BRIBING PAT- - the shocking details concerning the bribery of State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy

A suit was filed for the purpose of vacating factual findings and legal conclusions made by Judge Patrice McElroy of the State Bar Court. Said suit alleges that McElroy issued rulings in exchange for a gift she had secretly accepted from private counsel. The gift which was bestowed on Patrice McElroy was a trip overseas.

The circumstances which led to the bribing of Pat McElroy took place few years prior, while various events were unfolding at a certain law-school, which shall be referred to here as "School"

Taking part in the events were the dean("Dean") of the School along with Student #1, Student #2, and Student #3.

Student 1 and Student 2, both of whom are females, were good friends.

Student 1, while attending School, also worked as an intern/law clerk for the State Bar of California. Her supervisor at the State Bar was an individual by the name of Donald Steedman.

Student 2 and Student 3 met at School and were friendly to each other. Student 2 wished to further develop the friendship with Student 3, and to otherwise become his paramour. Student 2 and Student 3 exchanged written communication of the intimate kind. Student 2 also indicated to Student 3, in writing, that the fact that he was otherwise married was not a problem for her, and that it should not serve as an obstacle.

In the meantime, Student 1, while employed for the State Bar, accessed the confidential file of Student 3. Student 1 begun gossiping and divulging confidential information to Student 2 concerning Student 3.

Later, Student 2 and Student 3 had a falling out. Student 2, who felt that she was being harassed by Student 3, sought the intervention of School. She asked the Dean to have a "little chat" and "nothing more” with Student 3. However, during a subsequent social meeting which took place between Student 1 and Student 2, a new plan was devised which was to advance a formal complaint against Student 3, rather than the "little chat" that Student 2 had asked for.

Indeed, shortly thereafter, Student 2 advanced a formal written complaint to School against Student 3. Said complaint made no mention of the reason behind the decision to suddenly and abruptly formalize the complaint. The formal complaint contained factually inaccurate information and is otherwise in conflict with some of the contents of the intimate written communication that had taken place between Student 2 and 3.

School begun the process of investigating the formal complaint. During a formal interview of Student 2 with Dean, she disclosed the fact that Student 1 has been sharing with her confidential State Bar information concerning Student 3. Furthermore, during the interview with Dean, Student 2 conceded that Student 3 never touched her, nor did he ever asked for any physical contact to take place , nor that there was ever any such contact.

Subsequently, School scheduled a formal hearing to be conducted in front of 3 faculty members. However, prior to the hearing, Student 2, who at the time was around 30 years old, and her parents became very concerned about the unfolding of events. Especially, after they had learned that Student 3 maintained copies of the various email communications which had taken place between their daughter and Student 3. As such, Student 2 and her parents met with Dean for an urgent meeting.

Dean, after the urgent meeting with Student 2 and her parents, abruptly summoned Student 3 to his office and presented him with an ultimatum to immediately withdraw from School. Student 3 refused, and left the premises. (Later, Student 3 will file suit against School, re-matriculate, and graduate.)

Subsequently, Student 3 submitted an application to the State Bar, which was rejected. Student 3 sought hearing/trial to take place in front of the State Bar Court. The case was assigned to the courtroom of Judge Patrice McElroy. While Judge McElroy presided over the case, the State Bar was represented by an individual named Donald Steedman. Student 3 represented himself.

State Bar alleged that Student 3 had harassed Student 2. As such, Donald Steedman had planned to present during the trial the viva-voce testimony of Student 2. As at School Student 3 never had a chance to learn the specifics of the allegations made by Student 2 (as Dean unlawfully blocked such an attempt)Student 3 scheduled the deposition of Student 2.

In preparation for her deposition, Student 2 sought the advice and representation of counsel. Indeed, Student 2 retained counsel and appeared with said counsel at her deposition. Student 2's counsel was Dean.

Student 3 objected to Dean's representation of Student 2 due to the obvious conflict, and Dean presumed access to his school-file which is protected by various privacy statues. As such, Student 3 filed a motion with McElroy seeking the disqualification of Dean from representing Student 2. Student 3's motion was denied by McElroy.

A new deposition of student 2 was scheduled, and again she showed up represented by her counsel of choice- Dean. During the deposition, Dean referred to Student 3 as a "Son of a Bitch", whereupon Student 3 aborted the deposition. Student 3 filed a new motion with the State Bar Court. McElroy granted the motion, while at the same time chastised Student 3 as McElroy wished Student 3 had proceeded with the deposition despite Dean’s unprofessional behavior and resort to profanity.

Dean, unhappy with McElroy's decision, sent McElroy a letter in which he informs her that he will not produce his client for another deposition, and would rather face contempt charges. McElroy, capitulated and issued an order which stated that the deposition proceed in writing. McElroy also ordered the parties to show-up for a status conference.

After the status-conference concluded, as Student 3 was about to exit the courtroom, McElroy disclosed off-the-record that Dean had previously been her direct supervisor at the office of public defender. Student 3 asked Judge McElroy to put this disclosure on the record, which she did. Dean, on his part, never disclosed to Student 3 during any of those proceedings that he was acquainted with Judge McElroy. This despite the fact that concurrent with the State Bar Court proceedings, Student 3 was litigating the case against School in order to re-matriculate.

Subsequently, Student 3 conducted further discovery, in which he managed to have Student 2 authenticate the written communication between the two.

He also managed to extract, despite ferocious opposition, the name and identity of Student 1 who was working at the State Bar under the supervision of Donald Steedman. It was, coincidentally, the same Donald Steedman who was opposing Student #3 discovery motions.

By the time, Student 3 managed to seek rulings on the aborted depositions and to extract the identity of Student 1, the 120 days to conduct and complete discovery elapsed.

As such, he filed a motion to re-open discovery in order to obtain discovery from Student 1. Steedman vigorously opposed the motion. McElroy, shockingly, refused to allow the discovery process to be re-opened. Under normal circumstances, a motion to re-open discovery, we are told, are granted as a matter of routine. Not here.

Later, a hearing before Judge McElroy took place, in which she ruled against Student 3, and the matter made its way to the Review Department.

While pending before the Review Department of the State Bar Court, Student 3 deposed Dean as part of the case he filed against School to re-matriculate himself.

Student 3, during the deposition, obtained sworn testimony from Dean in which Dean disclosed that while the case was pending before McElroy, Dean had approached McElroy and offered her to join him for a trip oversees. McElroy accepted Dean's offer and never disclosed it to any one, let alone Student 3.

At this point in time, while Student 3 case was with the Review Department, and on the day he deposed Dean, the saga of "Bribing Pat" had been already consummated, as Pat, after enjoying the trip overseas with Dean, was back at work.

The work of Patrice McElroy, a judge with the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court, which is part of the State Bar of California, involves judging others in matters relating to ethics.

Leslie Brodie of http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/ is Now on Blogger

Below are the posts which were previously posted on http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/. It was either technical difficulties, or intentional sabotage that caused all the www.in.com accounts to be breached. As such, we shall move to more secure sites such as Blogger.





Account lesliebrodie@in.com Has Been Breached.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-29 – 20:06:47

Note to the file.

Upon attempting to log into the email account of lesliebrodie@in.com at around 8:30 p.m. BST (British Summer Time), it was discovered that the account has been breached.









*
What's Cooking? A Peek Inside the Oven.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-27 – 22:01:54

What's Cooking? A Peek Inside the Oven is a new feature on this blog.

It will give the readers the opportunity to monitor/comment/contribute on some of the projects/stories which are currently being worked on. Not all stories will be published.

It will also answer some of the questions submitted by readers as to the status of the various projects.

This entry will be updated from time to time. Please feel free to contact us with news/comments/ideas about the topics mentioned below.

* Is B & P 6079.1(b) which reads "The State Bar Court shall be broadly representative of the ethnic, sexual, and racial diversity of the population of California" Constitutional ? Or does it violate various laws i.e. Prop 209. Many readers expressed concerns about Richard Honn, and Patrice McElroy. Both of whom are africans.
Especially in case in which Honn disbarred a lawyer who sued two banks, and in the case of Richard Fine.

Is there an overall pattern and willingness on the part of minorities to violate and disregard the civil rights of others? While, like Honn and McElroy, enjoy the civil rights protections to the fullest extent of the law, and than some such as the ruling of Perez v. Sharp.

* Finalizing the ethics complaint re Mike Nisperos concerning his past use of illegal drugs, endangering the public by opening fire at an imaginary intruder, and by attempting to board an airplane while carrying a weapon.

* Finalizing and filling ethics complaint against Tammy Albertsen-Murray, Jeff DalCerro, Mike Nisperos concerning the 60 day suspension scandal.

* Filing complaints with Office on Judicial Performance against judges involved in the 60 day suspension scandal, and possibly Supreme Court justices.

* Possible stories: Philip Kay; the willy nilly disbarment of Phil Stimac--as oppose to the discipline free Nisperos-- side by side comparison.

* Finalizing a complaint against JoAnn Remke, Judith Epstein, Ronald Stovitz, and Catherine Purcell to the Office on Judicial Performance.

* Bribing Pat-- the shocking details behind the bribery of State Bar Court judge Patrice McElroy.

* Hannah Does

* Looking into possibility of amending State Bar complaint against Kerr& Wagstaffe to include new allegations of misconduct concerning various issues.

* Possible story on this blog concerning past stream of young white females at Kerr & Wagstaffe i.e. Gesa Teimann, Erin Murphy, Jordan Enright-Schulz, Bronwyn Galloway.

* Looking into whether the Swedish-born Hastings grad Kathy Shull was an employee of Kaus Ker Wagstaffe? Some pleadings create the impression that she might have been. Or, was it that Kaus, Kerr& Wagstaffe together with Kathy Shull (who might have been a sole-practitioner) represented Abascal in a spree of unmanufactured suits against financial institutions.

Was Shull ever convicted as a result of being stopped by the F.B.I driving a black Cadillac which contained drugs? Was Abascal ever convicted? Possible Bonnie & Clyde story.

* Research the circumstances concerning the departure of a female lawyer who was employed at KKW (Elizabeth Arnold) Was she ever employed at KW? Said lawyer currently employed at a firm in San Rafael Kelley & Farren, along with Jane Kerr, who is married to Mr. Kerr of KW. Why said associate was not hired by KW, or why did she leave/let go?

* Examine Hastings Prof. Marsha Cohen's misrepresentation concerning the race of the former associate at KW (In her emails to Intern LB, she misrepresented race of associate)

* Campaigning against various NAPABA events (Ritz Carlton + Walmart, etc.)

* Closer to the November election, campaigning against Ming Chin, Ronald George, Moreno? Baxter?

* Closer to the November election, filing complaints and campaigning against Ronald George, Barbara George concerning various acts of misconduct for i.e. nepotism, arranging a job for his wife, etc.

* Investigate as to reasons Justice Ming Chin's name appears on the ballot as M. William Chin.








Poor Chevron- Part 3 Formal Ethics Complaint to the State Bar of Massachusets against Cristobal Bonifaz.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-23 – 00:53:12

By a unanimous vote, the crew at http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/ has decided against the submission of the complaint concerning Bonifaz to the Massachusetts State Bar.

The reasons behind the decision are as follows:

1) A malicious prosecution action filed by Chevron against Bonifaz is still pending. As such, any misconduct which might or might not have taken place is already being investigated and scrutinized.

2) Initially, the research which was conducted as to misconduct allegedly commited by Bonifaz, was limited to reading documents and pleadings which were in the court file. Based on that, a complaint was prepared and was about to be dispatched and publicized. As few minor details were still missing, a research on the internet took place.

It was there, while viewing pictures (and not pleadings) of the Amazon basin, it became clear as to the unusual circumstances Bonifaz had to deal with. Both as far as the unique geography of the place, which is for all intent and purposes a rain-forest; to the human aspect, which consisted of native tribes who speak their own unique languages and have their own unique costumes, mores, and way of thinking.

Those costumes, mores and way of thinking, while certainly equal to our culture, are nonetheless different. Those differences surely can be a source of confusion as to whether a prospective plaintiff understood (or most likely not) that a class-action is about to be filed on his behalf in the U.S., for example.

Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, any miscommunications and misunderstandings between the U.S. based Bonifaz and his clients, which were situated deep in a rain-forest, were unavoidable.

It certainly was not a situation where lawyer meet client, face to face in an air-conditioned office, whereupon the lawyer can properly evaluate the client, and the validity of the claims. Nor was it a situation where Bonifaz could easily communicate with his clients via phone/fax/email. Or, for that matter, easily obtain medical records and expert evaluations concerning any inquiries that he had concerning the validity of a certain claim, for example.

Even the paralegal/lawyer in Ecuador, when asked to confer with plaintiffs, had to travel hours by various means in order to reach plaintiffs.

As such, it was and will be unfair to hold Bonifaz to the same professional standards which are normally applied to lawyers in federal courts, considering the logistical difficulties he was faced with.

If anything, Bonifaz should be credited for exposing the atrocities and crimes which took place in Ecuador--against both humanity and nature.

00/00/0000 -- Complaint was not submitted.

Constance V. Vecchione.
Office of Bar Counsel.
Board of Bar Overseers.
99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail.

Re: Formal Ethics Complaint against Cristobal Bonifaz.

I. INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT.

Please register a formal complaint against Mr. Cristobal Bonifaz of Conway Massachusetts. Mr. Bonifaz was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar on 12/15/1986.

Mr. Cristobal Bonifaz ("Bonifaz") was heavily sanctioned by a federal judge in California for his role in "manufacturing" false claims against Chevron, a California-based corporation, while representing plaintiffs from Ecuador.

The federal court, on its own volition, sanctioned Bonifaz in the amount of $45,000 for violating F.R.C.P. 11 (“Rule 11”) in connection with his misconduct. Specifically, Bonifaz manufactured false claims against Chevron in order to obtain a quick cash settlement and because Bonifaz, as he stated in Spanish, wanted to “stick it to Chevron.”

Not only that he manufactured claims, but he also advanced the suit for improper purposes. Bonifaz's agenda at the time, as determined by a federal judge in the U.S. who found that “It is clear to the Court that this case was manufactured by plaintiffs’ counsel [Bonifaz] for reasons other than to seek a recovery on these plaintiffs’ behalf.”

The federal judge was so unimpressed with him that he specifically ordered Bonifaz not to bargain with Chevron concerning the release of the $45,000 sanction in any exchange that will result in a detriment to any potential plaintiff or claims. The judge issued such an order as he suspected that the interests of the plaintiffs were not on the top of Bonifaz's priorities, and as such was concerned that Bonifaz might bargain away the sanctions at the expense of his clients.

Moreover, and in addition to the serious misconduct committed by Bonifaz during the litigation against Chevron, there are two other potential areas of misconduct by Bonifaz that should be independently investigated by the Massachusetts Bar. Those two issues are not formally part of this complaint as not enough facts and evidence are available at this point to make such claims with complete certainty. As such, it is requested that the Office of Bar Overseers conduct an independent investigation as to those two potential issues.

The first potential issue is the fact that Bonifaz did not name PetroEcuador as a defendant in the latest lawsuit he had filed in federal court in California. It has already been determined by Judge Allsup that Bonifaz’s reasons for advancing the suit were suspect, and it is specifically requested that the Office of Bar Overseers investigate the reason Bonifaz never named (on behalf of his clients) PetroEcuador as a defendant, given that it was also allegedly responsible for releasing toxic materials into the Amazon Basin, along with Texaco.

By not naming PetroEcuador as a defendant, Bonifaz may have breached his duties of loyalty and zealousness to his clients, particularly in filing of the latest suit in the Northern District of California where, arguably, PetroEcuador enjoys no special protection. PetroEcuador could have been a defendant which could have also been held responsible for any injuries Bonifaz’s clients sustained.

It is believed that, at one point in the past, PetroEcuador was one of Bonifaz’s clients and that Bonifaz represented PetroEcuador in a related U.S. federal Court action against Chevron in 2004. This obvious conflict could have provided the basis for Bonifaz’s decision not to name PetroEcuador. As Bonifaz did not want to name in a suit a former client of his.

It also raises the issue of whether or not he disclosed the conflict to anyone, including plaintiffs, that he had represented Petroecuador in the past and whether or not waivers were obtained.

The second area of potential misconduct which the Board is being asked to investigate independently is the fact that by filing a new suit in the U.S., Bonifaz may have ignored the fact that in a similar suit which he himself advanced in the federal court in New York in 1993, it was found that the U.S. was not the proper forum to litigate such a case.

In the New York suit, Bonifaz was told that he can only file such suits in Ecuador, which he did. However, after he was fired by his clients in the Ecuador action, Bonifaz turned around and filed a suit in the U.S. again, despite being told by a federal judge in New York that the U.S. is not the proper forum.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Lago Agrio oil field is an oil-rich area in the country of Ecuador. Over a period of 20 years, the Lago Agrio field produced 1.7 billion barrels of oil with a profit of $25 billion. 95 percent of the profit went to the government of Ecuador through its national oil company--PetroEcuador. Presently, PetroEcuador is the sole owner of the field.
The oil field is known internationally for the serious ecological problems that oil development has created there, including water pollution, soil contamination, deforestation, and cultural upheaval.

Since 1993, lawyers representing local residents have sought to force former well operator Texaco and its now parent company Chevron Corporation to clean up the area and provide for the care of those affected.

It was also in 1993 that Critobal Bonifaz first concocted the original lawsuit against Texaco, along with Steven Donziger, an attorney from California who attended law school with Bonifaz's son. The suit was filed in a federal district court located in the State of New York.
The suit named Texaco (which was later acquired by Chevron) as a defendant. After almost a decade of litigation, the suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (improper forum) without any recovery for the plaintiffs.

After the suit in New York was dismissed, a new suit was filed against Chevron in the Country of Ecuador. This suit is known as the “Lago Agrio” suit. The Lago Agrio suit gained publicity as the 30,000 plaintiffs gathered together under the umbrella of the Amazon Defense Coalition (“ADC”).

Initially, Mr. Bonifaz represented close to 50 plaintiffs in the Lago Agrio action. Later, however, the plaintiffs fired him due to his unprofessional behavior and his tendency to unilaterally take action and make decisions without consulting anyone. Specifically, when he was dismissed from his role, the Committee which was overseeing the entire litigation stated in a resolution:

"Attorney Bonifaz’s actions in the last few years have been unilaterally decided and personal” and constituted “more than a grave lack of respect but a violation of the internal decision-making processes with respect to the legal process, which has created a feeling of distrust in the directors and the legal team members alike.”

(The Lago Agrio litigation is still ongoing to this date. Attorney Pablo Fajardo, who represents the plaintiffs, and activist Luis Yanza, received the Goldman Environmental Prize for their work on this case. The prize is considered the most prestigious award for environmental protection in the world. On August 31, 2009, it was revealed that a member of Ecuador's ruling party, Alianza Pais, bribed Judge Juan Núñez, who is the presiding judge in the case. The judge agreed to rule against Chevron, to deny Chevron's appeals, and also discusses the allocation of the $3 million bribe between himself, the president, and the plaintiffs.)

