John Hankins, et al. v. Barry Seifman, et al.

This case involves the violation of settled law and the improper creation of Michigan law. The Sixth Circuit held the case law it relied upon “displaced the general rule”, however those cases cited by the Sixth Circuit do not include the words “general rule”, and the Sixth Circuit did not explain what it meant by replacing a non-existent “general rule”. Michigan law holds that a contingency fee agreement does not operate to determine a discharged attorney’s fee and that the court is required to analyze the illegal and public policy violations of a Michigan attorney. The Sixth Circuit’s decision violated Michigan law and Unlawfully created new law. The Sixth Circuit also made new Michigan contract law allowing Michigan residents to now create and enforce a contract beyond the written word of the contract and in direct contradiction to the admitted intent of the contract, in violation of Michigan law, Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme court decisions. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: Can the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals violate settled Michigan law, Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme court decisions and/or make Michigan law?