel members in this matter. An accompanying Memorandum Regarding the Character of the Mitchell Disciplinary Proceedings failed to cite any legal authority that would permit him to depose a sitting justice. The Court quashed the deposition 15 Motion for Disqualification of Justice Pro Tempore Alberto C. Lamorena III and Notice (Aug. 18, 2000). 16 Order Denying Motion for Disqualification of Justice Pro Tempore Alberto C. Lamorena III (Sept. 8, 2000). 17 Order Denying Second Motions for Disqualification of Associate Justice Castro and Justice Pro Tem Atalig at 3 (Aug. 25, 2000). 18 Id. at 4. 19 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Second Motions for Disqualification of Alexandro C. Castro & Pedro M. Atalig (Sept. 21, 2000). 20 Emergency Motion of San Nicolas and Mitchell for Reconsideration and Motion for Continuance of September 22, 2000 Hearing (Sept. 13, 2000); Order Setting Hearing Re: Petitioners’ Motion for Contempt Order and Motion for Sanctions; and Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Sept. 8, 2000). 21 Order Denying Motion for Stay at 1 (Sept. 21, 2000); Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Second Motions for Disqualification at 1 (Sept. 21, 2000). notices, observing: Even assuming any authority to depose a sitting justice exists, the panel members’ depositions have been conveniently scheduled to interfere with the hearing on the petition for writ of mandamus and Defendants’ motion for contempt. Although the deposition times do not conflict with the actual hearing time, the depositions would undoubtedly interfere with preparation for the hearing and deliberation thereof. Order Quashing Notices of Deposition at 2 (Sept. 20, 2000). The Court finally held a hearing on the underlying writ on September 22, 2000, three months after Petitioners filed their writ petition. In its September 27, 2000 order the Court observed that San Nicolas had attempted to continue the September 22 hearing on several occasions, including the morning of the hearing. The Court noted that San Nicolas’ conduct appeared to be intended to delay [p. 9] the hearing.22 The full panel subsequently affirmed this order following Mitchell’s motion for full-court review.23 On October 11, 2000 Mitchell filed a motion for reconsideration in which he accused Justice Castro of attempting to falsify the record (First Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Review by the Full Court of the September 27, 2000 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”) at 9 (Oct. 11, 2000)). He then speculated that the justices’ reported salaries are evidence of their bias against him (Motion for Reconsideration at 23-24), and then criticized Justice Castro: Taken altogether, the content and quality of Justice Castro’s remarks [at a swearing-in ceremony for newly- admitted attorneys] are evidence of a lack of the kind of serious legal depth of understanding and knowledge that is expected of a justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth. Motion for Reconsideration at 24 (emphasis added). On October 13, 2000 Mitchell filed deposition notices in an attempt to depose two current 22 Order re: Motions for Contempt and Sanctions; and Petition for Writ of Mandamus at 2-3 (Sept. 27, 2000). 23 Order Affirming Order re: Motions for Contempt and Sanctions; and Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Nov. 7, 2000). Supreme Court law clerks and one former law clerk.24 The Court subsequently quashed these deposition notices as lacking in merit.25 The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration. 26 On October 16, 2000 Mitchell filed a Motion for More Definite Statement with respect to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, claiming he could not file a responsive brief in compliance with the [p. 10] Order. The Court denied this motion, noting Mitchell had already filed a responsive brief.27 The full panel subsequently affirmed this order, following the now customary motion for full court review.28 On October 17, 2000 Mitchell filed an amended deposition notice as to a former law clerk,29 as well as deposition notices for a former Supreme Court Chief Justice and opposing counsel in this action.30 The Court quashed all deposition notices as lacking any legal basis.31 On October 23, 2000 Mitchell attempted to depose the Chief Justice of this Court, as well as 24 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Karen Klaver (Oct. 13, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Joann Kim (Oct. 13, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Yoon Chang (Oct. 13, 2000). 25 Order Quashing Notices of Deposition (Oct. 16, 2000). 26 Order Affirming Orders Quashing Deposition Notices (Nov. 9, 2000). 27 Order Denying Motion for More Definite Statement (Oct. 23, 2000). 28 Order Affirming Order Denying Motion for More Definite Statement (Nov. 9, 2000). 