Because of his dismissal from the case, Bonifaz felt humiliated and betrayed. This wasn’t the way to treat the grandson of a former president of Ecuador (Mr. Neptali Bonifaz was elected president of Ecuador in 1931), and the first lawyer bringing such a claim. Also, it was the second time in which litigation Bonifaz had advanced against Chevron ended unsuccessfully for him. As such, Bonifaz grew upset, frustrated, and angry as through the years, he also developed animosity towards Chevron. And, as later will be shown, he wanted to "stick it to Chevron."

As such, Bonifaz devised a new scheme, which was to advance an entirely new lawsuit against Chevron in the U.S. By doing so, Bonifaz hoped that if he won the case he would 1) enrich himself financially; 2) “stick it” to Chevron, his nemesis; 3) show the plaintiffs who fired him that they had made a mistake; and, 4) look like a hero and receive honor and respect as the person who managed to right a wrong against a U.S. company that polluted part of the Amazon Basin, in his beloved native country of Ecuador, where his grandfather once served as the president. As a side note, most of the pollution which took place in the area was the responsibility of PetroEcuador.

As mentioned before, it is unknown why Bonifaz did not name PetroEcuador as a defendant in the recent litigation advanced in California. This may or may have not been an act of misconduct on his part which the Board of Overseers should investigate independently.

In order to advance his new scheme, Bonifaz needed plaintiffs that he could represent against Chevron in a suit he had pre-planned to file in a federal court in Northern California, where Chevron headquarter is located.

Those potential plaintiffs were merely tools and instruments that Bonifaz could use to achieve his objectives. At the time, however, Bonifaz was plaintiff-less. As such, Bonifaz went on a plaintiff shopping spree. He paid a lawyer in Ecuador (Gerardo Peña Matheus) to find suitable plaintiffs. In one of the communications between Bonifaz and the lawyer, Bonifaz wrote, in part:

"What I need is the following:

(1) Three or four people who have resided close to the lakes of petroleum left by Chevron and who have discovered in the last four years that they have some form of Cancer.

(2) If it is possible also a simple letter from Dr. Ribadeneira or from any medic who has examined these persons that says that in his opinion there is at least a 51% probability that the Cancerwas caused by the fact that these people have been exposed to the petroleum contamination in the Amazon.

(3) Letters or some type of simple document by which these persons give you authorization to seek a remedy in court to compensate them. It is possible that with this last action in court that I am planning we will give Chevron “la copa” (translated as “Stick it to Chevron”)." (Rector Decl. (Gonzales) Exh. 1.)

Later, Bonifaz and Mr. Mateus prepared a one-page intake form to gather information from prospective plaintiffs. In January 2006, Bonifaz commissioned Mr. Mateus’s paralegal, Teresa Gallo ("Teresa") in Ecuador “to contact poor indigent residents of the rain-forest who [were] now discovering that they [had] been injured by years of exposure to Texaco’s pollution, because either they or their close relatives [were] now contracting Cancer.”

As will be shown, in his zeal to sue Chevron, Bonifaz ignored even his own instruction and conditions which he enumerated in the letter to the lawyer in Ecuador, such as the requirement of a diagnosis by a medic, and 51% probability of Cancer having been caused by the petroleum contamination.

After Teresa managed to locate nine plaintiffs – and despite the fact that the intake questionnaires for some of the plaintiffs were suspect, that Bonifaz had never met with the plaintiffs, and that Bonifaz did not have authorization to sue on their behalves – a suit was nonetheless filed in the U.S.

Specifically, on April 25, 2006, Bonifaz as the lead counsel with two co-counsels (Paul Hoffman and Terry Collingsworth) filed a suit on behalf of the nine Ecuadorans, asserting claims against Chevron and two of its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case is captioned Gonzales v. Chevron, Case No. 06-02820 WHA. Presiding over the case was the Honorable William Allsup.

On all pleadings, Bonifaz has listed himself as the lead attorney, and he has so acted throughout the litigation. The original complaint was signed by Paul Hoffman. The second amended complaint was signed by Terry Collingsworth.

The complaint sets forth various tort claims against defendants including negligence, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and battery. The complaint also contains many false and untrue allegations, primarily that Chevron was responsible for some of the plaintiffs developing serious illnesses, including a child which the complaint falsely alleged suffered from leukemia.

After two years of litigation, in which the court and Chevron were misled, the allegations made by some of the plaintiffs were exposed as fraudulent. For example, the child who was allegedly dying of leukemia was actually quite healthy, and never really developed the disease.

Specifically, the claims made by plaintiffs Gloria Chamba, Nixon Rodriguez, and Luisa Gonzales that they had contracted Cancer(or represented a family member that had contracted cancer) from the Ecuador oil operations of defendants Texaco were found to be bogus. Testimonies taken during depositions eventually proved those claims to be false — they concededly have never had Cancer at all — and their claims were dismissed.

Misconduct Relating to Plaintiff Chamba's Son.

Chamba herself, during her deposition, admitted that she has suffered no physical injury. In the complaint, Chamba alleged that she suffered from emotional distress due to her son’s leukemia, allegedly caused by defendants’ conduct.

At her deposition, however, Chamba admitted that her son does not have and has never had leukemia.

In fact, the one-page intake which Bonifaz required Teresa to complete for the son was incomplete. Notably, the date of first diagnosis of Cancer was left blank, i.e., no date of first diagnosis of Cancer was recorded. Also, no one bothered to get the hospital records to see if leukemia had been diagnosed. Furthermore, there was no confirmation of Cancer by any doctor or other medical professional or, for that matter, express authorization to sue on his behalf in the United States.

When confronted with the lies, Bonifaz stated that the claims concerning the Leukemia were verbally communicated to the paralegal (Teresa) by Plaintiff Chamba concerning the fact that her son had leukemia. Teresa stated in a declaration, “One of the persons with whom we communicated during our stay in Lago Agrio was Chamba who assured us that she lived in a region completely contaminated by oil, that her youngest son had been contaminated by petroleum, and that he suffered from leukemia.”

Even assuming that Teresa communicated the information to Bonifaz, such information alone was not sufficient to constitute a reasonable and competent inquiry into the key claim of Cancer. This is particularly true since, prior to commencing the action, Bonifaz was aware of warning flags over the Cancer claim: (i) the one-page intake form was the sole writing regarding the Cancer claim, yet it left a conspicuous blank where the date of first diagnosis of Cancer was supposed to have been; (ii) it made no mention of actual Cancer or leukemia, only a mention of “suspected” Cancer; (iii) there was no medical documentation that the son had Cancer, much less a medical letter stating with “51% probability” that any Cancer was caused by petroleum contamination as Bonifaz had requested; and (iv) Plaintiff Chamba had not given knowing and informed consent for plaintiffs’ counsel to bring suit in her name in the United States. Bonifaz nonetheless filed the complaint alleging the child had leukemia.

In a second amended complaint, it was falsely alleged that:

"Plaintiff Chamba’s son, who was seven years old, was diagnosed with leukemia. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Chamba’s son contracted cancer because of his exposure to those toxins. Plaintiff Chamba has suffered and will continue to suffer damages that include, without limitation, emotional distress (including fear that she will contract cancer and/or other latent diseases) and medical expenses (both for her own medical monitoring and for her son’s medical monitoring and treatment) . . . Plaintiff Chamba provides care to her son as he slowly deteriorates from his Cancer, knowing that his condition might be treatable if there were adequate medical facilities in the region.”

Even after Teresa obtained the child’s medical records, which made no mention of Leukemia or any other Cancer, Bonifaz did not dismiss the complaint as he was required to. Instead, vexatiously, he masked the problem by promulgating misleading interrogatory answers and other delay tactics, per findings made by Judge Allsup.

In May 2007, defense counsel went to Ecuador and deposed all plaintiffs. By this point, plaintiffs’ counsel surely knew there was no basis for perpetuating the pretense in the pleadings, but continued to do so anyway instead of dismissing the claims.

Defense counsel deposed Plaintiff Chamba on May 31, 2007. She testified then that her son never had leukemia and that his medical records made no mention of any such illness. Moreover, Plaintiff Chamba testified that she did not authorize her lawyers to sue Texaco on her behalf. No one had informed her that they were going to sue Texaco based on the claim that her son had leukemia.


Misconduct Relating to Plaintiff Gonzales.

Plaintiff Luisa Gonzales is forty years old and is a resident of the Amazon rain forest region. She has never had cancer, and no doctor has ever told her she had cancer.

Before the suit was filed, Teresa interviewed Luisa Gonzales. On the Intake Form, Gonzales reported that she has breast Cancer. However, there was no indication of any diagnosis by a doctor. Where the form asked Plaintiff Gonzales how she arrived at the conclusion that the Cancer was caused by contamination, she responded “Because everybody says that the result of the contamination is going to kill us.”

Gonzales alleged in the complaint that she had been diagnosed with breast Cancer allegedly caused by exposure to defendants’ toxins.
Gonzales further alleged in the complaint that she "was diagnosed with breast Cancer in April 2005," and that "her Cancer has been caused by her exposure to those toxins, and Gonzales has suffered and will continue to suffer damages that include, without limitation, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and medical expenses."

In her deposition, Gonzales stated that two months before her May deposition, she had told other plaintiffs’ attorneys, Dennis Pantazis and Othni Lathram, that the biopsy showed no sign of breast Cancer. Gonzales received the results of a favorable biopsy in August 2006. She informed her lawyers that she did not have Cancer in March 2007. However, instead of dismissing the action, counsel continued the pretense through artfully worded interrogatory answers.

The claims contained in the complaint concerning plaintiff Gonzales were never substantiated by medical records as required by the intake form.
Once again, the warning flags known to counsel were: (i) there was no medical facts supporting a claim of Cancer; (ii) there was no “51% probability” opinion from a medic stating that Plaintiff Gonzales had Cancer, much less a “51% probability” that any cancer was caused by petroleum contamination; (iii) Plaintiff Gonzales did not give knowing and informed consent for counsel to commence action in her name in another country; and (iv) plaintiffs’ counsel had never interviewed Plaintiff Gonzales prior to lawsuit. Without resolving these issues, plaintiffs’ counsel rushed ahead and commenced this action.


Misconduct Relating to Plaintiff Nixon Rodriguez.

As to plaintiff Nixon Rodriguez, no intake form for him was ever obtained by Bonifaz. Contrary to the complaint, he did not tell Teresa that he suffered from physical and emotional problems caused by defendants’ operations. Even after plaintiffs’ counsel was given the opportunity to provide supplemental information from Teresa, her declaration made no mention of Plaintiff Rodriguez or what he said during their interview, and has not denied Plaintiff Rodriguez’s testimony.

The warning flags were obvious to Bonifaz: (1) there was no intake form for Plaintiff Rodriguez; (2) there was no evidence whatsoever supporting a claim of physical and emotional injury; and (3) Plaintiff Rodriguez did not give knowing and informed consent to plaintiffs’ counsel to sue in his name in the United States. Without resolving these concerns, Bonifaz pushed ahead and used Plaintiff Rodriguez’s name to launch the suit in the United States in order to satisfy his own personal vendetta against Chevron.

On October 16, 2007, Judge William Allsup issued an order imposing sanctions on Bonifaz. Judge Allsup made the following factual determinations: "This order holds that plaintiffs’ counsel did not reasonably and competently investigate whether these plaintiffs actually had Cancer before filing suit."

Additionally, it was held that "Collingsworth and Hoffman knew or should have known how weak was the evidentiary support and that the inquiry was neither competent nor reasonable."

Judge Allsupy also wrote:

“This Court has considerable respect for public interest lawyers and the important work they do. Nonetheless, all counsel, including public interest lawyers, must obey the standards of practice before our United States District Courts. When counsel fall demonstrably below those standards, as here, it would be unfair to excuse the shortfall based on generalized good intentions. The sad fact is that counsel’s haste to sue and lassitude in investigation imposed a real and unnecessary burden on defendants, our judicial system and, truth be told, the three plaintiffs, who never even realized litigation would be brought in their name in the United States.”

The fraudulent charges were dismissed by the court with prejudice, and sanctions in the amount of $45,000 were imposed on Bonifaz for violation of Rule 11 for his role in advancing the false claims, which the court referred to as "manufactured" by Bonifaz.

Based on the above, it is respectfully requested that Cristobal Bonifaz be disciplined for his misconduct. At every stage of the litigation against Chevron, Bonifaz’s conduct was not in conformity with his duties as a lawyer.

As was determined by Judge Allsup, Bonifaz’s motives in bringing the suit were suspect, and he was never authorized to sue on behalf of at least three plaintiffs in the U.S. Bonifaz also failed to advise his clients of the complete body of laws, and the fact that a lawsuit will be filed on their behalf in the U.S. Moreover, Bonifaz failed to conduct an investigation as to the validity of plaintiffs’ claims, and ignored many red flags raised during the litigation concerning the validity of the claims. Instead, during the litigation, he resorted to delay tactics, and manipulation of the discovery process.

It is clear that Bonifaz’s action’s involved moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption. His attitude towards plaintiffs and the judicial system is extremely troubling. As such, the Board of Overseers should discipline Bonifaz for his misconduct.

Additionally, the Board of Bar Overseers is requested to independently investigate the two issues mentioned above. The first concerning the reason behind the fact that Petroecuador was not named as a defendant in the new suit filed in California, and whether or not it was as a result of the fact that Petroecuador was a client of Bonifaz in a suit he advanced against Chevron. The second is the peculiar move on the part of Bonifaz to advance a new action in the U.S. against Chevron despite the fact that a similar prior suit he had advanced in 1993 was dismissed because it was determined that the U.S. was not the proper forum.





Poor Chevron- Part 2. The Facts Behind Chevron's Suit. Misleading Statement by Kerr & Wagstaffe's Jacqueline Scott Corley

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-21 – 00:54:40

As you recall, recently a federal judge dismissed part of a malicious prosecution action Chevron had filed against an attorney named Cristobal Monifaz. The Defendant, Mr. Monifaz, was represented by Jacqueline Scott Corley of Kerr & Wagstaffe.

Ms. Corley claimed that the malicious prosecution action filed by Chevron against her client run afoul of the anti-SLAPP statute. As such, a motion to dismiss the complaint was advanced, and as mentioned above, the court granted only part of the motion.

Therefore, the statement "Firm Wins Anti-SLAPP Motion Against Chevron Corporation" which was published on Kerr & Wagstaffe's web-site and in various press releases is misleading. The malicious prosecution action is still pending as the anti-SLAPP motion was only granted in part

Another misleading statement, of a more serious nature, was made by Jacqueline Scott Corley. In legal briefs to the court, on the firm's web-site as well as via statements released to the media, she asserted the following:

"Chevron sued Monifaz a 75-year-old semi-retired attorney, who operates his solo practice from a barn in rural Massachusetts, simply because the attorney -- who is a native of Ecuador -- had the audacity to dedicate the last 15 years of his legal career to legally assisting the poor, indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon"

I, like the overwhelming majority of the people, would also like to see the rain-forests of south-America preserved, and have the Amazon basin free of pollution. Thus, I was rooting for Mr. Monifaz as I know how super-evil some of those multi-national corporations can be.

But, since the story originated with Kerr & Wagstaffe, I had to verify the story. And, as expected, the story turned out to be misleading.

Do you know why Chevron sued Cristobal Monifaz for malicious prosecution?

Monifaz's "audacity" in dedicating his legal career to assisting the poor people of the Amazon had absolutely nothing to do with the malicious prosecution suit against him

The audacity of Mr. Monifaz to "manufacture" false claims against Chevron is the real reason he was sued.

Chevron sued Cristobal Monifaz for malicious prosecution because he had "MANUFACTURED" false claims against it in a prior suit in which he represented multiple plaintiffs.

Do you know who was the first to use the term "MANUFACTURED" false claims in reference to Cristobal Monifaz ? The answer is Judge William Allsup of the Northern District of California.

Specifically, Judge William Allsup wrote in a dismissal order that the "case was manufactured by plaintiffs' counsel." Plaintiffs' counsel, as you know by now, is none other than Cristobal Monifaz, the 75 year old who operates out of a barn in rural Massachusetts. He is the one with the "audacity".

Additionally, Judge Allsup who was impressed with Monifaz's audacity to dedicate the last 15 years of his legal career to legally assisting the poor, indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon, independently and on the court own motion, imposed a $45.000,00 fine on him for violating Rule 11 while manufacturing claims.

Like some of the misconduct previously exposed in this blog, Monifaz, once caught, also tried to shift the blame to someone south of the border.

They must have a lot of unethical lawyers in South-America. Poor Chevron.





Poor Chevron

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-19 – 17:58:42

Just in case you were not exposed to the blitz of press releases recently issued by Kerr & Wagstaffe, here is the headline:

Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP Prevails as Court SLAPPS Chevron.

One of those "fake" news story portrayed Kerr & Wagstaffe as David with only 11 lawyers. Gibson Dunn which represented Chevron, was portrayed as Goliath with 1000 lawyers . And of course, David won.

Although it was a bloody bottle. Initially, Chevron filed a suit against a Boston lawyer for maliciously prosecution it. Lawyer was in pain and "cried" that Chevron "Slapps" him.

To the rescue came the "Rod" and the "Staff" of "Spear" St., and with the help of Dawn Marie Melton (aka Cherokee) they all went in front of Judge Wilken who "Gutted" the suit and "slapped" Chevron.

Poor Chevron, I saw him this morning at the gas-station, his cheek is all red and puffy.

What was news to me, is the fact the firm now consists of 11 lawyers.

Apparently, yes, a new male associate, Daniel Zaheer, was hired. Not much to report as his background and photo are not posted on the firm's web-site.

The cry concerning the fact that all the associates at the firm are young white females has also been slapped and gutted. Poor Chevron.







Richard Solo

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-17 – 04:25:25

In 1972, a U.C. Hastings student started a part-time office supply business. He named it "Sharper Image" as a reference to the quality of the copies created by the copy machines he was selling.

After graduating from law school, he passed the California bar exam and practiced law, but only for about a year. He voluntarily quit practicing law, as he found a product he believed would sell well — a runner's watch. Later, he discovered additional products that allowed The Sharper Image to increase sales, and open retail stores nationwide.

The company's most successful product was the Ionic Breeze Air Purifier. It was also the product which caused the company to go bankrupt due to negative rating by Consumer Reports magazine.

The founder of the Sharper Image, Mr. Richard Thalheimer, was ousted as the CEO and is now on his own. He operates a business named Richard Solo as a reference to the fact that he is no longer part of the Sharper Image.

There is, however, one more Richard who operates solo. But unlike the Richard from Richard Solo who does so voluntarily, the other Richard does so involuntarily; and has been doing so for the last 14 months out a solitary confinement cell located in the L.A. County Jail.

Richard, who is currently 70 years old, has been practicing law for the last 35 years. He obtained his J.D. from the University of Chicago, and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. At one point, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Norway.

