APPEALS COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-5837
Anthony D Hayes, Sr.
Petitioners
Vs
Dwight Cowan et al
Defendants

___________________________________
MOTION TO REMOVE DEFENDANTS COUNSEL
DUE TO CRIMINAL, FRAUDULENT and PROHIBITED
PRACTICES
____________________________________
RULE 1.2: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY
BETWEEN CLIENT AND LAWYER

[9] Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from counseling or assisting a client to engage in conduct
that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent.
FACT: THE WINCHESTER LAW FIRM attorney John D. Horne, is fully aware of the
implications of the case at hand. He knows or should have known that in order to establish
ownership of the said property; you must have filed (1) the Note and (2) security agreement
together with the register of deeds. This is constructive fraud at the highest and Not privately as
instructed by the mortgage company in some office or file cabinet. There can be no separate
existence per the Supreme Court of the United States.
This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest opinion about the
actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client's conduct. Nor does the fact that a
client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a
party to the course of action. There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of
legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud
might be committed with impunity. Such as the information lays out above.
[10] When the client's course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer's
responsibility is especially delicate. In some situations the lawyer may be permitted or required
by Rule 1.6 to reveal the client's wrongdoing. See RPC 1.6(b)(1) and (c)(1). In any case,
however, the lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or
delivering documents-complaints, notices of mortgage default, attempted foreclosure, such is

the case here that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might
be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally
supposed was legally proper but then discovers by notices, letters and other correspondence sent
is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must, therefore, withdraw from the representation of the
client in the matter, RPC 1.16(a). In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may
be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion,
document, affirmation or the like. RPC 4.1.
[11] Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special obligations in
dealings with a beneficiary. Petitioner if the Living Beneficiary of the trust ANTHONY D
HAYES estate.
[12] Paragraph (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the transaction.
Petitioner is a party to the transaction and has filed a Transfer Statement verifying such as
prescribed by the law. Hence, a lawyer must not participate in a transaction to effectuate
criminal or fraudulent avoidance of tax liability. Paragraph (d) does not preclude undertaking a
criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful enterprise. The last
clause of paragraph (d) recognizes that determining the validity or interpretation of a statute or
regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience of the statute or regulation or of
the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities.

Fact: Mr. Horne participated in a Civil Service Hearing against Mr. Hayes to keep him from his
property interest in his employment and trust. Mr. Horne was made a party to a suit brought
against the City of Memphis and him and was liened in this matter. Mr. Horne is also using this
opportunity to retaliate against Mr. Hayes to take away his private property (Home) due to
lawsuit and liens exercised against him.

This ___ day of _____________________ 2014.

_______________________________
Anthony D. Hayes Sr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The Petitioner, herein state that a copy of the Motion To Remove Counsel for Defendants was
deposited in the US Postal service..
For delivery to:
John D. Horne
WINCHESTER LAW FIRM, PLLC
6060 POPLAR AVENUE
MEMPHIS, TN 38119

This ____ day of ______________________________ 2014.

__________________________________
Anthony D. Hayes

Chief Disciplinary Counsel

Board of Professional Responsibility
10 Cadillac Dr. - Suite 220
Brentwood, TN 37027

From: Anthony D Hayes, Sr.

Vs
RE: Attorney John D Horne Unethical participation, representation, and fraud.

___________________________________
REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY, DISBARMENT FOR CRIMINAL,
FRAUDULENT and PROHIBITED PRACTICES
____________________________________
RULE 1.2: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY
BETWEEN CLIENT AND LAWYER

[9] Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from counseling or assisting a client to engage in conduct
that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent.
FACT: THE WINCHESTER LAW FIRM attorney John D. Horne, is fully aware of the
implications of the case at hand. He knows or should have known that in order to establish
ownership of the said property; you must have filed (1) the Note and (2) security agreement
together with the register of deeds. This is constructive fraud at the highest and Not privately as
instructed by the mortgage company in some office or file cabinet. There can be no separate
existence per the Supreme Court of the United States.

This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest opinion about the
actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client's conduct. Nor does the fact that a
client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a
party to the course of action. There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of
legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud
might be committed with impunity. Such as the information lays out above.

[10] When the client's course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer's
responsibility is especially delicate. In some situations the lawyer may be permitted or required
by Rule 1.6 to reveal the client's wrongdoing. See RPC 1.6(b)(1) and (c)(1). In any case,
however, the lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or
delivering documents-complaints, notices of mortgage default, attempted foreclosure, such is
the case here that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might
be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally
supposed was legally proper but then discovers by notices, letters and other correspondence sent
is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must, therefore, withdraw from the representation of the
client in the matter, RPC 1.16(a). In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may
be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion,
document, affirmation or the like. RPC 4.1.
[11] Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special obligations in
dealings with a beneficiary. Petitioner if the Living Beneficiary of the trust ANTHONY D
HAYES estate.
[12] Paragraph (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the transaction.
Petitioner is a party to the transaction and has filed a Transfer Statement verifying such as
prescribed by the law. Hence, a lawyer must not participate in a transaction to effectuate
criminal or fraudulent avoidance of tax liability. Paragraph (d) does not preclude undertaking a
criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful enterprise. The last
clause of paragraph (d) recognizes that determining the validity or interpretation of a statute or
regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience of the statute or regulation or of
the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities.

Fact: Mr. Horne participated in a Civil Service Hearing against Mr. Hayes to keep him from his
property interest in his employment and trust. Mr. Horne was made a party to a suit brought
against the City of Memphis and him and was liened in this matter. Mr. Horne is also using this
opportunity to retaliate against Mr. Hayes to take away his private property (Home) due to
lawsuit and liens exercised against him..

This ___ day of _____________________ 2014.

_______________________________
Anthony D. Hayes Sr.