29 Mitchell’s Amended Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Yoon Chang (Oct. 17, 2000). 30 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Marty W.K. Taylor (Oct. 17, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson (Oct. 17, 2000). 31 Order Quashing Notice of Deposition [regarding former Chief Justice Marty W.K. Taylor]) (Oct. 23, 2000); Order Quashing Notice of Deposition [regarding law firm of Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson] (Oct. 23, 2000). several of his family members.32 The Court quashed these deposition notices and issued a protective order to prevent Mitchell from further harassing any non-parties to the proceedings herein. 33 The full panel subsequently affirmed this order upon Mitchell’s motion.34 On October 26, 2000 this Court issued an Order re: Show Cause Hearing as to procedure and filing deadlines.35 The full panel subsequently affirmed this Order and denied Mitchell’s request for a pre- trial conference.36 [p. 11] On October 26, 2000 Mitchell attempted to subpoena certain records from the Commonwealth Bar Association. The Court granted the Bar Association’s motion to quash the subpoena.37 The full panel subsequently affirmed this order.38 On November 2, 2000 Mitchell again moved to disqualify the entire panel. The Court denied this motion.39 On the morning of the show-cause hearing, November 9, 2000 the Court issued several orders, 32 Order Quashing Notices of Deposition; and Protective Order at 2 n.4 (Oct. 25, 2000) (taking judicial notice of fact that following individuals are all related by marriage or blood to Chief Justice Demapan); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Ana T. Sablan (Oct. 23, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Frances T. Demapan (Oct. 23, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Soledad T. Tenorio (Oct. 23, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Jesus R. Sablan (Oct. 23, 2000); Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Miguel S. Demapan (Oct. 23, 2000). 33 Order Quashing Notices of Deposition; and Protective Order (Oct. 25, 2000). 34 Order Affirming Order Quashing Deposition Subpoenas (Nov. 9, 2000). 35 Despite Mitchell’s protests to the contrary, we note that procedural due process does not encompass the right to present all desired evidence. United States v. Engstrom, 16 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 1994). 36 Order Denying Request for Pretrial Conference (Nov. 9, 2000). 37 Order Quashing Subpoena Duces Tecum (Oct. 27, 2000). 38 Order Affirming October 27, 2000 Order Quashing Subpoena Duces Tecum (Nov. 9, 2000). 39 Order Denying Second and Third Motions to Disqualify the Panel Members (Dec. 1, 2000). including an order affirming its previous orders quashing various deposition notices and subpoenas.40 2. Continued Violation of Court Orders Mitchell admits he is still “taking new clients, advising old clients and working in his law office.” Motion to Strike Petitioners’ Memorandum Regarding Order to Show Cause Hearing and to Strike Declaration of Joanne T. Guerrero at 10 (Oct. 20, 2000). There is no evidence that Mitchell has complied with the Order to Show Cause by notifying all clients and jurisdictions in which he is licensed of his interim suspension in the Commonwealth, and Mitchell refused to answer any questions on this issue at the November 9 hearing. At the hearing, Mitchell also refused to explain why he has not turned over the subject funds to the Clerk of Court or provided an accounting, and there is no evidence he has done so. Mitchell has not explained whether or why he wrote the letter attached as an exhibit to the Declaration of Joanne T. Guerrero. We take judicial notice of the case file in this matter, which reveals the following non-exhaustive list of filings by the parties: [p. 12] 40 Order Affirming Orders Quashing Deposition Subpoenas (Nov. 9, 2000); Order Affirming Orders Quashing Deposition Notices (Nov. 9, 2000). Date Document Filing Party or Third Party Jul 3, 2000 Notice/Motion for Emergency Petition for Writ of Petitioners Mandamus and Motion for Stay (and supporting papers) Jul 3, 2000 Order Granting Motion for Stay and Directing Answer to Writ of Mandamus Jul 5, 2000 Notice of Motion/Motion for Emergency Temporary Petitioners Restraining Order (and supporting papers) Jul 7, 2000 Statement of Lack of Service of Motion for Temporary San Nicolas Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Jul 7, 2000 Order Granting Motion to Shorten Time and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Jul 10, 2000 Motion to Continue Hearing on Preliminary Injunction and San Nicolas Notice Jul 10, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petitioners Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Jul 10, 2000 Order Granting Motion to