While practicing law he was selected as Lawyer of the Decades 1976-2006, Awarded by the California Black Republican Women's Council and the Judea Christian Alliance; Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition "in recognition of outstanding service to the community"; California State Assembly Certificate of Recognition; California State Board of Equalization Resolution "for outstanding dedication and service to the taxpayers of the community".

The crew at http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/ became familiar with the saga concerning Richard Fine while exposing/investigating and complaining to the authorities the Ronald Stovitz Scandal.

Most of the materials on the internet concerning Richard Fine is disorganized and incoherent. As such, it is hard to follow as to who is playing, and against whom. Apparently, Judge Richard Honn manage to figure it out, and while using sports metaphors in his decision, disbarred him. As I am not familiar with the details of the case at all, I have no basis of knowing whether disbarment was called for or not. As such, we express no opinion as to the proceedings which took place before the State Bar Court.

However, a decision has been made to land a hand to the efforts of releasing Richard from his confinement. Our efforts will consist of posting updates on this medium, and utilizing the crew to further publicize the cause. As mentioned in the past, the purpose of this blog is to expose/report/advance complaints about corruption, and not offer legal counsel. As such, no legal advise will be provided to Mr. Fine in any way whatsoever.

The reasons for supporting Richard’s release from jail has to do with the fact that never in the history of this country a person was held in contempt for such a long period of time. At least I am not aware of any. His advance age, and the fact that there is very little support for him also played a factor. One wonders as to why the ACLU never got involved.

When a terrorist and a sworn enemy of this country was subjected to several ounces of water being poured into his mouth, torture was the word of the day, for weeks. In the case of Fine, silence is.

I hate to say it, but I think that because Richard Fine is Jewish and an attorney, the cards are stacked against him, as both generate very little sympathy. This fact also played a role in the decision to support and help Richard in gaining his freedom.







I was a Latino; He isn't the First Latino.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-14 – 19:29:44

As you recall, in the original petition which I published I wrote:

"Morrison & Foerster, for example, has a Latino partner that with the help of the media is being heavily promoted. Do not be surprised if you will see his white colleagues parading him on Market St."

At the time, I could not remember his name. What I did remember is the embarrassing way the firm promoted him, and the less than dignified way he promoted himself as "Latino".

There are thousands of hard-working, decent, and competent "Latino" attorneys around the country, and hundreds of thousands more in Central and South America which manage to lead life without the constant obsession of look at me "I am a Latino". I would not mind it though, if it was presented as a tasteful condiment, rather than the main dish.

Two weeks ago, for example, I was a Latino. Yes, on May 5 I was a Latino for the day. Same way I am Black on Martin Luther King's Day, and Irish on St. Patrick Day; at least during the second half of the day.

Recently, he was in the news again. Apparently he, along with another partner from New York, are going to head together the firm's litigation department.

Morrison & Foerster issued a press release in which it was stated that San Francisco litigator Arturo González and New York partner Grant Esposito took over as co-chairs of the litigation department from Steven Kaufmann at the start of April. Kaufmann, who works out of Denver, had been the sole litigation chief at Mofo since 2007.

“I might be the first Latino to chair a large litigation group,” noted González.

Respectfully, I disagree with the statement that he "might be the first Latino to chair a large litigation group."

I think Grant Esposito was the first Latino.











Meet Yevgeniy.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-12 – 05:42:22

From time to time, I encounter amazing individuals who regardless of their background/circumstances, left a strong and positive impression on me. Same as with a good movie, which "stays" with you for a day or two.

One of these individuals is Yevgeniy.

Like Holly Fujie, who was the first to appear on this blog as part of the "Meet" series, the current individual also projects positive energies.

You may want to familiarize yourself with Yevgeniy, as one day he will be, or should have been, a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nothing strange and bizarre about him, as it it in the case with Mike Nisperos. No weapons, no cocaine, and no "cooking" the cocaine as Nisperos got into the habit of doing.

Also, no double-talk and no attempted manipulations of thoughts with props such as "CHP magazines" or "Bay Windows" as practiced by Nisperos' Facebook friend, the one selected by his peers. Or, the "Ethics Lawyer" from Walnut Creek who enjoyed taking cheap shots at lower/middle class White America.

With Yevgeniy, and his brother younger Sasha, the word "cooking" will usually be associated with a hearty Borscht, as Sasha points out on his web-site. His mother, Anne, also discusses cooking in her book "The Art of Russian Cuisine".

He was born in the Ukraine to a Jewish family when it was still part of the U.S.S.R. At the age of seven, he and his family emigrated to the United States.

At the age of 12 he was working as a computer programmer, and at the age of 15 graduated U.C.L.A. with a B.S. degree in Math and Computer Science.

While working as a computer programmer for the company he established, he decided to add another dimension, a less scientific one, to his interests. As such, he graduated U.C.L.A. Law School at the age of 24.

After law school, he clerked at the chamber of Ninth Circuit's Alex Kozinski, and later for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court.

After completing his clerkship with the U.S. Supreme Court, he joined the faculty at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, where he still teaches today.

He is considered one of the top scholars in this country in the area of constitutional free speech and related First Amendment issues.

He often attributes his passion for free speech and freedom of religion to the fact that in the former Soviet Union freedom of speech and religion were routinely curtailed. It can be accurately be described as freedom from religion, and the freedom not to speak.

He has written over 60 law review articles and over 80 op-eds on constitutional law, cyberspace law, and other topics. He is also the author of the casebook The First Amendment: Problems, Cases, and Policy Arguments. A survey by University of Texas listed him as the third most cited law professor.

He conspired with his brother Sasha, a law professor at Emory, and other law-professors from around the country, to engage in the crime of writing a blog which gets about 25,000 unique visitors per weekday.

If you want to read his blog, you may do so by searching for the terms "conspiracy" and "Volokh".

If you want to learn more about Yevgeniy, you may do so by searching for the terms: U.C.L.A. Law Professor, Mr. Eugene Volokh.







D E V E L O P I N G.... S T O R I E S..... Suit Alleges State Bar Court Judge Pat McElroy Improperly Accepted Gift... Alex or Alexis... Will the Real Walter Lack Please Stand Up… Was Abascal Convicted ….. Meet Yevgeniy…. Developing...

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-12 – 02:04:44

Judge Pat McElroy of the State Bar Court Hearing Department is accused of accepting an undisclosed "gift" in the form of a trip abroad from an attorney who appeared before her, and without making the proper disclosures, a suit alleges.

The attorney and his client were witnesses against a respondent in a State Bar Court proceeding. Developing...




State Bar Ethics Complaint Against Retired State Bar Court Judge/ Inactive Lawyer Ronald Stovitz

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-11 – 06:18:34

May 11, 2010

Mr. Russell Weiner, Interim Chief Trial Counsel
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299. Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail.

Re: Formal Complaint Against Ronald W. Stovitz #42394

I. INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT.

Dear Mr. Weiner:

Please register a formal complaint against the above-named attorney for violating Rule 2.3 of the State Bar of California Rules.

Additionally, we ask that the State Bar investigate misconduct relating to the fact that Mr. Ronald Stovitz ( “Stovitz”) acted as a Review Department judge in numerous cases, despite the fact that he knew that he was not authorized to do so by the California Supreme Court.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Respondent Stovitz is a member of the State Bar of California. His current record with the State Bar reflects the fact that he is "inactive," and an employee of the State Bar Court. (Generally judges of the State Bar Court (and other courts) take inactive status.)

Respondent Stovitz retired from being a judge few years ago. As such, respondent's record with the State Bar is wholly inaccurate and false.

His last day serving as a judge was November 1, 2006 which was the day the Supreme Court of California ended his mandate to act as a judge with the Review Department. Moreover, the Supreme Court of California appointed Ms. JoAnn Remke as his replacement. As such, on November 2, 2006 the Review Department consisted of P.J Remke, and judges Watai and Epstein.

Nonetheless, today, May 11, 2010, respondent Stovitz record with the State Bar of California still shows that he is with the State Bar Court.
It should be mentioned, that the California Supreme Court, which pursuant to various statutes is the only body authorized to appoint judges to the Review Department, appointed Stovitz as judge pro-tem for a very limited period of time (around eight months) until a replacement will be found to take the place of Judge Watai, who abruptly retired.

Specifically, on March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued the following order:

"Pursuant to rule 9.11(c) of the California Rules of Court, the Supreme Court hereby extends the term of former Presiding Judge Ronald Stovitz to serve as a Review Judge until such time as the Supreme Court appoints an individual to fill the Review Judge position to be vacated by Judge Madge S. Watai and the appointee has taken the oath of office."

Later, the California Supreme Court announced the appointment of Catherine D. Purcell to the Review Department, as a replacement for retired Judge Watai. Purcell took the oath of office on November 1, 2008. As such, the mandate issued relating to Stovitz pro-tem appointment ended on that date.

There is no record indicating that the California Supreme Court extended Stovitz's appointment beyond November 1, 2008. Nonetheless, Stovitz continued to sit in judgment as part of the Review Department on many cases, even though he knew that he was not authorized to do so as he was obviously familiar with the Supreme Court’s March 18, 2008 order.

Moreover, despite the fact that he retired on November 1, 2006 and never appointed again as judge pro-tem since November 1, 2008 Respondent Stovitz never updated his record with the State Bar of California to reflect the fact that he is no longer a judge, as is required by applicable State Bar of California rules, namely Rule 2.3.

Thus, any member of the public examining Stovitz’s Bar records will be misled into believing that he is still employed as a judge with the State Bar Court.

The fact that respondent Stovitz sat in judgment in countless cases, despite the fact that he knew he had no authority from the Supreme Court to act as such, is a source of great concern.

Not only that it reflects poorly on respondent’s integrity, it potentially also placed in jeopardy the outcome of countless cases in which respondent Stovitz was improperly part of the panel of judges.

Few days ago, Mr. Robert Hawley, Deputy Executive Director of the State Bar of California, replying to an inquiry submitted concerning the above wrote the following:

"Judge Stovitz previously served as a pro tem, filling a position created by the early retirement of another State Bar Court Judge and so served by direction of the California Supreme Court."

"Retired State Bar Court Presiding Judge Ronald Stovitz ended his pro tem service to the State Bar some time ago. We were remiss in continuing to list him as a pro tem on the website. We will pass on your reminder to him about the accuracy of his official State Bar membership address."

The assertions made by Mr. Hawley should be viewed as corroborating evidence in demonstrating respondent's misconduct.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.








"Retired P.J. Sitting by Designation of P.J." ; Richard Fine.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-09 – 18:20:44

In the last few days, as part of the exposing/reporting/complaining to the authorities regarding the widespread corruption plaguing the State Bar of California, I was also investigating widespread corruption within the State Bar Court.

It is important to point out that my investigating, reporting, and complaining to the authorities should not serve as a source of legal advise. Nor should you rely on the accuracy of the facts mentioned here. I will hate to see someone relying on what is mentioned on this blog as a source of factual/legal authority. It is not intended to serve as such.

As you recall, it started with the investigation of JoAnn Remke who imposed a mere 60 days suspension on a lawyer which terrorized a synagogue in San Francisco by severely beating the Rabbi and a congregate. During the incident, said lawyer also took it upon himself to share some of his bodily fluids with the victims by spitting in the faces of the victims.

As those victims are Jewish immigrants from the former U.S.S.R, they for the most part, remained voiceless in the face of the State Bar reprehensible misconduct. Part of the reason I became intrigued with the case, aside from being a person of the cloth myself, was the fact that the spitting never made it to the official court record.

Based on my moral conviction, the spitting in the face alone should have been enough of a ground for a prolonged period of suspension, putting aside the identity of the victims and their religious beliefs. I would advocate the same if it was a church occupied by recent immigrants from Central-America, Sweden, Nigeria, or by decedents of those who arrived on the Mayflower.

I would be remiss not mention that doubts concerning the credibility of one of the victims are unfounded, as aside from him, there was at least one other victim who could have provided reliable, credible, and unimpeachable testimony as to the incident, the beating he sustained, and the circumstances surrounding the imposition of respondent's saliva upon his person.

Hence, I am in the process of drafting a complaint against Remke, Stovitz, and others in connection with the above mentioned case. Separately, a complaint to the Office on Judicial Performance is currently being drafted surrounding the circumstances of the current scandal against Remke, Stovitz, and Epstein. A separate complaint to the State Bar of California is being drafted against Stovitz for failure to update his State Bar records for the last two years.

As part of the investigation, we visited the State Bar court web-site, we were confused by the new judicial appointments, as Remke was with the Hearing Department and Stovitz was the P.J. during the time the sharing of the bodily fluid took place. Last week, as you recalled, Stovitz was listed as pro-tem and Remke as the P.J. (Purcell and Epstein were also listed as part of the Review Department)

Attempting to clear the confusion, an inquiry was sent to Mr. Hawley. We also researched the statutory authority which allowed the use of a judge pro-tem by the Review Department. We could not find any. We could only find such authorization in connection with the Hearing Department.

We have found only one specific instance in which the Supreme Court of California specifically designated the retired Ronald Stovitz to be part of the Review Department, and only for a very short period of time; namely until a replacement for Judge Watai will take the oath of office. (For complete details see the previous post on this blog.)

The replacement, Judge Catherine Purcell, took the oath on November 1, 2008 at which point Ronald Stovitz's mandate expired.

However, what we found very interesting and strange, is that Stovitz kept sitting in judgment as part of a Review Department panel. It is as though he never retired.

The question remains as to who authorize a non-appointed person, a civilian sort of speak, to be part of the review Department's panel of judges? The statute authorizes only 3 judges, and they can only be appointed by the California Supreme Court, I have been told.

In the cases in which Stovitz participated, there is a blurb at the footnotes section which reads "retired presiding judge sitting by designation of the presiding judge". In plain English, Judge Remke took it upon herself to designate judges to the Review Department.

Still puzzled, we could not find any statutory authority which allows the P.J. of the Review Department to designate other individuals as part of the panel of judges. If any one know of such an authority that we were remiss in finding, please let me know.

If the P.J. of the Review Department had the legal authority to designate fellow judges,, the Supreme Court of California would not have taken the time to appoint Stovitz pro-tem when Watai retired. The P.J. could have done so herself.

Also, the fact that a statute specifically allowed the Hearing Department to use pro-tem, without any mention of the Review Department should serve as proof that it was the desire of the California Legislators not to allow the use of pro-tem judges by the Review Department.

As mentioned in a prior post on this blog, State Bar of California Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Robert Hawley confirmed that Stovitz was sitting pro-tem pursuant to a Supreme Court order. Mr. Hawley made no mention, after he had 10 days to investigate the matter, of any statutory power Judge Remke relied upon in designating Stovitz.

Responding to my inquiry, Mr. Hawley wrote "Judge Stovitz previously served as a pro tem, filling a position created by the early retirement of another State Bar Court Judge and so served by direction of the California Supreme Court."

Mr. Hawley also wrote "Retired State Bar Court Presiding Judge Ronald Stovitz ended his pro tem service to the State Bar some time ago. We were remiss in continuing to list him as a pro tem on the website. We will pass on your reminder to him about the accuracy of his official State Bar membership address."

The latest case we found in which the retired Stovitz was sitting by designation of P.J. Remke is that of Richard Fine.

Respectfully, I have heard of Mr. Fine, but only in passing, so I am not taking sides either against or in favor of him.

Apparently, his disbarment and subsequent events, generated controversy and publicity.







IT IS OFFICIAL- - Two Scandals Involving Ronald Stovitz / State Bar Court; Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley Acknowledges Irregularities.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-07 – 05:00:50

*please do not rely on this blog, and its content, as a source for any legal advise or counsel, it is not intended to offer such services.

Up until now, I referred to any scandals concerning the State Bar Court and Ronald Stovitz as "potential" scandal. Now, I am certain.

There are actually two scandals. In the next few days, I will reorganize the blog to make it more coherent. For now, these are the details:

Scandal 1-- involves the fact that Judge Stovitz allegedly acted as a judge without having the proper mandate. Any mandate given to him by the California Supreme Court to act as Review Department judge expired on the day judge Catherine Purcell took the oath of office—as was directed by the Supreme Court.

In November of 2006 Review Department Presiding Judge Stovitz retired. Replacing him was JoAnn Remke, her six-year term as Presiding Judge begins on November 1, 2006.

After the retirement of Judge Stovitz, the Review Department consisted of judges Remke, Epstein and Watai.

Around March of 2008, Watai announced that she is retiring.

The Supreme Court of California, which is solely authorize to make judicial appointment to the Review Department, appoints Ronald Stovitz Judge only until a permanent replacement to Judge Watai is appointed by the Supreme Court.

In an order dated March 18, 2008 the Supreme Court of California issued the following: "Pursuant to rule 9.11(c) of the California Rules of Court, the Supreme Court hereby extends the term of former Presiding Judge Ronald Stovitz to serve as a Review Judge until such time as the Supreme Court appoints an individual to fill the Review Judge position to be vacated by Judge Madge S. Watai and the appointee has taken the oath of office."

June 26, 2008 was Judge Watai's last day on the bench.

As such, at this point, Remke, Epstein, and Stovitz are part of the Review Department.

Later, the California Supreme Court announced the appointment of Catherine D. Purcell to the Review Department.

On November 1, 2008 Catherine D. Purcell took the oath of office.

Therefore, the mandate of Judge Stovitz ended on the day Judge Purcell took office, which was November 1, 2008.

There is no record of the California Supreme Court extending Stovitz's appointment.

Nonetheless, he still acts as a judge. On March 6, 2009, for example, he issues a recommendation to disbar an attorney by the name of Fahy. Also, in the matter of IONE YOUNG GRAY [#74491] Stovitz was involved. The date of the disbarment was Sept. 7, 2007.

In addition, the State Bar Court own web-site listed him as the Review Department judge pro-tem up until May 5, 2010. It was only after I contacted Mr. Robert Hawley to inquire about the issue, the name of Stovitz was removed.

Scandal 2-- involves the fact that since November 1, 2006 up until today, which is May 7, 2010 Mr. Stovitz failed to update his records with the State Bar of California.

As of today, his State Bar records still show him to be working at the State Bar Court.

My take on events, and the more believable scenario, is that the current record is quite accurate, and (as few cases point out in the footnote) presiding Judge Remke took it upon herself to designate Stovitz pro tem as needed. For example, in the matter of Robert Rudnic, it is mentioned that Stovitz sits by designation of P.J. Remke.

State Bar of California's Robert Hawley wrote to me yesterday, and acknowledged two inaccuracies.

This is part of what Mr. Robert Hawley wrote:

"Nevertheless, I thank you here for bringing to our attention certain outdated aspects of our website that have now been corrected. Retired State Bar Court Presiding Judge Ronald Stovitz ended his pro tem service to the State Bar some time ago. We were remiss in continuing to list him as a pro tem on the website. We will pass on your reminder to him about the accuracy of his official State Bar membership address."

"Judge Stovitz previously served as a pro tem, filling a position created by the early retirement of another State Bar Court Judge and so served by direction of the California Supreme Court."




