Supremacy Case

Exhibit C

EXHIBIT C

Application to Relieve from the Ruling of the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge

and Reinstate in Good Standing

(Filed November 12, 2018, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(d))

Description: Plaintiff’s application in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado seeking relief from the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s ruling and reinstatement to good standing under the District’s attorney rules.
Source: Youras Ziankovich’s records.

Youras Ziankovich, Esq.
14405 Walters Road, Suite 808
Houston, TX 77014
Phone: (346) 223-0284
Fax: (844) 858-7720
Email: business@ziankovich.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

COMMITTEE ON CONDUCT

In the Matter of:
YOURAS ZIANKOVICH,
Applicant.

APPLICATION TO RELIEVE FROM THE RULING OF THE COLORADO PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE AND TO REINSTATE IN GOOD STANDING IN THE BAR OF THIS COURT

PURSUANT TO D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(d)

Applicant YOURAS ZIANKOVICH, a member of the Bar of this Court, respectfully moves for relief from the presumption of appropriate discipline imposed by another court and seeks reinstatement to good standing in this Court. Applicant affirms the truth of the following statements under penalty of perjury:

  1. This application is submitted pursuant to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(d)(1) seeking reinstatement to good standing before this Honorable Court.

  2. Applicant is an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of New York, Attorney Registration No. 5196324, and is in good standing without any disciplinary record in his licensing jurisdiction. New York is the only state in which Applicant is licensed to practice law. Applicant is also admitted to practice before this federal Court.

  3. Applicant has never been admitted or otherwise authorized to practice law before the courts or governmental agencies of the State of Colorado. He has never practiced Colorado law and has never been licensed or permitted to do so.

  4. From August 2014 through September 2018, Applicant maintained an office in the State of Colorado exclusively for his federal practice.

  5. That federal practice was expressly authorized by federal statutes and regulations and by this Honorable Court, before which Applicant was admitted.

  6. On or about May 26, 2017, the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel initiated disciplinary proceedings against Applicant before the Office of the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge, alleging violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct arising solely from Applicant’s federally authorized practice, conducted without a Colorado license.

  7. Those proceedings were initiated without subject-matter jurisdiction, in violation of federal and state law. Applicant is not subject to Colorado disciplinary jurisdiction under C.R.C.P. 251.1. Among other defects, the proceedings contravene:

a. People v. Kanwal, 321 P.3d 494 (Colo. 2014), holding that disciplinary actions may not be commenced without authority under Rule 251;

b. Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), prohibiting states from regulating federally authorized practitioners;

c. Federal authority recognizing that admission and discipline in federal courts are independent of state licensure, including In re Poole, 222 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 2000), and In re Desilets, 291 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2002).

  1. Independent grounds for lack of jurisdiction include the absence of probable cause for investigation. The investigation was purportedly initiated by written complaints allegedly submitted by Ms. Iuliia Vyshniavska and Mr. Hennadiy Zhakyavichyus. At trial, Mr. Zhakyavichyus testified that he never submitted such a request, and Ms. Vyshniavska testified that her English proficiency was insufficient to prepare or understand such a document. Neither complainant submitted a request in compliance with C.R.C.P. 251.9 or 251.10. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel nonetheless proceeded based on an unidentified third-party document, in violation of Colorado law.

  2. The proceedings further lacked personal jurisdiction. C.R.C.P. 251.18(a) requires at least 56 days’ notice of trial. Counsel for the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel admitted at hearing that such notice was not provided. Over Applicant’s objection, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge continued the proceedings notwithstanding this defect.

  3. Summary judgment was granted against Applicant without proper consideration of his arguments, in violation of C.R.C.P. 56.

  4. Applicant raised these jurisdictional and due-process defects in his appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which was pending at the time of this filing.

  5. Applicant sought a stay of discipline pending appeal. Although a stay was initially granted, it was later revoked in violation of Applicant’s due-process rights.

  6. The stay was revoked without service of the relevant motion upon Applicant. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge further imposed an unsolicited seven-day deadline for Applicant’s response, despite Applicant’s documented travel and trial obligations. Applicant objected by email and filed a response within ten days, but the response was disregarded and the stay revoked.

ANALYSIS

  1. D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(c) requires attorneys admitted to this Court to remain in good standing in all courts where admitted, defined as not being suspended or disbarred by any court.

  2. Applicant remains in good standing in all courts where he is admitted. The Colorado order purports to suspend Applicant in a jurisdiction where he was never licensed and never practiced state law, and paradoxically requires reinstatement proceedings in a jurisdiction where Applicant was never admitted.

  3. D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(d)(1) authorizes an attorney to seek relief from the presumption of reciprocal discipline by application to the Committee on Conduct.

  4. Applicant submits this application accordingly, noting that he is otherwise in good standing before all courts of admission.

  5. Under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(d)(2), an attorney may rebut the presumption of reciprocal discipline by clear and convincing evidence that the disciplinary procedure was so deficient in notice or opportunity to be heard as to deny due process.

  6. As demonstrated above, the Colorado proceedings were fundamentally defective, lacking subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

WHEREFORE

Applicant respectfully requests that this Court decline to give effect to the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s order and reinstate Applicant to good standing in the Bar of this Court.

Dated: Houston, Texas
November 12, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Youras Ziankovich

Youras Ziankovich, Esq.
Applicant
14405 Walters Road, Suite 808
Houston, TX 77014
Phone: (346) 223-0284
Fax: (844) 858-7720
business@ziankovich.com