Continue Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Jul 14, 2000 HEARING ON PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, 11:00 a.m. Jul 14, 2000 Real Party in Interest’s Motion to Dissolve Temporary San Nicolas Restraining Order and Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Jul 14, 2000 Motion for Disqualification of Chief Justice Miguel S. San Nicolas Demapan and his Law Clerks and Notice (and supporting papers) Jul 14, 2000 Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction Jul 18, 2000 Supplemental Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction Jul 18, 2000 Answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus San Nicolas Jul 20, 2000 Declaration of Theodore Mitchell in Response to Mitchell Supplemental Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction Jul 24, 2000 Motion for Review by the Full Court and Motion for Stay San Nicolas Jul 24, 2000 Response of Plaintiff Juan M. San Nicolas to Preliminary San Nicolas Injunctions Jul 25, 2000 Notice of Motion and Motion for Imposition of Sanctions Petitioners (and supporting papers) Jul 25, 2000 Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus Petitioners and Motion for Stay (and supporting papers) [p. 13] Jul 26, 2000 Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification of Justice Pro San Nicolas Tempore Pedro M. Atalig and Declaration of Theodore Mitchell Jul 26, 2000 Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification of Justice Alexandro San Nicolas C. Castro and Declaration of Theodore Mitchell Jul 28, 2000 Petitioners’ Memorandum re: San Nicolas’ Motion for Petitioners Disqualification of Justice Pro Tempore Pedro M. Atalig and Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro Jul 28, 2000 Petitioners’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Petitioners Motion for Stay and in Support of Request for Order of Contempt Jul 31, 2000 Order Denying Motions for Disqualification Aug 1, 2000 Order Affirming Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction Aug 1, 2000 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion for Imposition San Nicolas of Sanctions Aug 1, 2000 Supplemental Answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus San Nicolas and Motion for Leave to File Aug 1, 2000 Order of Suspension and Order to Show Cause Aug 4, 2000 Reply to San Nicolas Supplemental Answer to Petition for Petitioners Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Leave to File Aug 14, 2000 Response of Plaintiff Juan M. San Nicolas to Preliminary San Nicolas Injunction Aug 14, 2000 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit San Nicolas/ Mitchell Aug 15, 2000 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (and supporting papers) San Nicolas/ Mitchell Aug 15, 2000 Request for Oral Argument on Motion for Stay Pending San Nicolas/ Appeal Mitchell Aug 16, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioners San Nicolas Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Aug 16, 2000 Notice/Motion for Ex Parte Motion for Order of Contempt Petitioners Against Real Party and Former Counsel (and supporting papers) Aug 18, 2000 Motion for Disqualification of Justice Pro Tempore Alberto San Nicolas C. Lamorena III and Notice (and supporting papers) [p. 14] Aug 21, 2000 Letter to Clerk of Court by Theodore Mitchell Re: San Nicolas/ Compliance with Order of Suspension Mitchell Aug 23, 2000 Motion for Disqualification of Associate Justice Alexandro San Nicolas C. Castro and Notice Aug 23, 2000 Motion for Disqualification of Pro Tem Justice Pedro M. San Nicolas Atalig and Notice Aug 25, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioners Motion to Disqualify Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro and Justice Pro Tempore Pedro M. Atalig Aug 25, 2000 Order Denying Second Motions for Disqualification of Justice Pro Tem Alberto C. Lamorena III Aug 25, 2000 Reply to Opposition to Motion for Disqualification of San Nicolas Justice Pro Tem Alberto C. Lamorena III Sep 1, 2000 Supplemental Request for Oral Argument on Motion for San Nicolas/ Stay Pending Appeal Mitchell Sep 1, 2000 Motion for Reconsideration and Notice San Nicolas Sep 6, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioners San Nicolas’ and Mitchell’s Motion for Reconsideration of Motions to Disqualify Sep 8, 2000 Order Denying Motion for Disqualification of Justice Pro Tempore Alberto C. Lamorena III Sep 8, 2000 Order Setting Hearing Re: Petitioners’ Motion for Contempt Order and Motion for Sanctions; and Petition for Writ of Mandamus Sep 13, 2000 Emergency Motion of San Nicolas and Mitchell for San Nicolas/ Reconsideration and Motion for Continuance of September Mitchell 22, 2000 Hearing Sep 14, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioners Motion of San Nicolas and Mitchell for Reconsideration and for Continuance of September 22, 2000 