Important Update # 4 to potential Ronald Stovitz /State Bar Court Scandal

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-07 – 00:46:20

As you know, there is a concern as to the improper use of a judge pro-tem by the Review Department of the State Bar Court.

We maintain that no authority exists for such a position. Yet, in the last few years, since retiring in November of 2006, Mr. Ronald Stovitz has been acting in such capacity

State Bar Court own publication provides, that the Supreme Court appoints two of the hearing judges. The Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules each appoint one additional hearing judge.

The review department, which is the appellate level of the State Bar Court should consist of the Presiding Judge and two part-time review judges. The Supreme Court appoints all of the judges of the review department.

Moreover, the two B & P Statutes previously mentioned allow the use of pro tem only by the Hearing Department.

Thus, we reasonably wished to inquire as to the appearance that Judge Pro-Tem Ronald Stovitz is acting without the proper mandate.

Apparently, as we found out, it was not the Supreme Court of California which appointed Mr. Stovitz pro-tem.

It was Judge JoAnn Remke. We found a clue in the footnote of a published Review Department decision in which it is mentioned that Judge Pro-Tem Stovitz is sitting by designation of the Presiding Judge. The case is the matter of Robert Rudnick Case No. 03-R-03557, the footnote make mention of it. Please take a look:
Stovitz Pro Tem Sitting By Designamtion - Copy

The question now is whether Judge Remke had the legal authority to make such a designation???

There are more interesting developments that will be posted soon.





Update 3 as to potential Ronald Stovitz Scandal, copy of April 23, 2010 State Bar Court Web-Page Listing Stovitz as Pro-Tem.(which was later removed)

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-06 – 14:23:05

As you recall, we were investigating allegation of improprieties by Ronald Stovitz, a judge with State Bar Court Review Department.

It started with what we had suspected (and still suspect)as a web of misconduct concerning the imposition of a mere 60 day actual suspension on an attorney who violently terrorized a synagogue used by new Jewish immigrants from Russia. (in addition to other instances of antisemitism and/or other serious misconduct committed by few of the OCTC prosecutors (For some strange reason, the name Donald Steedman is mentioned frequently)

During the investigation, we have noticed that Mr. Stovitz is listed as judge pro tem with the Review Department. That was puzzling, as there is no statute, at least not one that we can find, authorizing the use of pro-tem use by the Review Department.

On April 22, we contacted Robert Hawley concerning an inquiry/request we wished to convey the State Bar Court presiding judge, the Hon. JoAnn Remke.

We also wanted to find out (and still do) who authorized and appointed him as a pro-tem judge? Was it the Chief Justice? the Board of Governors? the Governor? A very simple and legitimate inquiry.

At that time, Mr. Ronald Stovitz was listed on the State Bar Court web-page as judge pro-tem. For example, here is a picture of the court web-page from April 23, 2010. As you can see, it lists Ronald Stovitz as judge pro-tem.

Stovitz Pro Tem - Copy - Copy

What we have found very strange was:

1. The extremely evasive and inappropriate reply we have received from Robert Hawley. The timing of the reply was also a factor.

2. The fact the shortly after our initial email to Robert Hawley, the name of Ronald Stovitz has been removed form the State Bar Court web-site.

More to come soon.




Revealing "Anon"

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-06 – 00:09:25

Since I exposed and filed a complaint concerning the HMS (Howard Miller Scandal), more information and material has been forwarded to me about other scandals and corruption involving the State Bar of California. As such,in fairness to everyone, I have to be very prudent as to what I publish on this blog.

Recently, for example, information was forwarded to me concerning a former State Bar employee (I shall refer to him for now as "Anon") who has been arrested carrying a weapon while attempting to board an airplane in Burbank, CA. I have also been told, that later on, Anon was charged and convicted in a court of law in connection with the incident at the airport.

With all due respect to the person who provided me with the information, while very useful and appreciated, I can not, willy nilly, post such inflammatory information without verifying the story myself.

The good news is that I can share part of the story with you, as yesterday, I learned more about the incident and manage to verify the accuracy of part the story. However, as of yet, I have not seen any proof as to any criminal conviction. As such, I can not comment on that part. But I can tell you what had happened at Burbank Airport, and reveal the identity of "Anon".

Turned out, not surprisingly, "Anon" is none other than the former crack-addict, the former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, Mr. Mike Ancheta Nisperos.

Attempting to board a flight from Burbank to Oakland, Mr. Nisperos was arrested by security for the unlawful possession of a weapon.

As you are probably aware, weapons are not allowed on board airplanes. Accordingly, criminal charges were brought against him.

I do not know what was the outcome of the prosecution, and am still working on obtaining the criminal file.

As you recall, Nisperos is also the one who opened fire at an imaginary intruder while suffering from strange delusion. That incident took place in Oakland. The day after the shooting, Mr. Nisperos was arrested and charged with being under the influence of cocaine and for possession of narcotic paraphernalia.







California Volunteer Needed to Search Records Re: Girardi & Keese, Donald Steedman, and Former State Bar Employee Anon.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-04 – 19:55:40

At this point, in addition to the current scandals involving the State Bar of California/State Bar of Scandals, I am also working on new allegations of misconduct that were brought to my attention.

Currently, because of technical difficulties, I do not have access to various data bases.

If you live in California, either Southern or Northern, and wish to help, please contact me at lesliebrodie@in.com

If you do not live in California, and wish to volunteer, please also contact me as you may be able to do the search electronically.

Most of the volunteer work will be searching court records (which can be done electronically), and other related research.

You do not need to be a lawyer, and it is assumed that even if you are, you will not be engaging in the practice of law.

The new projects are:

1. It was brought to my attention that a former attorney employee of the State Bar of California (which we will refer to as "Anon") pleaded guilty to a crime concerning the unlawful possession of a weapon. That individual might have tried to board an airplane unlawfully with the weapon. I can not file a complaint and post an entry on this blog before I am 100% sure that what I have been told is true. As such, I will need a volunteer who will need to perhaps go to court in the area of San Fernando Valley.

2. The second newest project I am working on concerns allegation of corruption/misconduct which were committed by a State Bar of California employee, Mr. Donald Steedman. Likewise, as the allegations concerning Donald Steedman relate to prosecutorial misconduct, I can not post anything about it on the blog before it can be verified. I am asking for a volunteer to access and copy court records in the Bay Area.

3. The third new project I am working on concerns a case involving Girardi & Keese and an attorney from Pacific Palisades. A blurb in a recent published case alluded to a potential misrepresentation by Girardi & Keese as to the exact State Bar status of said attorney. I will ask for a copy of the appellate briefs and appendix.







Update 2 Record of Communication with Robert Hawley Concerning Potential Ronald Stovitz Scandal.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-04 – 17:37:12

May 4, 2010.

On April 24, 2010 I wrote State Bar representative Robert Hawley about a concern we had regarding the use of a judge pro-tem by the Review Department of the State Bar Court.

Previously, Mr.Hawley and I informally agreed that he will serve as an intermediary with State Bar officials.

This is the content of the April 24, 2010 communication:

To: Mr. Robert Hawley
Re: State Bar Court Matter

Greetings Mr. Hawley:

1. At the present, we are conducting an investigation as to potential misconduct committed by a Judge Stovitz of the State Bar Court.

It is noted on the court's web-site that Judge Stovitz is a pro-tem judge. We are interested in inquiring with the Presiding Judge/Board of Governors as to the what source of power or authority (i.e. statute) was used in appointing him judge pro-tem.

Would you like to mediate? Please let me know.

2. Upon second reading of the blog I write, the part where you are mentioned in a blurb about your disinclination to communicate with me (concerning money and other items of value donated to the State Bar and its foundation by Girardi & Keese) is inaccurate. My concern was about you/State Bar choose not to communicate with me altogether. However, you did write back. I will place a note on the blog concerning my error.

Thank you for your time."

Mr. Hawley, despite receiving the communication, never replied to it.

On April 29, 2010 another email was dispatched to Robert Hawley, Starr Babcock, and Cheryl Nyshamura:

I wrote:

Dear Mr. Hawley:

1. Eight days ago you were informed about concerns we have about the power, or lack thereof, to appoint of Mr. Ronald Stovitz to a position of Judge pro-tem.

You were presented with an inquiry as to whether you want to act as an intermediary between us and the presiding judge of the State Bar Court. A rather simple inquiry which requires a yes or no answer. To date, we have not heard from you. As such, this is to inform you that a communication soon will be dispatched directly to Judge Remke and others concerning the matter.

2. Please be advised that henceforth we intend to communicate directly with members of the State Bar Board of Governors, State Bar of California officials, and the State Bar Foundation. Previously, out of courtesy, politeness and a desire to proceed in good faith, we directed communications directly to you. At one point, you wrote back and included a directive to continue directing all communication to you, which we were happy to comply with. However, this arrangement does work very well, at least not for us. As such, the voluntary agreement we had is no longer in place effective immediately.

Please note that our is a political campaign, which does not involve litigation. As such, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting direct communication with officials. If you disagree, and have any legal authority to support your disagreement, please let me know.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any question or concerns.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter."

A day later, on April 30, 2010 Mr. Hawley wrote back, but never addressed or mention anything about the judge pro-tem issue.

As I wrote earlier, yesterday May 3, 2010 an email was dispatched to Judge Remke and many others at the State Bar/Board of Governors, including Howard Miller and Micha Liberty.

Also, you can see that when I wrote Mr. Hawley on April 22, 2010, I mentioned to him that the name of Ronald Stovitz is posted on the State Bar Court web-site as judge pro-tem.

As I wrote yesterday, when I checked the State Bar Court web-site, the name of Ronald Stovitz and the references to judge pro-tem were removed.




Update 1 Concerning Potential Scandal of Pro Tem Judge Ronald Stovitz

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-03 – 23:48:14

*Please do not rely on this blog as a source for legal advise. This is a diary concerning an investigation as to potential misconduct. While some statutes and legal matters are mentioned, they are not intended to serve as legal counsel.

On November 2006, Mr. Stovitz retired from his position as a Review Department Judge at the State Bar Court. At the time, he stated that he would like to serve as a part-time, volunteer judge after his retirement. He did serve as a judge pro tem with the Review Department, and issued decision in countless cases.

I absolutely do not know whether the decisions, in which he was part of the adjudicating panel, are void, voidable or valid. I simply do not know, and do not care to speculate, nor will i ever speculate.

As the Business & Professions Code (both 6086.65. and 6079.1)
do not authorize the appointment of judge pro tem to the Review Department, it became a source of concern to us that Mr. Stovitz sits in judgment.

Within the next few days, if my research is complete and accurate, a complaint will be advanced to the Office of Judicial Performance and other appropriate agencies.







Concerns Over Review Department Lack of Power/Authority to Appoint Pro Tem Judge Ronald Stovitz.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-03 – 21:18:24

Quick Rough Draft.

As part of the investigation into misconduct committed during the prosecution of the attorney who terrorized a synagogue, we also started to investigate Mr. Ronald Stovitz; who was one of the judges involved.

We discovered that he is listed as judge pro-tem with the State Bar Court Review Department. Such a position is not authorized by the statute (enclosed below).

We wrote to Mr. Robert Hawley, who ignored us for 8 days.

Today we sent Judge Remke and others a direct email informing her of our concerns (enclosed below)

Few minutes ago, I checked the State Bar Court web-site, and the name of Ronald Stovitz has been R E M O V E D.

Stay tuned.

To: The Honorable JoAnn Remke, Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court.

Re: Concern Over the Use of Judge Pro Tem by the Review Department.

Dear Judge Remke:

An investigation is currently underway concerning possible improprieties committed by Judge Ronald Stovitz and others.

During the course of the investigation, we have observed that he is currently serving as a judge pro tempore with the Review Department of the State Bar Court.

We would like to please inquire with you as to the circumstances concerning his appointment as judge pro-tempore.

Our research shows that Business and Professions Code 6079.1 allows for the appointment and use of judge pro tempore only by the Hearing Department. We could not find any authority allowing the use of judge pro tempore by the Review Department.

Please contact us at your earliest to inform us concerning your view of the matter. Section 6079.1(a) is enclosed below for your convenience.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

6079.1. (a) The Supreme Court shall appoint a presiding judge of
the State Bar Court. In addition, five hearing judges shall be
appointed, two by the Supreme Court, one by the Governor, one by the
Senate Committee on Rules, and one by the Speaker of the Assembly, to
efficiently decide any and all regulatory matters pending before the
Hearing Department of the State Bar Court. The presiding judge and
all other judges of that department shall be appointed for a term of
six years and may be reappointed for additional six-year terms. Any
judge appointed under this section shall be subject to admonition,
censure, removal, or retirement by the Supreme Court upon the same
grounds as provided for judges of courts of record of this state.
(b) Judges of the State Bar Court appointed under this section
shall not engage in the private practice of law. The State Bar Court
shall be broadly representative of the ethnic, sexual, and racial
diversity of the population of California and composed in accordance
with Sections 11140 and 11141 of the Government Code. Each judge:
(1) Shall have been a member of the State Bar for at least five
years.
(2) Shall not have any record of the imposition of discipline as
an attorney in California or any other jurisdiction.
(3) Shall meet any other requirements as may be established by
subdivision (d) of Section 12011.5 of the Government Code.
(c) Applicants for appointment or reappointment as a State Bar
Court judge shall be screened by an applicant evaluation committee as
directed by the Supreme Court. The committee, appointed by the
Supreme Court, shall submit evaluations and recommendations to the
appointing authority and the Supreme Court as provided in Rule 9.11
of the California Rules of Court, or as otherwise directed by the
Supreme Court. The committee shall submit no fewer than three
recommendations for each available position.
(d) For judges appointed pursuant to this section or Section
6086.65, the board shall fix and pay reasonable compensation and
expenses and provide adequate supporting staff and facilities.
Hearing judges shall be paid 91.3225 percent of the salary of a
superior court judge. The presiding judge shall be paid the same
salary as a superior court judge.
(e) From among the members of the State Bar or retired judges, the
Supreme Court or the board may appoint pro tempore judges to decide
matters in the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court when a judge
of the State Bar Court is unavailable to serve without undue delay
to the proceeding. Subject to modification by the Supreme Court, the
board may set the qualifications, terms, and conditions of service
for pro tempore judges and may, in its discretion, compensate some or
all of them out of funds appropriated by the board for this purpose.
(f) A judge or pro tempore judge appointed under this section
shall hear every regulatory matter pending in the Hearing Department
of the State Bar Court as to which the taking of testimony or
offering of evidence at trial has not commenced, and when so
assigned, shall sit as the sole adjudicator, except for rulings that
are to be made by the presiding judge of the State Bar Court or
referees of other departments of the State Bar Court.
(g) Any judge or pro tempore judge of the State Bar Court as well
as any employee of the State Bar assigned to the State Bar Court
shall have the same immunity that attaches to judges in judicial
proceedings in this state. Nothing in this subdivision limits or
alters the immunities accorded the State Bar, its officers and
employees, or any judge or referee of the State Bar Court as they
existed prior to January 1, 1989. This subdivision does not
constitute a change in, but is cumulative with, existing law.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the
board from appointing persons to serve without compensation to
arbitrate fee disputes under Article 13 (commencing with Section
6200) or to monitor the probation of a member of the State Bar,

whether those appointed under Section 6079, as added by Chapter 1114
of the Statutes of 1986, serve in the State Bar Court or otherwise.



When Stephanie Lost Her Grace, twice.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-05-02 – 17:56:48

Last week, setting the blogosphere ablaze, Harvard law student Stephanie Grace was identified as the author of the racist email which was circulating on the net within the last few months.

Stephanie graduated from Princeton University in 2007. Currently, Stephanie is finishing her third and final year at Harvard, where she is an editor at the Harvard Law Review. She had applied, and was accepted, to a position of judicial law clerk at the chamber of Ninth Circuit's Alex Kozinski.

Few months ago, Stephanie attended a dinner with friends. One of the topics informally discussed was the superiority/inferiority of the different races.

Stephanie believes that the black race, on average, might be less intelligent than the white race. (Although later, as part of an apology issued after she was exposed, her new assertion is that she does not believe African American are genetically inferior in any way).

After the dinner concluded, Stephanie felt unfulfilled and misunderstood, as during dinner she did not have the opportunity to fully explain herself and her views; or at least that is how she felt.

As such, she went home and wrote down what she really believes in her heart and emailed it to some of the individuals who had attended the dinner. Stephanie hoped to dispel any doubts about her true convictions.

Her email in its entirety is enclosed below. Also below is a letter from Harvard Law dean Martha Minow, and the apology Stephanie issued to the BLSA at Harvard.

As the email is coherent, it is safe to assume that she was not under the influence of alcohol.

Some of what Stephanie wrote included:

"I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria."

"I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say, I think it is at least possible, that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner."

"I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent."

"In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true."

Despite the fact that Stephanie believes that it is improper to "disagree with a conclusion in your heart". After she got caught, her convictions vanished, and she quickly changed her opinions of African-Americans. Stephanie issued apology to BLSA in which she wrote "I emphatically do not believe that African Americans are genetically inferior in any way."

Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and an African-American, met with Stephanie for a "heart to heart" conversation and she profusely apologized to him.

Stephanie also sent an email to BLSA stating “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my e-mail...I would give anything to take it back."

After receiving the apology, Ogletree stated that he "consider[s] the matter closed; The Law School has done everything it could have done, and should have done." Ogletree said.

Others at the law school felt the administration should not ignore the incident, and are attempting to convince Judge Kozinski to cancel her clerkship.

Jennifer Dein, the president of the Law School’s student government defended Grace "the way this came out is unfortunate because it doesn’t facilitate open conversation", Dein said.

FULL TEXT OF EMAIL SENT BY STEPHANIE GRACE.

I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.

I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.

The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial

Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria.

I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects.

One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap.

In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up).

Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift.

Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true.

Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don’t pull a Larry Summers on me,

FULL TEXT OF APOLOGY SENT TO BLSA.

"I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my email. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.

I emphatically do not believe that African Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive.

I would be grateful to have an opportunity to share my thoughts and to apologize to you in person.

Even beforehand, I want to extend an apology to you and to anyone else who has been hurt by my actions."

Letter from Harvard Law dean Martha Minow:

"Dear members of the Harvard Law School community:

I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people.

This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. The circulation of one student's comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community.

As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with leaders of our Black Law Students Association to discuss how to address the hurt that this has brought to this community. For BLSA, repercussions of the email have been compounded by false reports that BLSA made the email public and pressed the student's future employer to rescind a job offer. A troubling event and its reverberations can offer an opportunity to increase awareness, and to foster dialogue and understanding. The BLSA leadership brought this view to our meeting yesterday, and I share their wish to turn this moment into one that helps us make progress in a community dedicated to fairness and justice.

Here at Harvard Law School, we are committed to preventing degradation of any individual or group, including race-based insensitivity or hostility. The particular comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about individuals or groups.

I am heartened to see the apology written by the student who authored the email, and to see her acknowledgement of the offense and hurt that the comment engendered.

I would like to thank the faculty, administrators, and students who have already undertaken serious efforts to increase our chances for mutual understanding, confrontation of falsehoods, and deliberative engagement with difficult issues, and making this an ever better community.

Sincerely,

Martha Minow"






Flight 409 -- Girardi & Keese, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack Investigate Cause of Crash.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-30 – 00:14:09

On 25 January 2010, a scheduled international flight from Beirut, Lebanon, to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia crashed minutes after takeoff from Beirut airport. The aircraft climbed to 9,000 ft. before radar contact was lost about four to five minutes into the flight.

The Boeing 737-8AS crashed into the Mediterranean Sea, killing 82 passengers and eight crew members. The wife of the French Ambassador to Lebanon, Marla Sanchez Pietton, was among the passengers.

As sabotage was suspected, the United States immediately dispatched to the scene the guided missile destroyer USS Ramage, a Navy P-3 aircraft, and the salvage ship USNS Grapple. Assisting in the search and rescue measures were also helicopters from the Royal Air Force.

Upon orders from Washington to re-assemble the aircraft, also arriving to the scene of the crash was the vessel "Ocean Alert", a privately-operated U.S. civilian ship. The vessel carries special equipment, including the ability to dispatch a mini-submarine which can retrieve debris from the ocean floor.

A Lebanese minister, Mr. Jawad Khalifeh stated that "The plane exploded during flight and the cabin, as well as the bodies of those on board, were dispersed into the sea in different locations."

Reliable sources confirm that representatives from the law offices of Girardi & Keese; Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack; and Masry & Vititoe, together with the avaiation consultant George Hatcher, are working with a Beirut based law-firm to determine the cause of the crash in order to obtain compensation for potential victims.

*I believe that this story, concerning the involvement of Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, and Masry & Vititoe, is the first time any Western media source is reporting on that matter. The author of this blog will continue to monitor the story, especially the entry of any default judgment in a Lebanese court against the Boeing Company and/or Boeing Inc. and/or Boeing Co.



Meet Mr. Michael von Loewenfeldt.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-25 – 16:20:37

As you recall, an ethics complaint was advanced against the Law Offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe for multiple acts of misconduct. Some of the allegation were in connection with the firm's hiring proclivities which, in part, tended to favor young white females.

However, what I have also observed is that once the female associates made their appearance at the firm, few years down the road, there was disappearance. As such, this related area of advancement within the firm itself also requires treatment and attention.

Upon analyzing the firm's data very carefully, I hate to report to you but out of the many female associates hired since the firm was established, none was ever elevated to partnership. None. Never.

For example, Holly Hogan, Tricia Weaver, and Connie Merriett all started as associates at the firm, yet they were never elevated to the position of a partner despite the fact that all three (who still practice law in the Bay Area)are head and shoulders above the average female (or male, for that matter) attorney.

Please feel free to research for yourself the background of Tricia Weaver, Connie Merriett, and Holly Hogan to fully appreciate their superior professional background.

It is incomprehensible to me as to why they were never promoted. One is also left to wonder as to the real motives behind the hiring of Tricia Weaver, Connie Merriett, and Holly Hogan?

On the other hand, Mr. James Wagstaffe and Mr. Herbert Sinclair Kerr Jr. (aka “Rod”) somehow managed to find a way to elevate four men associates to partnership. One of them is Mr. Michael von Loewenfeldt.

Mr. von Loewenfeldt is a graduate of San Diego State University. He served in the Mechanized Infantry of the California National Guard for many years.

After graduating law school, he was hired by Kerr & Wagstaffe, and was made partner very quickly. After Two(2) years to be exact.

Later, following the footsteps of Mr. James Wagstaffe, he joined the faculty at Hastings College of the Law. He teaches Community Property as an adjunct assistant professor.

A gifted writer, he drafts or edits most of the major, complex briefs written by the firm. He also handles constitutional, municipal law, and related matters for many of the firm's governmental clients, including the City of San Rafael, the City of Sausalito, and The State Bar of California.

Mr. Michael von Loewenfeldt is part owner of a firm in which:
*90% of the attorneys are White.
* A firm which NEVER hired an African-American attorney.
* A firm which NEVER promoted a female associate to partnership.
* A firm in which all the associates are young white females
* A firm which had to be told to rearrange the pictures on their web-site, as men where placed at the top of the page, and women at the bottom.
* A firm in which two out of the three female associates are graduates of Hastings College of the Law, where Mr. von Loewenfeldt teaches.
* A firm which was founded by an attorney, Peers’ Selected, who has in his car a CHP magazine that when stopped for traffic violation, "they" will think that he is "one of them"; an attorney who is suspicious about the validity of a grade he himself assigned to one of his female students. An attorney who claims that he "has written" a popular book, where in fact, the book was written by 4 authors.

Meet Mr. Michael von Loewenfeldt.



NAPABA- - “PUTTIN' ON THE RITZ” IN LOS ANGELES; HAUNTED BY BVLGARI?

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-24 – 05:18:33

If you're blue and you don't know
Where to go to why don't you go
Where fashion sits
Puttin' on the Ritz

If this song ever made it to this blog, I would have thought it would be in connection with some of the people mentioned in the earlier posts.

I did not, however, expect that it will be in connection with NAPABA-- the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. C'est la vie.

On November 17-21, 2010 the NAPABA Annual Convention will be held at the new Ritz Carlton Hotel in Los Angeles.

The convention is sponsored by Mercedes-Benz and Wal-Mart Stores.

The theme for this year convention is "INSPIRE".

1 - Copy

The Ritz-Carlton, Los Angeles opened this month. Guests enjoy the best views in Los Angeles from virtually any part of the hotel.

Guest room features & amenities include:

*Built In Mirror Television in the bathroom.

Ritz Carlton Bathroom

*silk and plush terry robe and shoes.

*contemporary baths with Italian marble and sleek walk-in showers with rain shower head and separate soaking tub.

*Fully stocked mini- refreshment bar.

*Bath Butler and Bath Menu services.

*Twice-daily housekeeping service.

*Complimentary overnight shoeshine service.
LALive_Guestroom - Copy

NAPABA's advertised itself as "the voice for the Asian Pacific American legal profession. We promote justice, equity and opportunity for Asian Pacific Americans. We foster professional development, legal scholarship, advocacy and community involvement".

Ritz Bulgari1Ritz Bulgari

The Ritz has a partnership with Bvlgari, which is a good thing if you are a connoisseur of amenities, which at the Ritz includes soap, shampoo and lotion lightly scented with the unisex Bulgari au Thé Blanc.

NAPABA claims that since its inception in 1988, it has been at the forefront of national and local activities in the areas of civil rights, combating anti-immigrant backlash and hate crimes, increasing the diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, and professional development.

OTVelcroRitzLG - Copy

“Wal-Mart doesn’t just give money,” said Michael Chu NAPABA president. “They put their money where their mouth is” NAPABA has received money from Wal-Mart for four years.

The hotel is home to WP24, the latest restaurant by celebrity chef extraordinaire Wolfgang Puck. WP24 features refined Asian Cuisine.

wolfgangpuck - Copy

The NAPABA Law Foundation (NLF) is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization established by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. NLF welcomes corporate, foundation, community, and individual donations to support its educational and charitable activities. All donations are tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Not in a mood for Asian food prepared by a German? No problem, and no need to leave the hotel. A taste of Latin culture is waiting for you at Boca located at the Conga Room. Boca offers an eclectic blend of Pan-Latin cuisine, with South America, Mexico and Caribbean influences. Its kitchen is overseen by Cuban-born executive chef Alex Garcia, a chef renowned for his Nuevo Latino creations.

The goal of the 2010 NAPABA convention is to "showcase all that we find inspiring in the law and in our achievements as Asian Pacific American lawyers, in our roles as attorneys, advocates for justice and the undeserved, as volunteers, community leaders, and mentors. In line with this theme, we strongly encourage program submissions that educate as well as inspire, in all areas of practice and in highlighting the great work we as lawyers can do.

The Hotel is also a home to the restaurant "LA Market" by Kerry “Rock n’ Roll Chef” Simon. The Open Kitchen is alive with action as chefs move in a dance of precision and skill presenting fine crafted dishes that balance a sense of approachability yet somewhat rebellious interpretation with quality and finesse.

Not feeling inspired by the convention as of yet, you can replace worldly concerns with a world of comfort. Escape to the spa to inspire renewal.

SPA RITZ - Copy2

Mercedes-Benz is a regular sponsor of NAPABA events. In addition, on a yearly basis, Mercedes-Benz donates to NAPABA a brand new vehicle which is awarded to participants in the NAPABA annual sweepstakes.

2009-Benz-GLK350-home_rdax_646x258 - Copy

mercedes_benz_slk_class_slk300_roadster_2009_exterior_angularfront - Copy

This year the winner has the choice of either a 2010 SLK300 ROADSTER or a 2010 GLK350 SUV. The name of the inspired winner will be announced at the convention.

In my view, not at all modest and not at all appropriate for an organization which lives off the generosity of others, especially not the spending of Wal-Mart money at the Ritz Carlton.

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." --Mahatma Gandhi.






Meet "One of the Top Lawyers in America"

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-22 – 07:12:54

When Mr. Thomas Girardi, of Girardi & Keese was asked by a reporter to describe Mr. Walter Lack, his answer was---"the finest lawyer in Los Angeles-end of report."

Sometimes, this kind of a description is referred to as "puffing". Nothing wrong with it. For example, I know a frozen-yogurt store which sells the "Best Yogurt in Town", at least according to the neon sign hanging on the window.

So when I heard that U.C. Hastings College of the Law, which is ranked #42 in the U.S, has on its faculty a professor who describes himself as "One of the Top Lawyers in America" , I was wondering who can it be? Is it Prof. Rory Little? Ashutosh Bhagwat? One of the Faigmans? Who?

I was also wondering who designated him as "One of the Top Lawyers in America" At least with Mr. Walter Lack, I knew who made the call that he is the finest lawyer in Los Angeles. Here, the entire country is involved, but the source of the opinion can not be located--only that they were his "peers". Yes, his peers were the ones who had selected him. I wonder if it was by acclamation, the way Mr. Howard Miller was selected to be the president of the State Bar of California.

Could be that one day all of his peers, whomever and wherever, gathered together and were asked to select "One of the Top Lawyers in America". The peers examined all 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S. and after much examination and deliberation, the peers selected him.

It is even advertised on the Peers' Selected's web-site that his peers made the call, so who am I to disagree with the peers, you can read it for yourself:

Wag003 - Copy

Later that day, the peers selected Diet Sprite as the top drink in America, as oppose to Diet 7-UP.

And, did you also know that Peers' Selected "Has Written One of the Best Selling Books in the United States on Federal Practice"?

The answer is yes, at least according to Peers' Selected's web-site. Assuming you ignore the other three co-authors.

Wag004 - Copy

Judge David Hittner, Judge William Schwarzer, and Judge Wallace Tashima were not involved in the writing of the popular book on federal practice.

Even the publisher only mentions one author 4(four) authors. See for yourself:

http://www.ruttergroup.com/txfedaut.htm













private rough draft of Formal Ethics Complaint Against Mike Ancheta Nisperos for Unlawful Use of a Firearm, and the Possession and Use of Narcotics, to wit, Cocaine and Crack Cocaine.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-20 – 17:33:14

Re: Formal Ethics Complaint Against Mike Ancheta Nisperos for Unlawful Use of a Firearm, and the Possession and Use of Narcotics, to wit, Cocaine and Crack Cocaine.

INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT

Mike Ancheta Nisperos (Nisperos) is a member of the State Bar of California (Bar No. ).

Despite that fact that he committed extreme and egregious acts of misconduct, there is no record that any disciplinary action was ever taken against Mr. Nisperos by the State Bar of California. In fact, at one point after the incident discussed below, Mr. Nisperos served as the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California.

In September 1989, Mr. Nisperos, suffering from delusion while under the influence of crack cocaine, fired a shot at an imaginary intruder at his home. The following day, Mr. Nisperos was arrested and charged with being under the influence of cocaine and for possession of narcotic paraphernalia.

Subsequently, Mr. Nisperos was fired from his position at the INS due to his cocaine use and his related arrest. Unfortunately, rather than taking responsibility for his actions, Mr. Nisperos actually sued the INS for reinstatement.

Mr. Nisperos's conduct, which demonstrates a complete disregard for the law, rights of others, and health and safety hazards, is not reflected on the California State Bar website, such that potential client remain unaware of his past misconduct.

For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that Mr. Nisperos be disciplined and that his State Bar profile be updated to include this significant information to prevent injury to innocent members of the public who may otherwise seek him out for counsel.








Good and Evil in the City of Angeles

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-18 – 05:24:19

This afternoon, evil paid a visit to Los Angeles.

It came in the form of members of the National Socialist Movement, a white supremacist group, who demonstrated on the lawn of Los Angeles City Hall.

The demonstration took place despite calls from civil rights and community leaders who had asked Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa to stop the weekend demonstration by revoking the permit obtained earlier.

According to LAPD spokesperson, a permit was issued in March to the National Socialist Movement allowing the gathering in front of City Hall.

Hundreds of counter-protesters also gathered to shout-down the protesters. They also showered the white supremacists with rocks, bottles and other debris as some of the white supremacists held shields emblazoned with swastikas over their heads to protect them from the projectiles.

One group member shouted "If the city supports illegal aliens and criminals, that is treason."

A counter-protester shouted back with a bullhorn:

"You're being protected by black and Latino cops, you cowards!"

The LAPD then order the crowd to disperse.

Commander David Doan said the LAPD's goal was to ensure that everyone was allowed to exercise free speech while avoiding any use of force by officers. “There was a tremendous amount of restraint shown by our officers,” he said. “We allowed both sides to exercise their free speech rights.”

Respecting the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was the good.






Addendum to (James Wagstaffe + Young White Female(s) + Hastings College of the Law)

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-16 – 05:58:20

A new and recent discovery implicates Mr. James Wagstaffe in the hiring of yet another young white female who attended Hastings College of the Law, where Wagsaffe teaches.

Ms. Connie Merriett, upon graduating law-school, was quickly offered an associate position with the Law Offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe

Ms. Merriett is currently employed as an associate at a law-firm located in Santa Clara, CA.

You may view her profile at:

http://tinyurl.com/y848wj7





James Wagstaffe+Young White Females = Suspicious Minds; On the Money Trail.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-14 – 22:13:00

As part of the investigation concerning the HMS (Howard Miller Scandal), a request was recently submitted to the State Bar of California/State Bar Foundation to disclose all contributions made to them by Mr. Howard Miller, Mr. Thomas Girardi, and the Law Offices of Girardi & Keese.

The fact that contributions were made by Girardi & Keese is undisputed. What is needed is the exact value of each contribution, and the time it was made.

I believe that those contributions are very relevant to the investigation of the HMS. As such, reluctance to share information came as no surprise. To date, Mr. Robert Hawley’s disinclination to communicate with me about the topic is disappointing.

As to the amount of other contributions made by Thomas Girardi and Girardi & Keese to various organizations, politicians, and other institutions and individuals; the figures are ginormous. It is as though someone decided that they just could not handle that much money and they needed to unload some it. If you know a better reason, I am all ears.

As such, I was also not surprised to read in the newspaper about contributions made by the "Bicycle Casino", located in Bell Gardens, CA to the election campaign of Mr. Jerry Brown.

The "Bicycle Casino", as you recall, is owned by Mr. Walter Lack--who is one of the main perpetrators of the events which led to the HMS; in addition to his confederates Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi.

I do not believe the contributions made by the Bicycle Casino to Mr. Brown’s campaign are relevant to the investigation of the HMS. On the other hand, contributions made by Girardi & Keese to the State Bar Foundation are relevant. If you disagree, I am all ears.

Like the name "Bulgari", the name "Bicycle Casino" also caught by attention. I guess the name originated from the fact that many people were seen leaving the casino riding bicycles; after they gambled away their car, or after it was stolen.

As you recall, some of the earlier postings on this blog dealt with the hiring proclivities of the Law Offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe --which appeared to favor young white females.

The firm racial and gender make-up is as follows:

*Out of 10 lawyers, all but one is White.

*Out of 7 Partners, all but one are Males. (This was changed around 2010, where a female partner was hired. Prior to that, for most of 2009, all the partners were men, and all the associates were females)

*All the associates are females. There are no male associates.

*All the females’ associates are white.

*All the female associates are young.

* Two out of the three associates are from Hastings, where Wagstaffe teaches.

The proclivity is also shown with the three former young white female associates, Holly Hogan, Connie Merriett and Tricia Weaver:

http://www.klgates.com/professionals/detail.aspx?professional=5944

http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/lawyer/Tricia-E-Weaver/b55ecf36-79e4-4d08-956b-f3cc74451715.html

http://tinyurl.com/y848wj7

Recently, while not in connection with the law firm, a new discovery was made. The discovery is in connection with the role of James Wagstaffe as a part-time, Civ-Pro teacher at Hastings College of the Law.

Mr. Wagstaffe, in his capacity as a teacher, wrote a letter of recommendations/reference on behalf of one of his student—Ms. R.

Ms. R, as you correctly guessed by now, is also a young white female.

Wagstaffe wrote:

"I would say without hesitation that Ms. R was one of the best students in last year's class-- or in any year for that matter. I suspect that her B grade in the course resulted more from the fact that she was perhaps over-prepared for the blindly-graded final examination."

Please notice the double-talk, and the underlined words which speak volume.

Do you suspect Wagstaffe's suspicion about the unsuspicious B grade is suspect, like I suspect?

Or,caught in a trap, you suspect otherwise?

The song "Suspicious Minds" is regarded as the single that jump-started Elvis Parsley's career. The song first was recorded and released by James Even and was not commercially successful. Elvis decided he could turn it into a hit. It reached number one in the United and it would be Presley's final number-one single in the U.S. before his death.

In October 2009, mashup artist Marco van Bastard released a bootleg called "Suspicious Creep" using the Elvis Presley vocal.

Rolling Stone later ranked "Suspicious Minds" it #91 on their list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.












Ethics Complaint Against Jerome Fishkin

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-11 – 17:54:11

To: Intake Office/State Bar of California.

Date: April 11, 2010

Re: Formal Ethics Complaint Against Jerome Fishkin.

INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT

Jerome Fishkin is a member of the State Bar of California (#47798), practicing in the area of ethics and professional responsibility. At one point in his career, he was employed by the State Bar of California, initially as a research attorney and, subsequently, as part of the enforcement unit.

After he failed to be promoted, Mr. Fishkin left his employment with the State Bar. He currently practices law with his wife, Lindsay Slatter, at the Law Offices of Fishkin & Slatter in Walnut Creek, California.

Ms. Slatter also practices in the area of ethics and, like Mr. Fishkin, represents lawyers before the State Bar Court. Ms. Slatter met Mr. Fishkin when she was practicing before the State Bar Court as defense counsel, while Mr. Fishkin was representing the State Bar. While we are not formally raising it as an issue, it would be advisable for the Enforcement Unit to determine whether there was any romantic involvement between Ms. Slatter and Mr. Fishkin while they were practicing before the State Bar Court on opposing sides.

While on the surface, there is nothing out of the ordinary about him or his legal practice. However, as will be exposed in part in this and future Complaints, not everything is as it appears to be.

As necessary background, it should be mentioned that Mr. Fishkin is a Jew. He lived for many years in San Francisco, and is quite liberal in his politics. For example, a few weeks ago he gave a speech at a Reform synagogue in Walnut Creek in support of gay marriage. Likewise, Mr. Fishkin supported efforts to allow a lesbian high school student to attend her high school prom with her girlfriend. Nothing mentioned in this paragraph as part of Mr. Fishkin' background presents any problem; in fact, his support and efforts on behalf of gay civil rights should be commended. Rather, the information is included to provide context for his comments and actions described below.

First Act of Misconduct--

Simply put, Mr. Fishkin engages in discriminatory practices and speech that demonstrate invidious animosity toward a group different from that to which he belongs, namely White Christians. This is particularly true if the individuals in question are members of the lower/middle working class and appear to be people of faith.

As is evident from Mr. Fishkin' Facebook postings, the average middle-class Christian white family is an irritant to him, and he holds in his heart enormous animosity and contempt toward them.

As such, he often uses pejorative and demeaning stereotypes to describe them. For example, on one of his Facebook pages, Mr. Fishkin mocks women from Virginia, their virginity and their vaginas. He sets forth the stereotypes that exist in his own mind, including that women from Virginia tend to be prudent in the area of sexuality; he then attempts to make a joke about their virginity, and wonders if do or do not have vaginas. He ultimately concludes that they must, in fact, have vaginas.

By taking such cheap shots, Mr. Fishkin amuses himself and some of his Facebook friends, including Susan Margolis, another ethics lawyer who practices in Los Angeles.

Yet another example of Mr. Fishkin' leanings is an offensive photograph posted on his Facebook page (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The photo, referred to as "REDNECK is clearly intended to make fun of “REDNECKS” as lower-class, beer-drinking idiots.

Mr. Jerome Fishkin making fun of redneck - Copy

The photo is demeaning, and is clearly based on Mr. Fishkin’ stereotype of a group.

Not surprisingly, we were not able to locate any photos or caricatures that mock Jews as a group on Mr. Fishkin’ Facebook page (nor on the page of Susan Margolis).

In addition and interestingly, however, Fishkin also despises Orthodox Jews as a group. Many of whom are new immigrants to the U.S.

By analogy, at one point in the history of this country Catholics and Protestants – both Christian groups – had animosity toward each other. In some areas, there was complete segregation between Protestants and Catholics, even in school and universities.

The same divides often exist between Reform and Orthodox Jews, even though they are technically members of the same faith.

As evident, to Mr. Fishkin, Orthodox Jews, whom are often immigrants, are a group of primitive and backward people. Their traditional values are a source of bemusement to him, and taking cheap shots at them gives him the illusion that he is superior to them.

Mr. Fishkin, like all Americans, has the freedom to express himself. However, many courts across the nation have held that lawyers, who in California are officers of the court, have a diminished right to do so.

Mr. Fishkin’ demonstration of contempt, distaste, and hostility toward white Christians and Orthodox Jews based on their membership in these groups is not only inappropriate and a source of inner community tension, but is particularly troublesome because it emanates from a person who purports to be an officer of the court who is an expert in the area of Ethics. In addition, such attitudes are not in conformity with established rules of civility and professionalism.

For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that Mr. Fishkin be publicly reproved for his actions.








private rough draft of Ethics Complaint Against Lawrence DalCerro, Tammy Albertsen-Murray, Mike Ancheta Nisperos

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-10 – 06:11:36

Re: Formal Ethics Complaint Against Tammy Albertsen-Murray (SBN 154248); Lawrence J. DalCerro (SBN 104342); and Mike Ancheta Nisperos (SBN 85495)

INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT

This is a formal complaint against the above-named attorneys for misconduct committed while they were employed by the State Bar of California.

Each of these individuals worked in the Enforcement Section of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC), which is responsible for prosecuting lawyers who commit misconduct.

At the time of the misconduct described herein, the OCTC was headed by former 5 year cocaine addict Mike Ancheta Nisperos. Mr. Lawrence DalCerro (aka Larry DalCerro, Jeffrey DalCerro, and Jeff DalCerro) is a supervisor within the Enforcement Section. At the time of the misconduct, Mr. DalCerro was the supervisor of Tammy Andersen-Murray, who was the attorney handling the prosecution case against an attorney referred to herein as “FH” (Case No. 01-C- 01747).

FH had a prior record with the State Bar Court as a result of different battery conviction. (Case No. 99-C-12659.) for which he was reproved.

A few years later, FH resorted to violence by unleashing his fists, again. This time as a result of his religious animosity toward a specific group. FH was criminally convicted for the brutal and unjustified attack.

Shockingly, and despite the egregious nature of his conduct, the State Bar’s action against FH was to suspend him from the practice of law for 60 days.

As will be shown, Ms. Andersen-Murray, Mr. DalCerro, and Mr. Nisperos ("Respondents") committed various acts of despicable misconduct, failed to zealously represent their client (technically,the People of the State of California), acted with malice and ill will, made factual misrepresentation to the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court, the Review Department, and the California Supreme Court. Both Mr. Nisperos and Mr. Dal Cerro also failed to properly supervise their staff.

Most importantly, Respondents committed the misconduct as a result of a desire to advance their legal careers because FH is “politically connected,” because of the status of the victims and a wide spread anti-semitism that is widespread withing the department.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

FH is a member of the State Bar of California. On two separate occasions, while a member of the California Bar, he resorted to violence, and was criminally convicted following both incidents. Following the initial incident, FH was convicted of the crime of battery (Penal Code Section 242). As a result, the State Bar charged FH misconduct, which resulted in the issuance of a “private reproval.”

A few years later, FH showed that he had not changed his ways and once against unleashed his fists on other innocent human beings. This time, however, FH’s violence was motivated by his religious animosity.

Specifically, FH was walking down a street in San Francisco in the very early morning hours. FH walked past a synagogue, and continued walking. Then, realizing that the building that had caught his attention was a synagogue, he turned around, something which shows premeditation, deliberation and intent. FH walked back to the synagogue and approached some of the congregants.

FH then unleashed a stream of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-immigrant insults against these innocent individuals, such as “f-----g Jews, you f-----g Zionists.”

Initially, the congregants were shocked and tried to ignore him, but FH continued with his tirade. FH then began spitting in the synagogue, ultimately spitting in the faces of a few of the congregants while making hostile and derogatory comments.

FH escalated his behavior and began shouting, “I am going to kill all of you.” (terrorist threats?)

Then, unprovoked, FH began to mercilessly punch some of the congregants in their faces and torsos.

The synagogue’s Rabbi was inside while these incomprehensible events were unfolding, and was dressed in special attire which made him readily recognizable as a man of the cloth. FH turned his attention to the Rabbi and physically dragged him out of the synagogue and onto the sidewalk. After throwing him down on the sidewalk, FH continued to punch and kick the Rabbi in the face and torso.

A congregant came to the Rabbi’s aid; he was also beaten severely by FH.
After approximately 7 minutes of horror, FH was subdued by some of the men in the congregation.

A few minutes later, the police arrived. Photographs taken shortly after the brutal attack reveal that the left eye of one of the victims was blackened and swollen shut, and that his face was swollen and bloodied. He also suffered broken ribs and cuts and scrapes on his lower body as a result of being dragged outside. The Rabbi suffered scrapes to his lower body as a result of being dragged outside, and a blow that FH delivered to his face smashed his glasses, and caused facial injuries.

As mentioned above, FH was criminaly convicted as a result.

Subsequently, charges were also brought against FH by the State Bar of California, OCTC by the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges with the State Bar Court.

The case was assigned to the Hon. Patrice McElroy. Later, a settlement conference took place in front of the Hon. JoAnn Remke, who assumed control of the case.

As a result of corruption, anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant animosity towrds the victims, and because of the fact that FH is politically connected, OCTC agreed that FH will be suspended from the practice of law for only 60 days.

The 60 days suspension is a clear deviation from established rules and case law.

As part of the misconduct Respondents agreed to stipulate that there was no pattern of misconduct on the part of FH, even though he had a prior criminal conviction.

Moreover, Respondents misrepresented to the Court the nature of the attack, and never mentioned that it was based on religious animosity, which certainly should have been considered an aggravating factor.

Instead, with malice and bad faith, respondents agreed to stipulate, and made factual misrepresentation by hiding material facts from Judge Remke who signed the stipulation.

The stipulation which was presented to Judge Remke and which was subsequently signed contains only the following facts:

---FH exchanged invectives with the victim and the Rabbi.
---Following the exchange of words, FH unlawfully struck the victim and the Rabbi.
---Victim sustained various injuries which were treated at the scene.
---The Rabbi sustained minor injuries and his eye-glasses were broken.
---As a result of the incident, FH was arrested and criminally charged in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 1982426.

• Check as to restitution, or lack thereof, and why it was not considered in aggravation
• Spiting is not mentioned, and the remarks’ not mentioned, also dragging the rabbi outside is not mentioned. I am going to kill you is not mentioned
• Check with Mr. Robert Hawley, the spokesperson of the State Bar as to who else was involved in the prosecution, and what is the official position.
• Case--In the matter of Stewart






Part 2: More Details About "One Early Morning in San Francisco"

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-09 – 06:26:29

"Sometimes you get nutcakes that make threats against a synagogue, but for someone to actually assault a rabbi wearing his full outfit when there's no question that he's a man of the cloth?" said Milanda Moore, an inspector in the San Francisco Police Department's hate crimes division. "This is the first time I've seen anything like this, and I've been in this unit since the fall of 1996."

"The main reason we left Russia was for freedom, It is unfortunate this happened here" stated one of the victims.

The incident occurred in the early morning, when the attorney walked a few dozen feet past the synagogue, then turned around, walked back and released a volley of anti-Israel, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic insults.

"He was saying 'you f-----g Jews, you f-----g Zionists'" recalled another victim. "At first we tried to ignore him, but then he started to come closer and closer and yell stronger. The Rabbi and I tried to speak with in a very peaceful manner but he continued to scream and came closer and then he started to spit at us."

Despite the efforts to calm the attorney he started shouting that he was going to kill them. In the five to 10 minutes before the police arrived and arrested the attorney, he continued to spout anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli, and anti-immigrant insults while repeatedly punching them in the face and body and, at one point, dragging both of them into the street.

Photographs taken shortly after the alleged attack reveal one of the victims left eye was blackened and sealed shut, and his face swollen and bloodied. He also suffered broken ribs and cuts and scrapes on the lower body as a result of being dragged.

The Rabbi suffered scrapes to the lower body, and a punch to the face smashed his glasses. He complained of constant chest pains and fears he, too, may have broken ribs.

The victim added: "Because I am not really a fighter, I see it as a miracle. I felt, especially in the beginning, that probably both of us are going to be killed. I cannot explain it except help from God."

As mentioned in Part 1 of the story, respondent was previously criminally convicted of battery as a result a brutal attack which took place in the City of Santa Cruz. As to that crime, a "reproval" was recommended by the State Bar Court and approved by the California Supreme Court.

As to the hate crime commited in San Francisco, Respondent and representatives from the State Bar of California--Office of Chief Trial Counsel stipulated as to the facts, the applicable law, and for the apropriate disposition.

The stipulation as to the facts and applicable law was approved and signed by Judge JoAnn Remke, who suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 60 days.

Below is the language of the factual stipulation:

"Respondent exchanged invective with the victim and the rabbi. Following the exchange of words, respondent unlawfully struck victim and the Rabbi. Victim sustained various injuries which were treated at the scene. The Rabbi sustained minor injuries and his eye glasses were broken. As a result of the incident, respondent was arrested and criminally charged in San Francisco Superior Court, case number 1982426."






Disturbing Timeline Concerning the Ninth Circuit Proceedings/ HMS.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-08 – 23:55:00

This section contains a timeline that will help make better sense as to the unfolding and timing of events. As such, it is a work in progress which will be updated as necassary.

It was almost 5 (five) years ago that the Ninth Circuit issued the Order to Show Cause as to why respondents should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned.

As of today, April 9, 2010, a decision hasn't been issued.



TIMELINE OF THE DOLE LITIGATION; NINTH CIRCUIT PROCEEDINGS; HMS.

May 14, 2003 Lack and Girardi filed the first frivolous lawsuit in Los Angeles in order to collect close to half billion dollars from Dole.

July 17, 2003 Case is moved by Dole to Federal Court.

October 16, 2003 Case is Dismissed by Judge Manella.

November 20, 2003 Respondents filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit.


July 6 2005 A week before oral argument, fresh out of law school and with minimal appellate experience, Sean Topp encounters a "scheduling conflict" and ask Howard Miller to do him a favor and appear for the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit instead of him. Howard Miller agreed.

July 11, 2005 Respondents dismiss the appeal, one day prior to oral arguments.

August 25, 2005 Ninth Circuit issues an order to show cause why respondents should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise be sanctioned.

September 15, 2005 Thomas Girardi is now a full member of the California Judicial Council, the policy making body of the court. He was appointed to the position by Chief Justice Ronald George who is also the Chairman of the Judicial Council.

February, 2006 Howard Miller announces that he will run for a seat on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California.

Mar 21 2008 Hon. Wallace Tashima files his recommendation.

Jun 10, 2008 Rory Little is appointed special prosecutor.

September 27, 2008 Ms. Holly Fujie was sworn in as the 84th President of the State Bar of California.

September 12, 2009 Mr. Howard Miller is sworn as the 85th president of State Bar of California.

April 8, 2010 No decision by the Ninth Circuit as of yet.









Former State Bar President Confirms She Was Not Aware of Judge Tashima's Findings Concerning Thomas Girardi.

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-08 – 04:19:31

Recently, as part of the investigation and reporting of the HMS (Howard Miller Scandal), an inquiry was sent to the former president of the State Bar of California, Ms. Hollie Fujie.

Ms. Fujie was informed that an ethics complaint was sent to the Intake office of the State Bar. A copy of the complaint itself was also included in the email.

The inquiry read as follows:

Dear Ms. Fujie:

Thank you for the time you take to read this email.

An ethics complaint was filed against Howard Miller and his confederates in connection with a case he was involved against the Dole Food Company.

Prior to Mr. Miller assuming the role of president, it was you who filled that position.

Were you, and for that matter the Board of Governors, aware of the ongoing Ninth Circuit proceedings around the time Mr. Miller chose to run for, and subsequently appointed, president of the State Bar?

Moreover, are you still involved in any capacity with the State bar of California? (other than being a member, of course)

You may contact me at lesliebrodie@gmx.com

Thank you for your time.

Ms. Fujie responded as follows:

Hi - I do not recall knowing about the Ninth Circuit proceedings at the time Mr. Miller announced his candidacy for President of the State Bar in, I believe, May of last year. Of course, I cannot speak for any other members of the Board of Governors. Mr. Miller was the only candidate for the office, so there was not a formal election.

Holly

holly fujie reply002 - Copy






Meet Holly Fujie-- the Former President of the State Bar of California

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-06 – 22:29:39

In conducting some of the investigation and the subsequent reporting of the circumstances surrounding the Howard Miller Scandal (HMS), I had no choice but to inquire about the role of his predecessor--Ms. Holly Fujie. Surprisingly, the process of looking into Ms. Fujie's background was quite refreshing, positive and educational. The part about the Tanforan Race Track and the uncertainty concerning the whereabouts of her grandfather shocked me.

It was a nice break after weeks of having to fully understand the extent of the deception and to get familiarized with people and events that percolate negative energies. Some of the examples include a lawyer who owns casinos and a carcass of a real lion is hanging in his office; trying to figure out what exactly Mr. Miller is trying to convey when he stated "that contention seemed to me to be the center of gravity on the briefs, any attempt to say there were other arguments given the importance of that center of gravity would not make a difference in the outcome of the appeal" and having to wonder if it is possible that the law of gravity has no influence on Girardi and Miller, and if the answer is no, why weren't they gravitating towards "that" center of gravity a bit earlier.

As you recall, ( if you read this blog) I also had to familiarize myself with some of the social scenes of San Francisco. Spent too much time there, which was my fault. I was wondering if there is a picture out there of the Chief Justice toghether with the not to be named model/lawyer, who also frequents events and galas. Could not find any. Only lots and lots of pictures of the ever smiling Courtney Bocci. Also spent too much time on pondering the origin of the name BVLGARI. Is the owner Bulgarian? Nope, he is Greek. So why did he choose to spell it with Roman letters and not Greek Alphabet? And why on the stock-exchange the company is listed as "BUL" and not "BVL".

Admittedly, when Inquiring about Ms. Fujie's background I was hoping to find dirt (which may or may not exist) However, what I found was an exceptional human being; and the more I learned about her, the more I grew to appreciate her as a person.

Ms. Fujie was born in Oakland, CA where she spent her formative years. The school she attended had mostly Black students, whom she easily befriended. At times she was subjected to some taunting because of her race. They called me "ching ching chinaman", Holly recalled. While growing up she worked as either a baby-sitter, tutor, or in an ice-cream parlor.

During WWII both her parents' families were interned. First being sent to the Tanforan Race Track in San Bruno, California where they lived in the stables. Later, they were trasnsfered to the Topaz Camp located in the State of Utah. Her grandfather was taken away by the FBI, and the family didn't know where he was for a year.

After graduating from high-school, she attended U.C. Berkeley majoring in political-science and economics. At 22, she received her law degree from Boalt Hall.

Ms. Fujie has been married to Lee Cotugno, a Beverly Hills lawyer, for the last 30 years. She met him while at Boalt. He was her moot court adviser. They married the day after she graduated from Boalt and have two children.

She is currently a shareholder with the Los Angeles based law firm of Buchalter Nemer. Her practice focuses on complex litigation with a niche specialty in fraud related activities.

Ms. Fujie is involved in organizations which are devoted to diversity issues in the legal profession. She is also a frequent speaker at meetings of APAWLA, NAPABA, APABA, APALSA and WLALA.

In mentoring Asian law students, she urges them to "fight the stereotype of the quiet Asian woman".

On September 27, 2008, Ms. Holly Fujie was sworn in as the 84th President of the State Bar of California by Chief Justice Ronald George. She was the third woman chosen to head the organization since it was established by the legislature in 1927.



Meet Your Chief Justice-the Honorable Ronald George-the Man Who Wants to Do Good, and is Doing Very Well Indeed (for his family too)

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-03 – 18:41:06



Ronald George Justice

Since starting to investigate the Howard Miller scandal, I also had to examine the role of his friend, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George. (As you recall, Ronald George was the one who appointed Howard Miller's confederate, Thomas Girardi, to the California Judicial Council. It is shocking that Justice George, who oversees the State Bar of California, never bother to mention to anyone that the law firm of Girardi & Keese is being investigated by a special master and a special prosecutor at the time Miller was appointed president of the State Bar.)

After law school, George joined the office of the California Attorney General in order to do good, and ever since he has been doing very well, indeed. Apparently, his wife Barbara and his son Eric are also doing well; so don't you worry none about them. Although you may be repulsed, like I am, from the "all you can grab" attitude that they developed through the years.

Barbara George is a member of the California Arts Council, a position to which she was first appointed in 1994 and was subsequently re-appointed in 1999 and 2003 by Gov. Gray Davis. She is also the chair of the California Supreme Court Art Selection Committee. The California Supreme Court Art Selection Committee is in charge of choosing art for display in buildings used by the California Supreme Court.

His son, Eric George, who graduated from law school, may very well be a very capable lawyer. However, he did not resist the temptation to take advantage of the fact that he is the "son of Ronald George" in order to boost his ego and his legal career.

After law school, he somehow managed to secure a position as a deputy legal affair secretary to the Governor of California. He was hired solely due to his qualification. Later, he worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then back home to Beverly Hills. Currently, he is in private practice in Los Angeles. He also sits on a panel that makes state-level judicial recommendations. Also a position that he obtained solely due to his qualification.

Moreover, when researching Ronald George's background, in addition to the expected legal materials, I also kept bumping into stories and pictures of him in social events. Apparently, he decided to assume the role of a fool that San Francisco had once for a mayor-- Willie Brown.

In doing the research, I had to familiarize myself with brands and names that I wasn't familiar with. For example, Tatiana. Apparently she is a super-model. There is a picture of the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Ronald George enjoying a conversation after a long day on the bench with the super-model--- Tatiana. He must have approached her thinking she was Bar Rafaeli.

Tatiana and Chief Justice Ronald George

If Tatiana goes to law school, regardless of the job-market, I know one law-firm in San Francisco that will surely extend her an offer. Bar will be hired regardless of membership in any bar. But before that will happen, both will need to refresh their wordrobe with the new collection of local designer extraordinaire, Lily Samii.

In addition to Tatiana and Lily Samii another brand I had to familiarize myself with is BVLGARI. Took me awhile to understand that the V is actually a U. So there is a picture of Ronald George in BULGARI, BVULGRI, sorry here BVLRAGI store opening in San Francisco. Apparently, it is a luxury store that sells Italian jewelry and watches.

Chief Justice Ronald George at BVLGARI bvlgaripic



You can see more interesting pictures from the BVLGARI opening by visiting the original site from which I obtained the photos pursuant to the doctrine of fair use : http://sfluxe.com/2010/03/04/bulgari/ .

As usual, Willie Brown was there with his companion.

Someone sent me a picture of Chief Justice Ronald George starring at a blond lady during a gala. I do not recognize the lady.

Chief Justice George Eyeing a Blond

Nor do I recognize this one:

Justice Ronald George starring at a blond.








Cecilia Horton Reply to Inquiry

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-04-02 – 20:18:10

An inquiry was emailed to Ms. Cecilia Horton (aka at times as Cecilia Horton-Billard) concerning the obvious conflict of interests, anonymity, and the use of email. Below is part of her reply she emailed back to me.





Ms. Brodie,

Please be advised that the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California does allow for the appointment of a Special Deputy Trial Counsel to review and handle an inquiry or complaint when there is a conflict of interest. Thus, should there be a determination that it would be a conflict for an employee of the State Bar to handle this complaint, a Special Deputy Trial Counsel will be appointed.

Next, please understand that there are only two choices with regard to the set up of the complaint. It can either be set up with you identified as the complaining witness or it can be set up as a State Bar Investigation. If you elect to be identified, you will given the case number and kept apprised as to the outcome of the matter. If you wish to remain anonymous, no complainant will be identified and you will not be given any information whatsoever. It is your choice, however, those are the only two choices.

Also, I would like to reiterate, if we set up the file based on your e-mail there is the possibility that your identity could be revealed during discovery. So, if you would like to remain anonymous you should re-submit the complaint by mail with no information which would identify you as the complainant. (emphasis added)

Cecilia M. Horton-Billard

State Bar of California, Intake

Supervising Trial Counsel

(213)765-1382






State Bar Complaint Against State Bar President Howard Miller; Thomas Girardi; Walter Lack; Paul Traina and Sean Topp

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-03-29 – 20:54:52

March 29, 2010

Mr. Russell Weiner

Ms. Cecilia Horton

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

State Bar of California

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, California 90015-2299.

Re: Formal Complaint Against Howard B. Miller; Thomas V. Girardi; Girardi & Keese; Walter J. Lack; Paul A. Traina; Sean A. Topp; Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (collectively, "Respondents") Pursuant to Findings Made by Special Master (The Hon. Federal Judge Wallace Tashima)

I. INTRODUCTION & NOTICE OF COMPLAINT

Currently, pending before of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeal (“Ninth Circuit”) is a special proceeding concerning whether the above-named attorneys (except Howard Miller) should be disciplined for attempting to perpetrate fraud on the court. Mr. Thomas Girardi, who is Mr. Miller’s business partner, already stipulated to a special prosecutor that he acted “recklessly,” while Mr. Lack stipulated that he acted “intentionally.”

There is, however, a serious concern that the involvement of Mr. Howard Miller (who is, ironically, the current president of the State Bar of California) in the scheme to defraud the courts is being ignored. Hence, this complaint.

As will be shown, the attorneys’ scheme to defraud the judicial system lasted several years and was directed against several courts (Los Angeles Superior Court, U.S. District Court, and the Ninth Circuit). While the Ninth Circuit and the special prosecutor had the prerogative not to charge Mr. Miller with misconduct relating to the Ninth Circuit proceedings (which is puzzling in itself as his name appeared on all the pleadings submitted to the courts, and he is the firm’s appellate specialist), that does not mean that Mr. Miller is free of any blame, nor does it preclude the State Bar from charging him with misconduct not related to the Ninth Circuit proceedings.

Mr. Miller can and should be charged with misconduct in connection with the initial proceeding at the L.A. Superior Court, the proceeding at the District Court, and for misconduct relating to the Ninth Circuit proceedings. In addition he did not fulfill his duties as a lawyer and betrayed his clients. Miller and Girardi contentions that they were not aware of what was going on is only compounding their misconduct.

Respondents were admonished and warned several times by different entities that there were serious problems with the suit at issue, yet chose to proceed in the hope of collecting close to $500,000,000 (half a billion dollars) from a California Corporation.

The contention by Mr. Howard Miller that he learned of the problems with the appeal only 6 days before he was to appear for oral argument before the Ninth Circuit is absurd. (as is his presidency). As will be shown, Mr. Miller (as well as Mr. Girardi) created an elaborate deception in order to shield themselves.

As such, please register a formal complaint against the above named attorneys and inform me as to the case number assigned.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Respondents Background:

Mr. Thomas Girardi is the founding partner of Girardi & Keese, a downtown Los Angeles law firm that has earned a reputation as L.A. County's king of the class action lawsuit. He was nominated by Ronald George to serve as a member of the California Judicial Council. Mr. Girardi and his firm are major contributors to various institutions, including to the Foundation of the State Bar of California, a governmental entity. He was a board member of the Coast Casino.

Mr. Howard Miller is a partner at the firm of Girardi & Keese. He earned his law degree from University of Chicago Law School, where he was honored with Order of the Coif. He served as editor-in-chief of the Law Review. He is the current president of the State bar of California.

Walter Lack, of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, is one of the premier plaintiff litigation lawyers in the country. For all that it’s worth, he is known to have a ferocious litigation style. He is the owner of various card rooms in the Los Angeles area, including The Bicycle Casino in Bell Gardens, California. Comparing being a lawyer to a poker game, Lack stated, “You cannot do this work and fear the prospect of failure.” Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack’s web-site stated, “We will not back down from anyone. Just ask our adversaries. We aggressively represent our clients and our results prove it.” The web-site also notes, “Spanish interpreter available in our office, we handle the vast majority of our cases on contingency.” It has been reported in the media that some associates working for Mr. Lack are terrified of him, and that he has an actual lion hanging on the wall of his office. In short, a wholesome human being and a model citizen.

Litigation against Dole in Nicaragua

Girardi and Lack have known each other for 30 years. At times, the Law Offices of Girardi & Keese and the Law Offices of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack join together to represent the same client/s in order to have access to greater resources to compete against the resources of their opponents—usually multi-national corporations. They are highly experienced and sophisticated practitioners.

Recognizing an opportunity in the country of Nicaragua, the firms of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack joined a law firm in Nicaragua, through which they each agreed to engage in a joint venture and file a case in Nicaragua against a California corporation for product liability. The idea was to advance the suit in Nicaragua, which is “plaintiff friendly,” obtain a judgment, and then collect the judgment in the United States, where defendant’s assets were located and the legal system would be efficient and effective in enforcing the judgment. Before agreeing to undertake the representation, Lack and Girardi traveled to Nicaragua to meet with members of the Nicaraguan firm.

The Nicaraguan firm was instructed to name as the defendant “Dole Food Company,” a California based company, in order to seize its assets in California in the event plaintiffs won a substantial judgment in Nicaragua. However, the Nicaraguan firm filed the suit against “Dole Food Corporation” (rather than “Dole Food Company”).

When served with the lawsuit in the United States, Dole hired lawyers in Nicaragua to defend the lawsuit. When defending the action, Dole’s lawyers informed the court that, even though the correct name of the entity is actually “Dole Food Company,” they were willing to continue with the case and present a defense, and assume all responsibilities. They even posted bond, as required by Nicaraguan law.

The Nicaraguan judge, however, oddly enough refused to let Dole’s lawyer present a defense. He demanded that attorneys for “Dole Food Corporation” show up to defend the case. When he was told that there is no such entity, the judge nonetheless issued a default judgment against “Dole Food Corporation” for almost half a billion dollars ($498 million, to be exact). The judge also SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the judgment itself that the judgment was NOT against the “Dole Food Company.”

Walter Lack, Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi were ecstatic. Presuming that the case was being handled on a contingency basis, and presuming conservatively that each firm would collect 10% of the judgment, this judgment meant that each of their firms would receive $ 50 million dollars.

However, after reading the judgment of the Nicaraguan court, Walter Lack’s excitement quickly turned to worry and frustration. Walter Lack realized that the default judgment was against a non-existent entity. He sent an urgent email to the Nicaraguan law firm (on which Girardi’s firm was cc:d) stating that the “JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WRONG ENTITY.” Lack also wrote that he was “VERY CONCERNED,” and that “There must be a PERFECT match between the names of the entities served and the names of the entities against whom judgment has been obtained.”

In his deposition, Thomas Girardi admitted that he received the email exchange between Walter Lack and the Nicaraguan law firm, which states that Lack was “very concerned,” that “there must be a “perfect match,” and that the judgment was against the “wrong entity.” (As a side note, it is difficult to believe after reading the emails from Lack, Thomas Girardi never mentioned to Howard Miller – even casually during lunch, for example, or on the golf course, when there was no one around – that a half-billion dollar judgment had been entered against the wrong entity. As such, it is safe to assume that at this early stage, Mr. Miller was placed on notice that there was a problem with the half-billion dollar judgment.)

Despite having been told by Walter Lack that the judgment was against the wrong entity, the Nicaraguan firm ignored Lack’s comments, and went a step further, asking the Nicaraguan court to issue an order making the judgment enforceable. That order is referred to as a “Writ of Execution.” The Nicaraguan court issued the requested “Writ of Execution,” which also refers to “Dole Food Corporation,” the non-existent entity.

Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, very concerned that they were about to forfeit $100 million, immediately summoned a representative from the Nicaraguan firm to Los Angeles. A meeting took place between Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, and the Nicaraguan lawyer. ( In his deposition, Walter Lack admitted that the meeting took place, and that Girardi was present. Lack’s own handwritten notes of the meeting indicate that Girardi was there and that the meeting lasted 2 hours)

Instead of dealing with the problems head-on, and knowing full well that Dole was not allowed to present a defense in Nicaragua and that the Judgment and Writ of Execution named the wrong entity, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack obtained a translation from Spanish to English of the “Writ of Execution” that refers to “Dole Food Company” as the judgment debtor. To reiterate, the Spanish version of the Writ of Execution names “Dole Food Corporation,” whereas the English translation refers to “Dole Food Company.” Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi knew that the translation was FRAUDULENT as they knew very well that “there must be a perfect match.”

Relying on the fraudulent translation, and knowing that the problem was not solved but eager to collect their money, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack (and their respective firms) filed a wholly frivolous and fraudulent law suit in Los Angeles Superior Court in order to collect the half-billion dollar judgment from Dole Food Company, a California corporation. In addition to being frivolous, the suit also contains other misrepresentations and omissions. Thomas Girardi’s signature appears on the complaint filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. (As such, Thomas Girardi’s defense of Lack’s lack of knowledge, or as was described by special prosecutor Rory Little, the ‘Sergeant Shultz Defense” of “I know nothing,” is ridiculous to the extreme. Just the meeting with the Nicaraguan lawyer who flew to Los Angeles and met with Girardi for 2 hours was notice enough and a red flag that Girardi should not have ignored.)

After being served with the suit filed to collect the judgment, Dole Food Company which is based in California, became very concerned about the unfolding of these fraudulent events and sought help from its much larger parent company. The parent company, not located in California, took charge. It hired a competent Chicago-based firm to clean up the mess. The parent company, via its lawyers, asked the Los Angeles Superior Court to remove the case to federal court based on diversity because of the fraud that took place against its daughter company, Dole Food Company. (In the removal pleadings to Los Angeles Superior Court, the attorneys for Dole specifically described the unfolding of events, including how they were not allowed to participate in the proceedings in Nicaragua, and the fact the translation was fraudulent. Again, this should have placed Thomas Girardi, Howard Miller and Walter Lack on notice that there was a problem.)

A judge from Los Angeles Superior Court allowed the suit to be removed to federal court based on a federal rule of procedure that allows for removal based on diversity, and ignored the fact that Dole is California based (which would defeat diversity) as it had been fraudulently joined. After the suit was moved to federal court, Dole moved to dismiss the action, and again referenced that the translation of the Writ of Execution was not a true translation. Again, Thomas Girardi, Howard Miller and Walter Lack ignored those warnings, and instead asked the federal court to remand the case back to Los Angeles Superior Court because they had a true and correct judgment they wanted to enforce against defendant. The signature of Walter Lack, and that of an associate at Lack’s firm, Mr. Paul Traina, appeared on the Motion to Remand pleadings. Paul Traina did virtually nothing to investigate and determine the veracity of the statements made in the pleadings, even though the Notary Affidavit, on its face, presents questions as to its authenticity and even though Dole’s central argument called into question the accuracy of the documents. Traina also received an urgent email from one of his own experts (Ms. Centeno) telling him about the “inaccuracies” in the translations.

The federal District Court (Hon. Judge Mannela) refused to send the case back to state court, and dismissed the case based on Dole’s argument that the Nicaraguan judgment and the Writ of Execution named the wrong entity, and that the translated English versions were fraudulent. Judge Manella, in her order dismissing the case against Dole, referred to those documents as “suspect” (which also put respondents on notice).

Respondents did not relent, and in the spirit of the motto posted on Lack’s firm website (“We will not back down from anyone”) filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Respondents did so without taking any steps to investigate Dole’s arguments or the district court's findings and conclusions about the Judgment. Apparently, Thomas Girardi, “the King of the Class-Action Lawsuit,” followed the common law motto of “The King can do no wrong” in filing the frivolous appeal. Although, as events unfolded, his defense would later become, “I know nothing.”

Lack and Traina delegated the duty of drafting the Opening Brief for the appeal to Sean Topp, a recent graduate from law school and an attorney at the Lack Firm with very little experience. In preparing the brief, Topp never reviewed the Writ, the complete Notary Affidavit, the Judgment, or the Nicaraguan court papers denying Dole Food Company's intervention.

The Opening Brief to the Ninth Circuit listed Lack, Traina, Topp, Girardi, and Howard Miller as Attorneys of Record. The brief repeated false statements made by Respondents before the district court, declaring that the Writ of Execution names “Dole Food Company” as judgment debtors, and asserting that the "Writ” is "dispositive of the fact that Dole Food Company is a proper defendant.”

In response, Dole filed its brief with the Ninth Circuit and again argued that "it is obvious that plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action to enforce the Nicaraguan judgment against Dole Food Company, for the simple reason that this entity was not named in the underlying Nicaraguan complaints or judgment and was affirmatively denied an opportunity to participate in the Nicaraguan proceedings.” Dole also pointed out the problems with the translation of the documents.

Sean Topp, the new lawyer from Lack’s law firm, read Dole’s response and started to see the “big picture” as to what was going on. He became anxious, restless, and panicky. Realizing that he might be part of a larger scheme and that he might be the designated “fall guy,” Topp sent Paul Traina, a “CYA” email in which he wrote in part:

“As you know, our Reply Brief ... must be filed on August 13th. I am in the process of drafting the Reply. The fact that plaintiffs continue to pursue their claims against Dole Food Company in this Court, knowing full well that the new writ does not list those companies as liable parties, only underscores their attempted manipulation of the judicial process. Nonetheless, a review of the record, our Opening Brief, and defendants' Response Brief leads me to the conclusion that our chances of succeeding with our Appeal is minimal. Defendants have argued that Dole Food Company, Inc. is a sham defendant that must be disregarded for purposes of the "no-local defendant" rule because Dole Food Company, Inc. was NOT named in the Nicaraguan judgment. Dole is correct. Dole Food "Corporation" was the party named in the Nicaraguan judgment, not Dole Food "Company." To make matters worse, the judge in the Nicaraguan proceedings clearly stated that Dole Food "Company" was not a party to the action. Based on these facts, Dole will prevail at the Appellate Court. If we are unsuccessful in this Appeal, our clients will be exposed to substantial costs. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 the Court can award the defendants damages and double costs if an Appeal is determined to be frivolous. Defendants will have a good argument that our Appeal is frivolous based on the claim that since Dole was never named in the Nicaraguan judgment we were aware that Dole was not a proper defendant in our enforcement action. I recommend that we offer the defendants to dismiss our Appeal in exchange for defendants waiving their costs and feed incurred in the action. Please advise.”

Sean Topp testified in his deposition that he wrote this memo as “a knee-jerk reaction to how buried and how unhappy” he was. Paul Traina testified that after receiving the memo from Topp, he discussed it with Walter Lack, who instructed him to proceed with the appeal.

Sean Topp filed a reply brief with the Ninth Circuit that stated, “the Complaint had properly alleged that plaintiffs have a final judgment for a sum of money in their favor against Dole," even though he was fully aware of the problems he had previously mentioned in his memorandum to Traina.

In the meantime, Dole and its lawyers, concerned over Respondents’ continued unlawful tactics, obtained their own notarized translation of the actual Nicaraguan Judgment and Writ of Execution with the correct translation, and filed a Motion for Sanctions with the Ninth Circuit against Respondents claiming that Respondents had filed a frivolous appeal, misrepresented the contents of the Writ, and made false statements.

Following receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, Sean Topp was concerned and wanted to create a detailed record, so he prepared another “CYA” memo. Paul Traina, who also began to panic, joined Topp in drafting the memorandum to Mr. Walter Lack and Mr. Thomas Girardi, informing them of the fact that Dole had filed a Motion for Sanctions. The decision was made, however, to continue with the appeal, file an opposition to the sanctions motion, and prepare for oral argument.

Sean Topp, a new lawyer from Lack’s firm with very little experience, was selected to deliver the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit concerning the $500,000,000 judgment and the potential sanctions against Respondents. However, six days before the scheduled hearing, Topp realized, conveniently, that he had a “scheduling conflict” and could not appear at the hearing. Instead of approaching members of his own firm (such as Traina or Lack) to fill in for him, Sean Topp instead decided to “ask” Mr. Howard Miller, from the Girardi & Keese firm, to present the oral argument.

Mr. Howard Miller, the firm’s appellate specialist and current President of the State Bar of California, checked his calendar and, lo and behold, he was able to squeeze in the oral argument. Besides, Sean Topp had “asked” so politely, so Mr. Miller agreed to do him a favor and appear before the Ninth Circuit for oral argument.

Now, when everyone was in a state of confusion and worry, Mr. Miller finally had a very good excuse and opportunity to familiarize himself with the facts of the case. After all, he was doing Sean Topp a favor by attending the oral argument before the Ninth Circuit instead of Mr. Topp.

After examining the file and reading Dole’s Motion for Sanctions, Mr. Miller decided not to pursue the appeal, which was dismissed one day prior to oral argument.

Prior to the decision to dismiss the appeal, the law offices of Lack and Girardi devised a new strategy to enforce the default judgment obtained against Dole in Venezuela, where Dole also has assets, despite the fact that they knew that Dole denied participation in the proceeding in Nicaragua, and despite the fact that they knew the judgment was against a non-existent entity.

Even though the appeal was dismissed, the Ninth Circuit, concerned about the events that had taken place, appointed a Special Master (Honorable Wallace Tashima, a Ninth Circuit Judge). The Ninth Circuit also later appointed a Special Prosecutor, Mr. Rory Little, in order to determine what, if any, discipline and sanctions should be imposed on Respondents except, for some unclear reason, Mr. Howard Miller. Also unclear is why Rory Little report and recommendation is currently under seal.

As of March 2010, the Ninth Circuit has not issued a ruling on this matter. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit will only be dealing with misconduct relating to the appeal, which was before that court, not with misconduct that took place before the District Court or the Los Angeles County Superior Court, or any harm the misconduct of respondents caused their clients.

It appears that Mr. Howard Miller will not be sanctioned by the Ninth Circuit, which is extremely troubling. It is simply disingenuous for Mr. Miller to argue that he only learned of the facts of the case five days before oral arguments when he agreed to do a favor for an associate from another law firm. Also, as will be shown, in very similar cases around the same time, respondents always designated Howard Miller to deliver oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit.

III. SPECIFIC BREACHES OF PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL DUTIES OF CONDUCT

• Allegation of Misconduct Concerning Lack, Traina, Topp

The above three named lawyers should be disciplined by the State Bar of California.

It is fairly obvious that Walter Lack and Paul Traina should be disbarred. They are with the most experience, and were about to gain financially from collecting the judgment. Lack knew in January 2003 that the Judgment was not against Dole Food Company; instead the Judgment was, in his words, "against the wrong entity" and that the "judgment needs to be against Dole Food Company”. Despite this knowledge, Lack (along with the firm of Girardi & Keese) engineered years of litigation, including frivolous litigation before the Los Angeles Superior court, a federal district court based solely on contentions which ran contrary to their own independent knowledge , and for which they were warned time and again by many entities. They were warned by the content of the Nicaraguan judgment itself that specifically excluded “Dole Food Company”, they were told by the Nicaraguan law firm that there are issues concerning the proper name of the defendants (for which a representative flew to L.A. to meet with Lack and Girardi), the pleading of Dole in asking for the case to be removed from L.A. Superior Court to the federal district court raised the issues that Respondents had duty to investigate, the federal judge that dismissed the case clearly made it known that the documents submitted were “suspect”, and their own expert also pointed to some red flags. Yet, a frivolous appeal was filed with the Ninth Circuit.

In preparing the opening brief, even their own associate, Mr. Sean Topp, wrote to them and to Girardi, warning them of the potential problems. Yet, the appeal was not dropped. In addition to filing a frivolous appeal, it was also falsely stated to the Ninth Circuit that the writ of execution issued by the Nicaraguan court named Dole Food Company as a judgment debtor, falsely stated that the writ corrected mistakes in the judgment, and falsely stated that the notary affidavit constituted an accurate translation of the writ.

It is clear that the actions of Lack and Traina involved moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption and were in violation of the California State Bar Act, section 6160. The case for disbarment is simple and clear, as above all, a lawyer must demonstrate respect for the rule of law, the legal system.

Sean Hopp-- disciplined should be imposed, however, not with the same severity as Lack and Traina. The memo that he wrote to Lack and Girardi clearly demonstrate that he was aware of the problem and he did prepare the opening brief that he knew to be frivolous and contends that Dole Food Company was the judgment debtor, although he knew that the Judgment was not against Dole. At the time, however, he was a young lawyer and perhaps allowed, in good faith, for the experience and reasoning of Walter Lack to replace his own because he believed that Lack was more experienced and knowledgeable, and as such, he believed in good faith that the appeal has merit because Lack said so.

In addition, it is reported in the media that Lack is a ruthless partner who has a real lion in his office, and that associates are terrified of him (Lack that is). As such, it believable that Topp was truly scared of Lack and really felt “buried and unhappy” as he testified in his deposition.

• Allegations of Misconduct Concerning Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi

It is extremely troubling that there were insinuations that if the Ninth Circuit does not impose an actual suspension against Girardi preventing him from practicing before the Ninth Circuit alone, he will be spared prosecution by the State Bar. The Ninth Circuit and State Bar proceedings are not related, and have different roles. Even assuming the Ninth Circuit determines that Girardi acted “recklessly” and does not impose an actual suspension, Girardi nevertheless can, and should, be prosecuted by the State Bar for even allowing a situation to arise in which Walter Lack does all the work, while Girardi is still counsel of record on the case without fulfilling his duty to his clients and the court to familiarize himself with the facts and issues of the case. Bar Rule 3-110 calls for lawyers to act competently and to inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and applicable law. As such, the alleged willful ignorance on the part of Miller and Girardi regarding positions they propagated to the Ninth Circuit does not and should not insulate Miller and Girardi from being prosecuted by the State Bar. The law is clear that an attorney of record (and in this case Girardi was the leading attorney of record) may enter into an agreement with some other person, attorney or layman regarding a division of labor, but this does not diminish the attorney's personal responsibility for compliance with the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover, both Mr. Girardi and Mr. Miller can and should be prosecuted for their misconduct before the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the U.S. District Court (matters not before the Ninth Circuit), and the State Bar should fully investigate those allegations, as it should have done many years ago.

It is requested that both Mr. Miller and Mr. Girardi be treated with severity by the State Bar Court, including multiple years of actual suspension for Mr. Girardi, and disbarment for Mr. Miller, who created an elaborate deception in order to shield himself. In addition to deceiving courts by their actions, both vexatiously and in multiple proceedings used judicial resources in a fraudulent manner in order to enrich themselves, causing injury to Dole Food Company; allegedly causing injuries to their clients, the plaintiffs in Nicaragua who desperately needed help.

Both knew what was transpiring, as evidenced by the meeting in Los Angeles with the attorney from Nicaragua. (Walter Lack’s handwritten notes indicate that Girardi was present at an emergency meeting with a Nicaraguan lawyer. It is implausible that Mr. Girardi did not mention what had transpired in the meeting to Miller.) Additionally, the first memorandum prepared by Sean Topp which was emailed to Girardi set forth in no uncertain terms that there were serious issues that needed attention, and which Mr. Miller and Mr. Girardi had a duty to examine. Girardi’s allegation that he was unaware of the scheme, continuing even to date, should be a serious source of concern.

Even assuming that Miller reviewed the file for the first time one week prior to oral argument before the Ninth Circuit after Sean Topp encountered a scheduling conflict as prior to that Walter Lack’s office had full control of the case, this should in itself constitute misconduct. Bar Rule 3-110 calls for lawyers to act competently and to inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law. As such, Miller’s failure to educate himself about the facts and issues of the case constitute misconduct in itself which resulted in injuries to plaintiffs, Dole, and wasted enormous amounts of judicial resources. This type of conduct – choosing to intentionally remaining ignorant – does not meet standards of professional, legal, and ethical conduct, particularly from someone who serves as the President of the State Bar of California.

Also, in taking that position, and despite concerns and objections expressed including by the District Court, Mr. Miller negligently or recklessly ignored concerns expressed and violated his duty to further investigate those concerns. It is shocking that Miller, the attorney with the most appellate experience, chose to not even investigate or address the concerns of the federal District Court judge, who warned that the documents were suspect and, instead, filed a frivolous appeal which bear his name, along with that of Girardi, Lack, Traina, and Topp.

The more plausible scenario that allegedly took place and is easier to believe is that Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi knew all along what was transpiring and took a “wait and see” approach, hoping that Walter Lack and his associates would manage to bamboozle a court into enforcing the $500 million Nicaraguan judgment, or use the fraudulent documents as a bargaining chip to obtain a quick cash settlement from Dole. If anything went wrong, they could always find an excuse, such as blaming it on a misunderstanding with the Nicaraguan law firm, arguing that the translation from Spanish to English was mistakenly inaccurate, or that responsibility lies with Walter Lack’s firm.

However, after Dole moved for sanctions in front of the Ninth Circuit, which exposed in no uncertain terms the trail of deception, and only one week before oral argument, even seasoned litigators like Walter Lack and Howard Miller began to crack. Howard Miller realized that Walter Lack’s strategy of “We will not back down from anyone” was about to backfire, and he needed a way out. The question was how to get out. Thus, the laughable story concerning Sean Topp’s “scheduling conflict” was allegedly concocted, and Sean Topp “asked” Howard Miller to attend the oral argument.

Now, Howard Miller has a perfect excuse to review the file. And, guess what? After reviewing the file for six hours, he decided that the appeal should be dismissed. Girardi, of course, agreed immediately. As such, the appeal was dismissed one day before oral argument.

Other evidence and argument that makes the Sean Topp story unbelievable is the fact that in a very similar case (the Calderon case), which was argued at approximately the same time, and which also involved the same respondents and the Ninth Circuit, it was Howard Miller who presented the oral argument to the court, not Sean Topp. In that case (the Calderon case), docket number of 04-56582, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the court records read:

Howard Miller, Girardi & Keese, Los Angeles, CA, argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees. Walter J. Lack, Paul A. Traina, Sean A. Topp, Engstrom, Lipsomb & Lack, Los Angeles, CA, and Thomas V. Girardi, Girardi & Keese, Los Angeles, CA, were also on the briefs of the appellees.

Moreover, Howard Miller’s appellate experience is a source of pride to him, and his firm. The web-site of Girardi & Keese profiles Howard Miller, and states:

He also does substantial appellate practice for the firm. Recent appellate cases which he has argued include, in the Supreme Court of California: Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 1096 (2003) and HLC Properties v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 54 (2005); in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Dow Chemical Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827 (9th Circ. 2005) and Abrego v. Dow, 443 F.3d 676 (9th Circ. 2006); in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Optivus v. Ion Beam, 469 F.3d 978 (Fed.Circ. 2006); and in the California Court of Appeal: Karlsson v. Ford Motor Company, 140 Cal.App.4th 1202 (2006).

As such, it is safe to assume that the current case was also handled by Mr. Miller, and he was designated to deliever the oral argument from the beginning, and not Sean Topp.

It is also not believable that sophisticated and ferocious litigators such as Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and appellate specialist Howard Miller, would choose Sean Topp, fresh out of law school with no experience, to deliver the oral argument concerning a half-billion dollar judgment before a panel that included some of the brightest legal minds in this country (Justices Reinhardt, Kozinski, and Berzon);

Finally, Miller violated the rules of professional conduct by not dismissing the appeal after he was placed on notice yet again. In June, following the filing of the motion for sanctions but before the case was to be argued before the Ninth Circuit, Topp and Traina told Girardi and Lack, the “Writ names Dole Food Corporation-not Dole Food Company.” Even assuming that earlier in the litigation there was some merit to the position that the Writ "corrected" errors in the Judgment, once they were informed by their own co-counsel in no uncertain terms that this was not the case, Miller and Girardi should have so informed the Ninth Circuit. By failing to do so, Lack, Miller and Girardi, as well as Traina and Topp, violated their ethical duty to correct or withdraw litigation positions after it becomes obvious they are meritless

Therefore, the State Bar of California must discipline Respondents for misconduct that violated the standards of professional legal and ethical conduct. Further, as the evidence points to numerous violations by Mr. Howard Miller, the State Bar Board of Governors should consider the immediate removal of Mr. Miller from his position as State Bar President.

Thank you for your time, you may contact me at lesliebrodie@gmx.com with any questions, or visit the blog at http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/






One Early Morning in San Francisco

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-03-29 – 04:37:44

A 6-foot 5-inch tall, 235-pound lawyer walked past a synaguage in San Francisco in the early morning hours.

The lawyer begun shouting a litany of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist insults.

The lawyer approached some of the congregates, and begun to beat them
over a roughly 10-minute period.

One of the victims suffered broken ribs, a black eye and multiple lacerations in the altercation.

The Supreme Court of California placed the California lawyer on a 60-day suspension. A slap on the wrist for an obvious hate crime.

A mildly stiffer penalty than the reproval he received two years earlier for a previous battery conviction.

Sadly, the one who signed the decision, was Beverly Hills resident, the Jew Ronald George. Pictured here with his wife in one of the many galas that they love to attend.

Justice George and his Wife.





State Bar Complaint Against U.C. Law Professor for Sexism/Racism and Endangering the Public Safety

by lesliebrodie @ 2010-03-22 – 00:16:36

March 19, 2010

Mr. Russell Wiener, Interim Chief Trial Counsel
Office of Intake/State Bar of California
1149 South Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015

Re: Formal Complaint against James Wagstaffe; Sinclair “Rod” Kerr; and the law offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe for misconduct surrounding the publication of an “XPRESS VIDEO” and alleged acts of sexism/racism utilized by the firm while hiring associates.

Dear Mr. Weiner:

Please register a formal complaint against the above named attorneys and inform me as to the case number assigned. I have been told in the past by the Intake office that a complaint can be filed anonymously and was told by counsel that I can post anonymously. As such, I wish to proceed in such a manner.

James Wagstaffe (“Wagstaffe”) and Rod Kerr (“Kerr”) are members of the California State Bar and are main shareholders in the law firm of Kerr & Wagstaffe located In San Francisco, CA. The firm boasts that it has established itself as a “premier” law firm. It represents many governmental entities such as various cities, the State Bar of California, and various companies that are on the “Fortune 500” list.

In addition to practicing law, Wagstaffe teaches at U.C. Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco State University, and is one of the authors of the Rutter Group publication dealing with Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial.


MISCONDUCT RELATING TO A VIDEO PUBLISHED BY "GOLDEN GATE XPRESS"

"Golden Gate Xpress" publishes a series of videos and presentations which can be fount on the Internet named "60 Seconds Spiel".

One of the published presentations is narrated by Wagstaffe and is titled "A LAWYER DEMOSNSTRATES HOW TO GET TALK YOUR WAY OUT OF A TRAFFIC TICKET". (“Get Talk” in original title)

The video itself contains an audio and various pictures of Wagstaffe shredding what appears to be a traffic ticket from the San Francisco Police Department. The audio presentation begins with Wagstaffe introducing himself as an attorney from the law offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe.

Some of the advise Wagstaffe offers, for example, is to "do what I do, put a CHP (California Highway Patrol) magazine in your car, so they think you are one of them". He also boasts that in the last 10 years he has been stopped close to 10-15 times but only receives 3 tickets.

As I do not wish to furnish a direct link to the presentation as it will further endanger public safety, however, two pictures can be found here:

Law Prof Wagstaffe002--get talk - Copy
Mad U.C. Law Prof. James Wagstaffe - Copy

pic tearing ticket - Copy

You can listen to the edited audio by pressing here:

ACTS OF MISCONDUCT RELATING TO "GOLDEN GATE EXPRESS" VIDEO

By participating in the video and representing himself as an attorney, Wagstaffe clearly intends the presentation to serve as legal advice as how to avoid getting a ticket once a driver is stopped by law enforcement.

I. The video demonstrates that Wagstaffe clearly committed many acts of misconduct. The pictures show a mad man tearing an official legal document which is essentially a summons to appear in court for a hearing. This shows lack of respect for the law, lack of respect toward the legal system, and places the profession in a negative light.

II. In the presentation, Wagstaffe admitted to trying to misrepresent himself to law enforcement by using trickery to mislead an officer that he is "one of them". Also, he is advising others to do the same. This encouragement to deceive an officer should not be given from someone who is an officer of the court, a professor at two universities, a lawyer who is representing the State Bar of California (as he will do this afternoon in San Francisco Superior Court), and an author of a widely used publication. In addition, the overall tone of the presentation is inappropriate and can encourage unsafe driving habits which will result in injuries and death.

MISCONDUCT RELATING TO DISCRIMINATORY HIRING PRACTICES OF ATTORNEYS.

The firm racial and gender make-up is as follows:

*Out of 10 lawyers, all but one is White.

*Out of 7 Partners, all but one are Males. (This was changed around 2010, where a female partner was hired. Prior to that, for most of 2009, all the partners were men, and all the associates were females)

*All the associates are females. There are no male associates.

*All the females’ associates are white.

*All the female associates are young.

* Two out of the three associates are from Hastings, where Wagstaffe teaches.

It is my absolute conviction that the firm is in breach of local, state and federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. Also, it violates California Business and Professions Code sections 6106 and 6068.

It is simply unbelievable that without violation of the law a San Francisco firm will be composed of 10 lawyers of whom nine are white; out of seven partners, six are men; and all the associates are young white females. In addition, for example, taking into account the current associates and two former young white female associates, Holly Hogan and Tricia Weaver:

http://www.klgates.com/professionals/detail.aspx?professional=5944

http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/lawyer/Tricia-E-Weaver/b55ecf36-79e4-4d08-956b-f3cc74451715.html

One can not but concludes that the firm has a proclivity towards hiring young and attractive white females with Northern-European features as associates. Examining the pictures, I experienced an eerie feeling and had to remind myself that the year is 2010 and I am San Francisco, CA, U.S.A where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not a law firm in South-Africa during apartheid or an experiment in eugenics jurisprudence during the 30’s in Deutschland.

Based on the above, Mr. Wagstaffe should be disciplined by the State Bar for his misconduct.