Honorable Chief Justice Christensen:

1. Historical Timeline

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 3:56?PM the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board was electronically served an attorney misconduct complaint against City of Marshalltown, IA, Attorney Holly Corkery.

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 8:58?PM electronic correspondence was sent to you communicating, “The attorney misconduct complaint below was submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board on 13 APR 2026. As of today, I have witnessed no observable evidence of procedural compliance or the Iowa Judicial Branch adhering to the totality of its own court rules.  It is quite possible that the appearance of justice maintained by this institution represents a modern manifestation of Plato’s noble lie that is hidden away from the view of the people pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 34.4(3).

As of Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 06:30 AM I have witnessed no observable evidence supporting procedural compliance or the Iowa Judicial Branch adhering to the totality of its own court rules.  “Rule 34.5 Board procedure. Upon receipt of any complaint, the board shall notify the complainant in writing that the complaint has been received and will be acted upon or that pursuant to rule 34.4(1) no action will be taken.”

2. Purpose of Correspondence – The Form of the Judicial Box Canyon

This correspondence provides notice to the Iowa Judicial Branch of the evidence below supporting the conclusion that the Iowa Judicial Branch failed to comply with Iowa Court Rule 35.5 which states, “Notification of complainant. Upon receipt of any complaint, the disciplinary board must notify the complainant in writing that the board has received the complaint and will act upon it or that pursuant to rule 35.4(1) the board will take no action on the complaint. [Court Order January 26, 2016, effective April 1, 2016]”

3. Proposed Remedy and Path Forward

During the summer of 2025, the Iowa Judicial Branch was notified regarding evidence supporting an alleged existential failure of the Iowa Judicial Branch to maintain proper accountability within its licensed community regarding the attorney rules of professional conduct. A subsequent records request was dispatched to the Iowa Judicial Branch requesting Grievance Counsel and Attorney Disciplinary Board statistics showing a concerning trend following a 2012 amendment to the Iowa Court rules that authorized the director for attorney discipline to decline opening an investigation of an attorney misconduct complaint under specified circumstances, authority now reflected in Iowa Court Rule 35.4(1). On October 27, 2025, Iowa Court Rule 35.4(6) was modified, removing the Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice as the recipient of complaints involving current members of the Grievance Commission and Attorney Disciplinary Board. The historical record shows this court rule change occurred after my July 11, 2025 correspondence challenging Director of Attorney Discipline Tara M. van Brederode’s application of Iowa Court Rule 35.4(1). On its face, this rule change appears to create an additional layer of institutional insulation between complaints involving disciplinary officials and the Office of the Chief Justice.

Reference:  Attorney Disciplinary Board and Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa 2017 Annual Report, Page 4.

Attorney misconduct complaints will be drafted against all members of the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board who received the attached complaint and submitted to the Iowa Judicial Branch pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.4(6), which provides that complaints involving current members of the Grievance Commission or Attorney Disciplinary Board are forwarded to the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Regulation.  The Attorney Disciplinary Board and the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa 2025 Annual Report lists Nicholas (Tre) Critelli as the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Regulation. Executive Director Critelli has been included in all correspondence in this communications thread. Therefore, I intend to also submit attorney misconduct complaints against the Executive Director and all members of the Attorney Disciplinary Board who received my attached complaint to the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court in light of these rather extraordinary circumstances.

A state’s Chief Justice should be well aware that operational tasking may be delegated, but responsibility cannot be delegated.  When a leader produces evidence of attempting to delegate responsibility they only provide evidence that they are not fit to administer it.

Respectfully,

Michael J. Merritt, USN (Ret.)

Founder:  Pyre Harbor

Writer/Musician

Information Systems Manager/Engineer

Information Warfare Specialist – OSINT

 2510 S 6TH ST D24

Marshalltown, IA 50158

cipher.hunter@pyreharbor.net

Matrix

pyreharbor.net

jzordpdtksrv35jkfde5oqatv6j5oq4jztmxwndbp4g6kitdixaf6lyd.onion

“The study of ethics is a pursuit of understanding the philosophical nature of right and wrong in its most perfect form. A society’s justice system is an ever-evolving pursuit of that perfection. Corruption is the cultural, political, or personal bias that overrules and interferes with that system.”  Perfection, Flaws, and Corruption

Legal Disclaimer:  Pyre Harbor (2026-00000784), Cipher Hunter (2026-00000785), Pyrebird (2026-00000787), Pyrewolf (2026-00000786), and Mirebird (2026-00000783) are registered trade names in Marshall County, IA.