Hearing (and supporting papers) Sep 15, 2000 Memorandum Regarding the Character of the Mitchell San Nicolas/ Disciplinary Proceedings Mitchell Sep 15, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Alexandro C. Castro Mitchell Sep 15, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Alberto C. Lamorena III Mitchell Sep 15, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Pedro M. Atalig Mitchell [p. 15] Sep 19, 2000 Reply in Further Support of Emergency Motion of San San Nicolas/ Nicolas and Mitchell for Reconsideration and Motion for Mitchell Continuance of September 22, 2000 Hearing Sep 19, 2000 Order Setting Deadline for Submissions Sep 19, 2000 Declaration of Matthew T. Gregory Petitioners Sep 20, 2000 Order Quashing Notices of Deposition Sep 21, 2000 Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Disqualification San Nicolas of Justice Pro Tempore Lamorena and Notice Sep 21, 2000 Response of Real Parties in Interest to Order Setting San Nicolas/ Deadline for Submissions Re: Motion for Contempt and Mitchell Opposition to Motion for Contempt Sep 21, 2000 Declaration of Jeanne H. Rayphand in Response to Filing of San Nicolas/ Declaration of Matthew T. Gregory Mitchell Sep 21, 2000 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Second Motions for Disqualification Sep 22, 2000 HEARING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 10:00 a.m. Sep 27, 2000 Order Re: Motions for Contempt and Sanctions; and Petition for Writ of Mandamus Oct 2, 2000 Brief in Response to Court’s Order Dated August 1, 2000 Mitchell Oct 10, 2000 Motion for Reconsideration and Review by the Full Court San Nicolas/ of the September 27, 2000 Order Mitchell Oct 10, 2000 Declaration of Jeanne H. Rayphand in Response to Court’s San Nicolas/ Order Dated September 27, 2000 Mitchell Oct 11, 2000 First Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Review by San Nicolas/ the Full Court of the September 27, 2000 Order Mitchell Oct 12, 2000 Order Setting Hearing Re: Order to Show Cause Oct 13, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Yoon Chang Mitchell Oct 13, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Joann Kim Mitchell Oct 13, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Karen Klaver Mitchell Oct 16, 2000 Mitchell’s Motion for More Definite Statement San Nicolas/ Mitchell [p. 16] Oct 16, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioners San Nicolas and Mitchell’s Motion for Reconsideration and Review by the Full Court Oct 16, 2000 Order Quashing Notices of Deposition Oct 17, 2000 Mitchell’s Amended Notice of Deposition on Oral San Nicolas/ Examination of Yoon Chang Mitchell Oct 17, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson Mitchell Oct 17, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Marty W.K. Taylor Mitchell Oct 18, 2000 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petitioners Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order Oct 18, 2000 Memorandum Regarding Order to Show Cause Hearing Petitioners Oct 18, 2000 Notice of Motion/Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena Petitioners Oct 18, 2000 Declaration of Joanne T. Guerrero Petitioners Oct 18, 2000 Motion for Reconsideration and for Review by the Full San Nicolas/ Court of the October 16, 2000 Order Quashing Notices of Mitchell Deposition Oct 20, 2000 Mitchell’s Opposition to Mair Firm Motion to Quash San Nicolas/ Subpoena and for Protective Order Mitchell Oct 20, 2000 Motion to Strike Petitioners’ Memorandum Regarding San Nicolas/ Order to Show Cause Hearing and to Strike Declaration of Mitchell Joanne T. Guerrero Oct 23, 2000 Order Denying Motion for More Definite Statement Oct 23, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of Ana San Nicolas/ T. Sablan Mitchell Oct 23, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Frances T. Demapan Mitchell Oct 23, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Soledad T. Tenorio Mitchell Oct 23, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Jesus R. Sablan Mitchell Oct 23, 2000 Mitchell’s Notice of Deposition on Oral Examination of San Nicolas/ Miguel S. Demapan San Nicolas/ Mitchell Oct 23, 2000 Reply Memorandum Regarding Motion to Quash and for Petitioners Protective Order [p. 17] Oct 23, 2000 Order Quashing Notice of Deposition (re: Marty W.K. Taylor) Oct 23, 2000 Order Quashing Notice of Deposition (re: Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson) Oct 25, 2000 Order Quashing Notices of Deposition; and Protective Order (re: Ana T. Sablan, Frances T. Demapan, Soledad T. Tenorio, Jesus R. Sablan, Miguel S. Demapan) Oct 26, 2000 Mitchell’s Supplemental Motion to Strike Petitioners’ San Nicolas/ Memorandum Regarding Order to Show Cause Hearing and Mitchell to Strike Declaration of Joanne T. Guerrero Oct 26, 2000 Subpoena Duces Tecum (Re: CNMI Bar Association) Oct 26, 2000 Reply B