WHO IS LIKE GOD?
NO ONE LIKE GOD!
A powerful declaration of God's unparalleled uniqueness and supreme authority. It is a translation of the Hebrew name of the Archangel Michael (Mi-cha-el or Mi-kā-el).Historically and theologically, this phrase is considered a cry of victory against evil and a profound affirmation of faith in divine sovereignty.
Scott Erik Stafne — a veteran attorney in Washington State — petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc after a three-judge panel, composed of two senior (retired) judges and one judge eligible for senior status, affirmed sanctions against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
His central argument: that such a panel was not lawfully constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore any judgment it rendered was void.
Stafne goes further, framing the issue not only as a matter of statutory interpretation but as a structural human rights violation: the denial of his right to be judged by a “competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Why This Matters Beyond One Lawyer
At first glance, Stafne’s petition may seem like a technical dispute about senior judges. But framed against international law, it becomes a systemic warning:
If courts sanction lawyers for raising structural constitutional questions, the independence of the legal profession itself is endangered.
If appellate panels are not clearly “established by law,” then public trust in the judiciary’s legitimacy is undermined.
If remedies are systematically denied, international human rights obligations are at stake.
The Geneva framework — through the ICCPR and the UN Basic Principles — was designed precisely to protect against such erosion of the rule of law.
Scott Erik Stafne’s case reveals a profound tension between domestic precedent and international human rights obligations.
The Ninth Circuit views his arguments as frivolous; Geneva would see them as raising serious concerns about tribunal legitimacy, judicial impartiality, and the independence of lawyers.
Whether you agrees with Stafne’s literal reading of Article III or not, the international human rights framework suggests that sanctioning an attorney for defending constitutional principles crosses a line.
At the very least, it risks turning courts from guarantors of justice into guardians of their own power.
If the right to a fair trial and the independence of lawyers mean anything, they must mean that no lawyer is punished for demanding that courts obey the law that constitutes them.
🔹 Executive Summary
August 29, 2025
Scott Erik Stafne’s petition for rehearing en banc challenges the legitimacy of the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision affirming sanctions against him.
His central claim is that the panel was unlawfully constituted because two of its three members were senior judges and the third was eligible for senior status.
Stafne argues this violated both U.S. constitutional law (Article III) and international human rights guarantees requiring impartial tribunals “established by law.”
From a human rights perspective, Stafne frames his treatment by the Ninth Circuit and district court as a denial of:
The right to a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal (ICCPR, Article 14; UDHR, Article 10).
The right to effective remedy, given that repeated appeals on the same jurisdictional question were dismissed as “frivolous.”
The protection of legal professionals (UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Principle 16), because the court sanctioned him for raising structural jurisdictional defects, arguably chilling his advocacy.
If a Geneva-based human rights body (like the Human Rights Committee or a UN special procedure) reviewed these claims, the core questions would be:
(1) whether the structural composition of the panel violated the requirement of a tribunal “established by law,” and
(2) whether sanctions against a lawyer for raising such issues constitute undue interference with the independence of the legal profession.
---
🔹 Key Human Rights Violations Alleged by Stafne
1. Tribunal not “established by law”
Claim: A panel composed of two retired (senior) judges and one judge eligible for retirement cannot lawfully exercise Article III judicial regular active power.
International standard: ICCPR art. 14 requires a tribunal “established by law.”
UN HRC General Comment 32 stresses that this covers proper legal basis for the court’s composition.
Analysis: His reading of U.S. law is absolutely correct (that only “regular active service” judges can compose the Ninth Circuit), then the tribunal arguably lacked lawful composition, which under international law is a structural violation of fair trial rights.
2. Judges (seniors) sitting in their own cause (nemo iudex in causa sua)
Claim: 2 Senior judges and 1 judge about near to be retired decided a case where the constitutional legitimacy of senior judges was the issue.
International standard:
Impartiality is both subjective and objective; even the “appearance of bias” can violate due process (see ECtHR case-law, ICCPR jurisprudence).
Analysis: A tribunal deciding its own institutional legitimacy, against the law, creates, at least, an appearance of partiality — comparable to Caperton v. Massey (U.S. Supreme Court).
Under human rights law, this undermines the guarantee of impartiality.
3. Sanctions against counsel for raising jurisdictional issues
Claim: Stafne was sanctioned under FRCP 11 for arguing that senior judges lack authority.
International standard: UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Principle 16: lawyers must not suffer sanctions for performing their professional functions.
Also A/HRC/50/36 stresses that undue interference (discipline, intimidation) violates independence of the legal profession.
Analysis: Even if 9th Circuit U.S. precedent rejects his jurisdictional theory, punishing a lawyer for raising constitutional arguments raises concerns under international law, especially when sanctions deter advocacy in sensitive cases.
Claim: All his jurisdictional challenges are labeled frivolous, preventing substantive review.
International standard: ICCPR art. 2(3) guarantees effective remedies for rights violations.
Analysis: When courts summarily dismiss such structural challenges without reasoned analysis, this may amount to a denial of remedy, which is itself a human rights violation.
5. Natural law, international law, and religious law arguments
Stafne invokes universal principles (nemo iudex, UDHR art. 10, ICCPR art. 14, biblical injunctions).
While Scripture is not binding in human rights law, his reliance on UDHR/ICCPR is directly relevant and strengthens the claim that these are not just technical statutory disputes but fundamental rights violations.
---
🔹 Comparison with Geneva Standards (HRC / UN Rapporteur)
UN Special Rapporteur (A/HRC/50/36):
References
HRC50:Interference with Legal Professionals' Freedom and Independence Undermines the Rule of Law
Warned against intimidation of lawyers and undue disciplinary sanctions — this aligns with Stafne’s complaint about Rule 11 sanctions.
