Supremacy Case

Exhibit D

Exhibit D

Opposition to DHS Motions (December 26, 2018)

Respondent’s formal answer objecting to improper reciprocal action and asserting lack of jurisdiction and due process.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, VA 22041

In the Matter of: (redacted)
Disciplinary Case: D2018-0327

YOURY ZIANKOVICH, Respondent

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER ON DHS’S MOTION TO BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION

AND TO THE MOTION TO JOIN RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE

Respondent YOURAS ZIANKOVICH a/k/a YOURY ZIANKOVICH, an attorney duly authorized to practice law before the courts of the State of New York (“YOURAS ZIANKOVICH,” “Respondent”), hereby submits this Answer to DHS’s Motion to Broaden the Scope of the Immediate Suspension and to the Motion to Join Reciprocal Discipline (the “Motion”) and affirms the foregoing under penalty of perjury:

  1. I am an attorney duly authorized to practice law in the State of New York, and I remain in good standing in my state of licensure.

  2. I am not aware of any disciplinary action in my licensure state; I am not the subject of any order of suspension or disbarment in my licensure state.

  3. Since May 2016, I was and still am a subject of the illegal persecution under color of law maintained by an officer of the Supreme Court of Colorado, Mr. Bryon M. Large (“Large”).

  4. I am not licensed or otherwise permitted to practice law in the State of Colorado. I was never licensed in Colorado and never practiced in Colorado courts and/or government bodies.

  5. In May 2016 Mr. Large, in clear violation of the authority granted to him by law, maintained a disciplinary action against me before the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court, for the alleged misconduct allegedly committed while practicing federal law. I am not a subject of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State of Colorado, because I have never been a Colorado-licensed attorney (see C.R.C.P. section 251.1(b)), and the said action was commenced with clear abuse of Mr. Large’s authority as an officer of the Colorado Supreme Court.

  6. The said action was maintained without grounds and without subject matter jurisdiction.

  7. Mr. Large in the said action severely violated my due process rights, including but not limited to failure to give notice of hearing, deliberation of well-established facts, using illegally obtained evidence in violation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, frivolous action in the court, abuse of his authority, etc.

  8. The said action is a subject of judicial review in the Colorado Supreme Court (Docket number 2018SA168) and in the U.S. District Court in and for the District of Colorado (Case number 1:17-cv-02039).

  9. On December 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded the previously ordered by the district court dismissal of the federal action against Mr. Large for the deprivation of my constitutional rights.

  10. On December 26, 2018, I received in my regular business mail two motions submitted to this Honorable Court by Ms. Catherine M. O’Connell, a USCIS disciplinary counsel, titled: “Department of Homeland Security Motion to Broaden the Scope of the Immediate Suspension” and “Department of Homeland Security Motion to Join for Reciprocal Discipline.”

  11. After analysis, I concluded that the said motions look like motions prescribed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(b). However, both motions are without grounds and shall be dismissed.

  12. According to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(a), upon completion of the preliminary inquiry, the EOIR Disciplinary Counsel determines that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to warrant charging a practitioner with professional misconduct, the EOIR Disciplinary Counsel will file with the Board and issue to the practitioner a Notice of Intent to Discipline.

  13. A copy of the said Notice shall be forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

  14. DHS may join to the discipline.

  15. However, in this case I am not aware of any disciplinary action maintained by the EOIR Disciplinary Counsel, because I have never been served with the Notice of Intent to Discipline, and due to that I possess no information about grounds for the discipline.

  16. I have a theory that the said disciplinary action, if it exists, is related to Mr. Large’s persecution of me in the State of Colorado. However, I have no facts to make a conclusion whether this theory has a real basis.

  17. As it is prescribed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.105(b), DHS may join the disciplinary action only upon service of the Notice of Intent to Discipline issued by the EOIR Disciplinary Counsel.

  18. Due to the fact that the said Notice was never served upon me, DHS’s motions are groundless and shall be dismissed without prejudice.

WHEREFORE,

YOURAS ZIANKOVICH, Respondent, respectfully requests this Honorable Board:

  • For an order denying DHS’s Motion to Broaden the Scope of the Immediate Suspension;
  • For an order denying DHS’s Motion to Join for Reciprocal Discipline; and
  • For such other and further relief that this Court may find just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Youras Ziankovich, Esq.
Respondent
14405 Walters Road, Suite 808
Houston, TX 77014
Phone: (346) 223-0284
Fax: (844) 858-7720
Email: service@polishlawyer.us

December 27, 2018

Law Office of Youras Ziankovich

14405 Walters Road, Suite 808
Houston, TX 77014
Phone: (346) 223-0284
Fax: (844) 858-7720
Email: service@polishlawyer.us

PROOF OF SERVICE

On ___ December 27, 2018, I, YOURAS ZIANKOVICH, served a copy of this Answer (and any attached pages) to Catherine M. O’Connell, USCIS Disciplinary Counsel, at the following address:

11411 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48214

by:

FIRST CLASS MAIL

(signature) (date)