UN Human Rights Committee (General Comment 32):
Requires tribunals to be “established by law” and impartial — Stafne’s argument that senior judges cannot lawfully compose the panel falls within this scope.
Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990): Explicitly forbid penalizing lawyers for lawful professional acts — his sanction arguably breaches this.
Thus, the Geneva framework would likely identify:
A structural constitutional problem (panel composition).
A functional violation (sanctioning a lawyer for raising structural defects).
---
🔹 You can see by yourself
By Scott E Stafne
Abstract:
In this appeal Stafne challenges the sanctions imposed on him as a lawyer for asserting his client’s position that the United States District Court for Western Washington had no judicial or other government power to impose a specially assigned “senior (i.e. retired) judge” to adjudicate his case.
On appeal Stafne demonstrated both facts and law tending to prove his arguments.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals assigned Stafne’s appeal to a panel composed of two specially assigned “senior (retired) judges” of that court and an active duty judge who qualified for senior (retired) judge status.
In this motion Stafne seeks to demonstrate that this assignment of judicial officials to Stafne’s appeal demonstrates both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as its judicial officers, bias and lack of constitutionally defined independence.
In this appeal, Stafne challenges sanctions imposed on him for asserting his client’s position that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington lacked lawful authority to assign a “senior” (i.e., retired) judge to adjudicate the case.
On appeal, Stafne presented both facts and law supporting this constitutional argument.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to address the facts applicable to judicial inquiries Stafne.
Significantly, the Ninth Circuit assigned Stafne’s appeal to a panel composed of two specially designated senior judges and one active-duty judge who herself qualified for senior status.
Stafne’s motion for rehearing en banc contends that such an assignment violates the statutory and constitutional requirements governing Article III courts, demonstrates bias, and violates both the independence and neutrality requirements imposed on courts and judicial officers by the United States’ organic law, existing international law, and that natural law which has applied to courts since ancient times.
Read here the petition Published on Academia.edu
Or click the Link
👉 If you want, I can now draft a comparative report (side-by-side table) with:
Stafne’s specific claims from the petition (PDF).
Corresponding human rights standard (ICCPR, Basic Principles, etc.).
Assessment of violation (Yes/No/Partial).
I SAID YES
Perfect — let me build the comparative analysis table (side-by-side: Stafne’s petition claims vs. human rights standards vs. evaluation), and also provide the expanded URLs for every treaty, UN document, and precedent cited.
---
📑 Comparative Analysis: Stafne’s Petition vs. Human Rights Standards
Stafne’s Claim (from Petition, 9th Cir. No. 23-3509)
Relevant Human
Rights Standard
Evaluation
Panel of 2 senior judges + 1 judge eligible for retirement violates Article III (only “regular active service” judges compose the court).
ICCPR Article 14(1): right to a “competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.” UN HRC, General Comment 32 (2007), paras. 18–19.
Possible violation: If senior judges are not “established by law” as part of the Ninth Circuit’s composition, then tribunal legality is in question.
Judges decided on their own authority (nemo iudex in causa sua).
ICCPR Article 14; UDHR Article 10. ECtHR jurisprudence: Caperton v. Massey analogies (appearance of bias).
Violation risk: Structural conflict of interest → undermines impartiality.
Sanctioned under FRCP 11 for raising jurisdictional challenge.
UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), Principle 16: lawyers must not be sanctioned for lawful professional duties.
A/HRC/50/36 (Special Rapporteur report, 2022).
Violation: Sanctions may constitute intimidation / chilling effect on advocacy.
Denial of review: repeated dismissal of jurisdictional claims as “frivolous.”
ICCPR Article 2(3): right to effective remedy; ICCPR Article 14(5): right to review by higher tribunal.
Violation risk: Systematic dismissal prevents effective remedy.
Invokes UDHR Art. 10, ICCPR Art. 14, and “right to truth.”
UDHR Art. 10: fair hearing. ICCPR Art. 14: fair trial.
Emerging doctrine: “Right to Truth.” Supportive: Strengthens claim that this is not just statutory but a human rights issue.
---
🌐 Expanded URLs for All References
📘 International Treaties & Standards
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948)
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
3. UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990)
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-role-lawyers
4. UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998)
📑 UN Reports & General Comments
5. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32 (2007): Article 14, Right to Fair Trial
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/606075?ln=en
6. Special Rapporteur Report A/HRC/50/36 (2022): Protection of Lawyers Against Undue Interference
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3974433/files/A_HRC_50_36-EN.pdf
---
⚖️ U.S. & International Precedents (mentioned by Stafne)
7. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/
8. Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/69/
9. Yovino v. Rizo, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/586/18-272/
10. American-Foreign Steamship Corp. v. United States, 363 U.S. 685 (1960)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/363/685/
11. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/510/
12. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/868/
---
📌 Conclusion
From a human rights perspective, Stafne’s petition raises legitimate claims under international law: tribunal composition (“established by law”), impartiality, independence of lawyers, and access to remedy.
The Ninth Circuit’s sanctions and dismissals, while grounded in U.S. precedent, appear inconsistent with ICCPR Article 14 and the UN Basic Principles when viewed under Geneva standards.
If submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee or another Geneva forum, his petition would likely be read as alleging:
1. Structural violation (court composition).
2. Functional violation (punishment of counsel).
3. Denial of effective remedy.
---
👉 Do you want me to now draft a blog article (1,000–1,200 words, in English) weaving this comparative analysis into a narrative (with quotes from Stafne’s petition + the international standards with links), so it’s ready to publish?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário