@ 31/08/2011 – 06.20:12
Related stories:
Jill Sperber of State Bar Of California Has Some Explaining To Do (... And Also Holly Fujie, Starr Babcock, Judy Johnson, Arnold & Porter's Douglas Winthrop) please see @:
Sara Granda v State Bar of California: Dishonest Journalism by California Bar Journal and Diane Curtis, please see @:
For prior coverage and background information, please visit the following links: http://tinyurl.com/3s2tjxz , http://tinyurl.com/42t7zkj , http://tinyurl.com/3eotzfs , http://tinyurl.com/3s82ac4 , http://tinyurl.com/3rjqm3v
Dear Mr Hawley:
This will serve to formally update you regarding newly-discovered
evidence pertaining to the scheme executed by your office, Howard Rice Canady Falk & Rabkin, and others relating to the decisions which resulted in Jerome Falk of Howard Rice acting as a special deputy trial counsel to examine attorney misconduct in the litigation against Dole.
Within the past few days, I learned that Howard Rice Canady Falk & Rabkin actually REPRESENTED the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.
In plain English, Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack were (and very likely are) clients of Howard Rice Canady Falk & Rabkin.
The case at issue is entitled Copple v. Estrella & Rice (case number 3:2005 cv03961 JSW) 442 F.Supp.2d 829 (2006). It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, 2005 by Robert Copple (represented by Lindley & Wood).
As the rules of professional conduct make very clear that an attorney can never represent another party in an action adverse to a current or former client, it was improper for Howard Rice and Jerome Falk to accept the invitation to act as special deputy trial counsel.
Similarly, it was improper for the State Bar to make such a
designation. It was improper for everyone involved to maintain secrecy over the relationship, particularly the law offices of Skadden Arps, and partners Thomas Nolan and Alec Chang.
In addition to filing the ethics complaint with BOG/RAD and the Intake Office, I also communicated my concerns to Douglas Winthrop, Sean SeLegue, and Pamela Phillips of Howard Rice, and also invited them to disclose all other cases which potentially give rise to a conflict of interest. None of these individuals ever responded.
In fact, Howard Rice, Girardi & Keese as well as Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack , actively and by omission, took actions to conceal the matter.
This unfair and unlawful conduct caused injury to the people of the State of California, Dole Food Company, the federal judiciary, the fair administration of justice, as well as to yours truly.
In my view, the fact that Howard Rice and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack had an attorney-client relationship is by far the most compelling and credible evidence I have submitted to date concerning this matter. As such, and however futile, I must renew my request that the OCTC and RAD take the appropriate actions.
Thank you for your time.
To view the case of Copple vs. Astrella, please visit : http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20061271442FSupp2d829_11197.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
@ 29/08/2011 – 23.02:17
In response to a request by The Leslie Brodie Report ("TLR"), Dr. Joseph Zernik provided a short review (published below as a simulated interview) of the history of the corruption in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, highlighting the Iran-Contra Scandal, the Rampart Scandal, and corruption within U.S. District Court in Los Angeles as key causes of the corruption.
The vacationing doctor joined us over the net, and we shall publish selected part of the communication, below:
TLR: Doc Zernik, Good Morning, thank you for joining us.
DZ: Thank you Leslie, good morning to you as well.
TLR: The rampant corruption of the state and US courts is fully documented from coast to coast, thanks to your endless efforts. However, and as you stated, studying and quantifying corruption remains difficult. Regardless, it is estimated that Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court remain one of the most corrupt in the nation, and we were hoping you can help us understand why such is the case?
DZ: Los Angeles County was notoriously corrupt already in the early 20th century, during the "Water Wars," remembered by the public primarily through the movie Chinatown. In 2006, the Blue Ribbon Review Panel published its report, following a 3-year study. The report opined that corruption in Los Angeles County at that time (2006) was higher than during the Water Wars. The report also pointed out specifically the LASC as a key to the corruption.
TLR: The question, why Los Angeles, and not San Diego or Sacramento? What is so unique about Los Angeles?
DZ: A surge took place beginning in 1982 with the Iran-Contra Scandal. It was a key period in corruption of the LASC. During the period between 1982 to 1995, federal agencies engaged in wholesale trafficking and distribution of cocaine in LA County. Local and state law enforcement, as well as the courts, had to collude in such corruption, which effectively designated Los Angeles County as an extra-constitutional zone.
In the aftermath of Iran-Contra, LAPD and some federal agencies continued to control and profit from drug trade in LA, as documented in reports from the Rampart Scandal - the largest court corruption scandal in the history of the United States. However, following their conduct during the Iran-Contra Scandal, federal agencies were not ready, willing, and able to address corruption of the LAPD and the LASC. Therefore, they left the corrupt LAPD, DA, and LASC to investigate, prosecute, and adjudge themselves. The outcome was a cover up, with the resulting ongoing false imprisonment of thousands of Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons).
The public and media ignored the corruption, since they it pertained primarily to the criminal courts, and the victims were almost exclusively blacks and Latinos. However, whoever thought that the same judges could be corrupt in the morning in a criminal case, and honest in the afternoon in a civil case, must have been deluded.
TLR: Any other factors?
DZ: It is claimed that already in the late 1990's the LASC moved on from control of the drug trade to real estate and financial institution fraud as its core business. It is claimed that it was the synergy between the two corrupt organizations - LASC and Countrywide - that created the “epicenter of the epidemic.”
The current financial crisis in its core reflects widespread corruption of the US justice system, and the breakdown of any semblance of due process in deprivation of life, liberty and property.
TLR: It has been fascinating communicating with you,
DZ: Thanks. It was great to be here.
In future installments we hope to discuss with Dr. Zernik topics such as Bet Tzedek as well as alleged collision between the Daily Journal/Sustain/California State Bar and the LASC.
@ 29/08/2011 – 22.00:17
The State Bar of California is considering a range of options to meet a call by Executive-Director Joe Dunn to greatly "enhance performance" and change "institutional culture," The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.
One such proposal,which requires the approval of the Board of Governors, will be to "incentive employees to voluntarily separate their employment, particularly when they are affected by the reorganization."
The proposal is to authorize the State Bar to “enhance” the existing severance standards to a six-month maximum, and based upon years of service. The voluntary separation program is conditioned upon a full release of liability, per a memorandum written by Robert Hawley.
According to State Bar Insider, under the current rules, veteran employees have “bumping” rights that entitle them to retain employment and “bump” other less senior employees.
"The reform may proven to be quite chaotic because there are many potential outcomes, and nobody knows what to expect," State Bar Insider concluded.
A vote by the Board of Governors on the newest proposal is scheduled for tomorrow.
@ 29/08/2011 – 20.24:46
The Leslie Brodie Report today asked attorney and American patriot Orly Taitz to issue non-legal opinion on the actions taken by Sarah Glynn following the guilty verdict by the Cupar Sheriff Court. Leslie Brodie joined the request.
Ms Orly Taitz
Specifically, Taitz asked to opine and otherwise explain the actions and motivations of Glynn.
Earlier this year, Paul Donnachie, a St Andrews University student, allegedly rubbed his hands on his genitals, pulled off a pubic hair, and rubbed it over a flag belonging to Jewish student. Messages Donnachie posted on Facebook read: "There is a Zionist in my hall." Another message stated: "I got into sh*t for disrespecting (an Israeli Flag). F**k them. Standing my ground to the end on this one."
The victim, Mr Chanan Reitblat, a visiting student from the Jewish Yeshiva University in New York, stated he felt "devastated."
Subsequent to a guilty verdict for breach of the peace by the Cupar Sheriff Court, Sarah Glynn -- a Jewish politics lecture at the University of Edinburgh and a Teaching Fellow in Geography at St Andrews -- was close to tears as she left court and told the victim's family their actions were 'scandalous.'
Later, an upset Glynn also accosted the family of the victim with a clear intent to shame them because they are Jewish. She hollered: "As Jews you should be ashamed. This is devastating."
Yesterday, TLR launched an inquiry to examine whether Glynn's actions and speech were in conformity with all rules and regulations.
A decision whether to file a formal ethics complaint against Glynn is expected early next week.
@ 27/08/2011 – 11.20:27
An inquiry has been launched into the impartiality of the judge presiding over the matter of Fogel v. Farmers, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.
This inquiry was launched following a review of Consumer Dogwatch legal team's motion to disqualify Judge William Highberger (See http://goo.gl/FGSNB ) , as well as unsubstantiated allegations concerning Judge Highberger, Carolyn Kuhl-Highberger, and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.
According to sources familiar with the situation, the inquiry will examine the possibility of tacit involvement by Judge Highberger in the circumstances surrounding concurrent representation by the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps.
Specifically, despite their respective roles as counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps entered into a separate agreement by which Skadden Arps and partner Thomas Nolan represented Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In re Girardi following the Ninth Circuit's issuance of an order to show cause why Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned as a result of the massive fraud which took place in litigation pursued by them against Dole Food Company.
While both cases were pending, and over a period of 4-5 years, neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Los Angeles County Superior Court (nor, for that matter, the class of plaintiffs which Girardi allegedly represents) were ever informed of the concurrent representation. See http://tinyurl.com/fogelvfarmersobjection .
Contending that Howard Rice's Jerome Falk, acting as Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, repeatedly sought to subvert justice in examining attorney misconduct in the litigation against Dole Food Company, sources close to the complainant claim a new and recent discovery shows "Smoking Gun” evidence of ethical misconduct.
Jerome Falk, Douglas Winthrop, Sean SeLegue, and Pamela Phillips of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin. In 2008, during an interview with a legal publication, Mr. Falk stated while describing some opposing counsel, "I would do anything to squash them. So those cases don't settle. You just want to rip their throats out." He recently dominated the news in his representation of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss in their quest to rescind a prior settlement with Facebook.
Earlier this year Jerome Falk was accused of grave misconduct as a result of his decision to exonerate Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for misconduct the two committed while litigating a case against Dole Food Company before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom, along with Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Judge Kozinski ordered the appointments of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima as special master and Rory Little as prosecutor in those special disciplinary proceedings known as the matter of In Re Girardi.
Subsequently, in late 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel comprised of Judges William Fletcher , Marsha Berzon, and Randy Smith found that Lack and Girardi had committed grave misconduct, and ordered them to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California. The State Bar of California declared a conflict in the matter because Howard Miller, a partner of Girardi & Keese, served as President of the State Bar; accordingly, the Bar appointed an outside attorney, Jerome Falk of Howard Rice Canady Falk & Rabkin, to look into the matter.
Judge William Fletcher, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated the matter of In re Girardi, 08-80090, rejected the lenient recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: "with any competent lawyer if you're omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is intentional." The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included "the persistent use of known falsehoods," and that the "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly" during years of litigation.
In his capacity as special prosecutor, and after reviewing the Ninth Circuit file, Falk chose to not file any disciplinary accusations against Walter Lack, stating that he believed Lack's misconduct was not intentional. See copy of letter from Jerome Falk to Walter Lack http://tinyurl.com/3s2tjxz
Once Falk's decision was made public, a finger was pointed at him, and he was accused of having been influenced by pecuniary considerations due to the fact that Howard Rice and Skadden Arps (specifically, Falk and partner Douglas Winthrop) often litigate cases together as a team, such as in the cases of MGA vs. Mattel, Genentech and others. In addition, allegations were made that it was improper to select the firm of Howard Rice for this appointment because Douglas Winthrop, the firm's managing partner, served as an officer of the State Bar of California. Specifically, Winthrop serves as President of a foundation maintained by the State Bar of California. See http://tinyurl.com/42t7zkj
Additionally, and as part of the inquiry, Sean SeLegue and Pamela Phillips were asked to identify "[a]ny and all other factors or facts that would cause a reasonable person to entertain doubts as to the impartiality of Howard Rice and its members in the proceedings at issue, including the disclosure of relationships between members of the firm and others." See http://tinyurl.com/3eotzfs
The State Bar of California Board of Governors' RAD Committee conducted its own investigation and retained special counsel to investigate this matter. The special master recommended that the matter be closed because there was no showing that Falk and Winthrop engaged in any misconduct; the RAD Committee adopted this recommendation. See http://tinyurl.com/3s82ac4 and http://tinyurl.com/3rjqm3v
According to the sources, the newly discovered "Smoking Gun” evidence relates to the fact that starting in 2005, the law firm of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin represented both Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a class action advanced by plaintiff Robert Copple.
As such, the sources maintain, Jerome Falk and Howard Rice were under a duty to reject the appointment, and to otherwise disclose the fact that Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese, and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack were clients of the firm.
To view the case of Copple vs. Astrella, please visit : http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20061271442FSupp2d829_11197.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For important updates, including communication from Jerome Falk, please see @:
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/08/jerome-b-falk-of-howard-rice-state-bar-of-california-special-prosecutor-in-ninth-circuit-matter-of-in-re-girardi-adjudicated-by-n-randy-smith-mar-12275371/
AND @:
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/13/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeal-matter-of-in-re-thomas-girardi-adjudicated-by-marsha-berzon-n-rabdy-smith-william-fletcher-jerome-falk-howard-rice--12300044/
@ 24/08/2011 – 15.31:32
Paul Donnachie, a St Andrews University student, who allegedly rubbed his hands on his genitals, pulled off a pubic hair, and rubbed it over a flag belonging to Jewish student, was found guilty of racist breach of the peace. The verdict by the Cupar Sheriff Court was announced earlier today.
Donnachie, a student of History who devoted the last 19 years to the fight against racism, stated: "This is a ridiculous conviction. Disrespecting the flag is a time-honored method of expressing one's disapproval with the actions of a state," he continued. "This was a political statement and not a statement about one individual."
Paul Donnachie, 19, subsequent to his expulsion from the university stated: "I'm depressed. I have fought racism all my life." (Photo:courtesy of Daily Mail)
Messages Donnachie posted on Facebook read: "There is a Zionist in my hall." Another message stated: "I got into sh*t for disrespecting (an Israeli Flag). F**k them. Standing my ground to the end on this one."
The victim, Mr Chanan Reitblat, a visiting student from the Jewish Yeshiva University in New York, stated he felt "devastated."
Ms Sarah Glynn
According to Daily Mail, Jewish politics lecturer Sarah Glynn was close to tears as she left court and told the victim's family their actions were 'scandalous.' Glynn, a Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh and a Teaching Fellow in Geography at St Andrews,stated: "As Jews you should be ashamed. This is devastating."
Previously, after members of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign disrupted a performance of the Jerusalem String Quartet, Edinburgh Sheriff raised concerns prosecution as it clashes with freedom of expression: "if persons on a public march designed to protest against and publicize alleged crimes committed by a state and its army are afraid to name that state for fear of being charged with racially aggravated behavior, it would render worthless their Article 10(1) rights. Presumably their placards would have to read, ‘Genocide in an unspecified state in the Middle East'; ‘Boycott an unspecified state in the Middle East' etc.”
@ 23/08/2011 – 20.30:00
The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) is carefully following developments relating to the case of Benjamin Fogel vs. Farmers Group, Inc. currently pending before the Los Angeles Superior Court. We will provide coverage and post updates as they become available.
Mr Benjamin Fogel of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Fogel is the lead class plaintiff in Fogel v Farmers Group, Inc. He was retained as lead plaintiff subsequent to a visit by Joe Longley -- a Texas based attorney -- with Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.
Hon. William F. Highberger, who presides over the case of Benjamin Fogel v Farmers Group. Judge Highberger is part of the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Civil Litigation Program in the CCW Courthouse since March 2008. Before his appointment to the court in September 1998 he was a partner in the Labor & Employment practice of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. He is a 1975 graduate of Columbia Law School, where he was an Editor of the Columbia Law Review and a James Kent Scholar, and a 1972 graduate of Princeton University (Photo and narrative courtesy of www.caowi.org)
From left, Messrs. Raoul Kennedy and Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps and Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith of Girardi & Keese. While Skadden Arps was representing defendant Farmers Group and Girardi & Keese representing the class of plaintiffs in Fogel vs. Farmers; the two firms entered into a seperate agreement by which Skadden Arps would represent Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi (Photo:courtesy)
In response the objection advanced by Consumer Watchdog's Harvery Rosenfield, Mr Girardi stated: "Consumer Watchdog is always after the money. Their whole deal is 'Let's screw up the settlement, and if we screw up the settlement, maybe something good will happen for us.'" For prior stories concering Thomas Girardi, please visit: http://tinyurl.com/6y7o4gn , http://tinyurl.com/3w2y9mu , http://tinyurl.com/3zl6jdj , http://tinyurl.com/6zmfux3 , http://tinyurl.com/3n85c55 , http://tinyurl.com/44n4rra , http://tinyurl.com/4xapjkl , http://tinyurl.com/3zd27z6 , http://tinyurl.com/3jkdfuv, http://tinyurl.com/6kzhyu2
Despite their respective roles as plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps entered into a separate agreement by which Skadden Arps and partner Thomas Nolan would represent Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In re Girardi following the Ninth Circuit's issuance of an order to show cause why Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned as a result of the massive fraud which took place in litigation pursued by them against Dole Food Company.
While both cases were pending, and for a period of 4-5 years , neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Los Angeles Superior Court (or for that matter, the class of plaintiffs which Girardi allegedly represents) were ever informed of the concurrent representation. See http://tinyurl.com/fogelvfarmersobjection
Subsequently, on July 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision heavily sanctioning both Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi (and their respective firms) almost $500,000. The Ninth Circuit reprimanded Mr. Girardi and suspended Mr. Lack for practicing before the court for a period of 6 months. The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included "the persistent use of known falsehoods," and that the "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly" during years of litigation.
UPDATES
Future Hearings
Change in Hearing Date: The Fairness Hearing originally scheduled for September 7, 2011 has been taken off the calendar and will be rescheduled for a later date.
09/07/2011 at 09:00 am in department 307 at 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005
APPROVAL - SETTLEMENT (1) HEARING RE FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT2) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES3) MTN-INTERVENE4) PRO HAC VICE)
August 17, 2011 (GMT -22:45) The Leslie Brodie Report in the process of depublishing 6 articles "Americans — From Sea to Shining Sea — Express Outrage over Settlement in Class-Action of Fogel v Farmers Group" out of respect to the privacy rights of Farmers Group's policy holders. Articles were posted at around August 17, 2011 22:05 GMT and are in the process of being depublished.
Articles contained information and data obtained from a declaration Girardi & Keese's Graham LippSmith submitted to the court as well as posted online. LippSmith's declaration contains names, addressees, phone numbers, email addresses, policy numbers, type of policies, and premiums paid by hundreds of Farmers Group, Inc. policy holders.
@ 23/08/2011 – 20.18:40
Theodore H. Frank (born December 14, 1968) is an American lawyer and legal writer and blogger, based in Washington, D.C.
He is the founder and president of the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), established in 2009, and particularly active in protecting consumers from their own class action lawyers.
The Wall Street Journal has referred to him as "a leading tort-reform advocate."
He graduated from the Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, then earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Brandeis University in May 1991. He wrote columns for his campus newspaper and political magazines and was a member of the student senate.
In 1994 Frank earned his Juris Doctor with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School. At Chicago he earned Order of the Coif and served on the law review.
Frank has been outspoken on and has written on issues such as product liability, tobacco litigation, asbestos litigation, medical malpractice, pharmaceuticals, and Hurricane Katrina, among other topics.
He has been involved in and outspoken on cases such as the "The Vioxx Settlement", the "Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta case", the "Honda Civic Hybrids case", and the "Grand Theft Auto consumer fraud case", amongst others. He has written for several publications, including the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, as well as law reviews, and has also served as a pundit for news networks, including National Public Radio, the BBC, and Fox News.
According to the book Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, Frank wrote the vetting report for vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for the John McCain campaign in the 2008 presidential election.
@ 21/08/2011 – 21.18:00
Jamie Harley, a prosecutor turned criminal defense lawyer turned defendant convicted of five counts of money laundering in a San Jose Federal Court, has won a motion for a new trial.
Citing error in the instruction given to the jury, U.S. District Court Judge James Ware stated Harley is entitled to a new trial.
Ms Jamie Harley (AKA Jamie Harmon), 53, of Morgan Hill, Calif., a criminal defense lawyer based in San Jose who had previously worked as an assistant district attorney with the County of Santa Clara for fourteen years.
In July of 2010, a San Jose federal jury found that Harmon laundered monies back to a former client on five separate occasions. Evidence presented at trial showed that Harmon accepted two checks made payable a used computer equipment previously owned and operated by her former client, Christian Pantages.
Pantages testified that he told Harmon from the first time he is in the illegal business of buying and selling stolen equipment, and therefore the two checks Harmon accepted were proceeds from the sale of stolen computer hardware.
Harmon testified that she indeed agreed to take the checks and deposit them into her attorney client-trust account and later wrote and directed others in her law office to issue several checks of varying denominations back to her client Pantages and his wife. The jury convicted Harmon of money laundering monetary instruments, knowing that the checks constituted the proceeds of the sale of stolen property, in an effort to conceal or disguise the nature of those funds.
Separately, beginning in 2005, the State Bar of California charged Harley with 20 counts of professional misconduct in 10 client matters occurring from 2002 to 2006. It sought disbarment, alleging that her misconduct involved disrespect and dishonesty to the court and inattention to clients, including mishandling of their funds and files.
Shockingly, an all-female panel of judges (JoAnn Remke, Judith Epstein,Catherine Purcell) reasoned that Harley's misconduct was mainly the result of "mismanagement", ordered Harley suspended for 6 months.
*TLR urges the readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by Sean SeLegue. The Court of Appeal decision is predicated on how circumstances "appear" rather than real and actual bias on the part of Howard Rice's Sean SeLegue.
A unanimous California Supreme Court declined to review a California First District Court of Appeal ruling that threw out an attorney fee arbitration award, according to an article appearing in today's Metropolitan News Enterprise. See http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/conf081811.htm
At issue was whether Sean SeLegue of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin -- acting as an arbitrator - should have disclosed that he practices in the field of attorney-client fee disputes.
As was previously reported by The Leslie Brodie Report, ( http://tinyurl.com/doubtsoverseanselegue ), the California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled that the failure of SeLegue to disclose at the time of an arbitration (in which he served as arbitrator) that he generally defended attorneys and law firms in cases involving professional responsibility, and that he was actively representing a firm in a case before the California Supreme Court in a dispute over legal fees, created sufficient doubt as to SeLegue's impartiality in his role as an arbitrator.
In a decision issued on October 12, 2010 in Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 126, Presiding Justice Anthony Kline expressed concern that the lack of full disclosure on the part of SeLegue, coupled with his business relationships with large law firms, might create unease regarding the possibility that SeLegue's impartiality may be compromised by economic considerations in wishing to maintain a stream of "steady customers" – a reference to the law firms SeLegue normally represents in fee disputes.
Mr Sean SeLegue, director of Howard Rice’s litigation department and the firm's Attorney Liability and Appellate Practice Groups. According to SeLegue's profile, "Attorneys who face charges of misconduct – whether in a civil case for malpractice or malicious prosecution, in a disciplinary investigation by the State Bar or in a motion to disqualify – often turn to Mr. SeLegue and his colleagues in the Attorney Liability Group." Recently, SeLegue as well as Jerome Falk, Shaudy Danaye-Elmi, and Noah Rosenthal represented Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss in their bid to rescind a prior settlement agreement the Winklevosses had entered into with Facebook. (Photo: Courtesy of Facebook)
Specifically, after a fee dispute erupted between Benjamin, Weill & Mazer and Dr. Kors, a firm client, the matter was referred to the Bar Association of San Francisco for mandatory arbitration. The arbitration panel, which included Sean SeLegue, issued a ruling in favor of the firm and against Dr. Kors.
A Superior Court judge adopted the ruling and issued a judgment against Kors, who promptly appealed.
In a written opinion, Kline found that SeLegue failure to inform the parties that he regularly represents law firms in fee disputes against clients and SeLegue’s involvement in such a case created "a doubt that the arbitrator would be able to be impartial.”
Specifically, the Court wrote:
"Kors is not seeking disclosure of all matters that might make her prefer a different arbitrator or asking us to depart from the standard of an objective person. Her contention is simply that an objective person could reasonably question the impartiality of an arbitrator in a dispute over legal fees who, at the time of the arbitration, was engaged generally in the defense of attorneys and law firms in cases involving professional responsibility and was actively representing a law firm in a case before the California Supreme Court involving a dispute over legal fees."
…
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that upon his appointment SeLegue had a duty to timely disclose to the parties the nature of his legal practice, including the fact that he was then representing a law firm engaged in a fee dispute with a former client.”
According to SeLegue, "The reason people agree to binding arbitration in the first place is it's cheaper, quicker, and more private. It's only fair to enforce it," he stated to the Civil Justice Blog.
The appellate court decision made no mention of the fact that Sean SeLegue and Noah Rosenthal of Howard Rice, as well as Diane Karpman and JoAnne Earls Robbins of Karpman & Associates, are all members of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel.
According to the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel's website, SeLegue practice area include: State Bar Defense, Ethics Advice, Expert Testimony, Civil Litigation Defense, Disqualification Motions, Appeals. JoAnne Earls Robbins's practice area include: State Bar Discipline and Ethics Consultations. Click here to view a copy of the decision:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A125732.PDF
For earlier stories involving Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin, please visit:
http://tinyurl.com/doubtsoverjeromefalk
http://tinyurl.com/doubtsoverdougwinthrop
@ 17/08/2011 – 06.30:00
As a service to the community, The Leslie Brodie Report publishes below an objection recently submitted to the court in the matter of BENJAMIN FOGEL vs. FARMERS GROUP, INC. CASE NO BC300142
Dear Judge Highberger:
This will serve to inform this Court about ethical violations and fraud on this Court stemming from collusion between the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps, to equitably object in the interest of justice to the proposed settlement in this matter, to seek a decree from this Court that all sums allocated as attorneys' fees be shifted to the general fund allocated to compensate the class, and to seek any other relief this Court deems proper (collectively "Objection").
The Objection is based on the fact that while the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers Group was pending before this Court, the law offices of Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese entered into a wholly separate agreement by which Skadden Arps agreed to represent Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi (Case No.08-80090), which was pending before the Ninth Circuit. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor this Court (or for that matter, the class of plaintiffs which Girardi allegedly represents) were ever informed of the concurrent representation. In fact, as will be shown, Skadden Arps, and its clients Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi, both actively and by omission took action to conceal the matter.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In August 2003, plaintiff-Fogel filed a class action lawsuit against Farmers Group, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number BC300142. Walter Lack (of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack) and Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith (of Girardi & Keese) represent plaintiff-Fogel and the class. Skadden Arps and partner Raoul Kennedy represent the defendants, collectively referred to as Farmers Group, Inc.
Separately, on August 25, 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued an order to show cause why Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise sanctioned as a result of the massive fraud which took place in litigation pursued by them against Dole Food Company. This gave rise to the new matter involving the potential disbarment and sanction of counsel, referred to as In re Girardi, Ninth Circuit case number 08-80090.
Very shortly thereafter, and despite their respective roles as counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps entered into a wholly separate agreement by which Skadden Arps and partner Thomas Nolan would represent Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi.
Subsequently, on July 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision heavily sanctioning both Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi (and their respective firms) almost $500,000. The Ninth Circuit reprimanded Mr. Girardi and suspended Mr. Lack for practicing before the court for a period of 6 months. The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included "the persistent use of known falsehoods," and that the "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly" during years of litigation.
On July 14, 2010, the day after the Ninth Circuit issued the published decision, Skadden Arps and Thomas Nolan (on their behalf as well as on behalf of its clients, Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi) moved to redact their names from the decision. The court rejected the request, noting that redaction was not merited.
Skadden Arps and its clients were in a rush to remove their names from the Ninth Circuit's published decision in hopes of further hiding from the public and members of the Fogel v. Farmers class the existence of its relationship with Girardi & Keese.
As discussed above, Thomas Girardi hired Skadden Arps to represent him in the matter of In Re Girardi after Girardi undertook representation of the plaintiffs in Fogel v. Farmers. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Girardi had a choice, and could have selected a different lawyer and a different law firm to represent him other than Skadden Arps and Thomas Nolan. He did not do so. Instead, by his actions, Girardi chose to breach the duties of loyalty, zealousness, and candor he owed to his clients, as well as the duty of candor he owes this Court.
Alternatively, assuming a claim be made that Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi were entitled to select counsel of their choosing in the matter of In Re Girardi, they were still under a duty to inform this Court as well as the class of plaintiff of the concurrent representation. They did not. Instead, by omission, they defrauded both this Court and the plaintiff-class. The omission was intentional because counsel did not want to run the risk of disqualification.
By the same token, Skadden Arps (like defendant Farmers) had a duty to inform this Court of the concurrent representation. Skadden Arps, wishing to collect fees from its clients Thomas Girardi and Girardi & Keese, as well as fees from its client Farmers Group, Inc., chose to remain silent. One can safely also entertain the thought that Skadden Arps (and, by extension, Farmers) took advantage of the matter to coerce Girardi & Keese to acquiesce to a less than desirable settlement in the Fogel matter than otherwise would have been reached.
The ethical responsibilities of both Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese were governed by Rule 3-310 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. By any measure, both firms failed to live up to these responsibilities. Rule 3-310(C)(1) requires an attorney to obtain informed written consent before accepting representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict. No showing can be made that Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps ever obtained the WRITTEN consent of their respective clients. By denying their clients the opportunity to consent/object, both firms violated their ethical obligations.
While the Skadden firm may argue that Skadden partner Thomas Nolan had absolutely no involvement in the Fogel matter, this Court should reject such a proposition.
As this Court is aware, defending Farmers Group, Inc. is Skadden Arps's Raoul Kennedy, who is subordinate Thomas Nolan, co-chair of Skadden's West Coast Litigation practice. In addition, Nolan and Kennedy are close friends and throughout this entire period also, jointly, defended MGA in its litigation against Mattel. Note that in the Mattel vs. MGA case, both Kennedy and Nolan were counsel of record. Incidentally, it was Thomas Girardi who referred MGA and Issac Larian to Skadden Arps after a dispute erupted between MGA and its former counsel (O'Melveny), leading Issac Larian to knock on Girardi's door.
As such, any argument that Kennedy and Nolan maintained an ethical wall should and would fail. In any event, California law does not fully recognize the concept of ethical walls. In fact, California law presumes imputed knowledge to all members of a firm. Any determination of the existence of an ethical wall requires an individual determination on case-by-case basis. Here, this Court was never informed of the simultaneous and adverse representations, and was not allow to properly exercise its judgment.
Simply stated, these lawyers clearly placed their desire for fees above their loyalty to their clients, and deceived the Court in the process.
At this late stage of the game, and after years of litigation by which this Court and the class of plaintiffs were deceived by their less-than-forthcoming counsel, this Court should be extremely skeptical of any claim that Raoul Kennedy and Thomas Nolan maintained an ethical wall. Any wall constructed was a privacy wall for the purpose of hiding the truth from this Court and the class of plaintiffs. Note that two of the lawyers involved were already found by the Ninth Circuit to make use of "the persistent use of known falsehoods," and that the "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly" during years of litigation.
Both Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese (and their respective lawyers) engaged in the above-described misconduct for financial gain. Specifically, Skadden Arps wished to receive the fees from Girardi in the matter of In Re Girardi. Conversely, Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi were hoping to obtain a quick cash settlement from Farmers Group, Inc., to the detriment of their clients. In addition, Skadden sought to obtain benefits for its long-time client, Farmers Insurance Group, at the expense of the class of plaintiffs, while causing injury to these plaintiffs, the Court, and the fair administration of justice
ATTORNEY'S FEES
Both federal and California courts have held that, when the ethical violation in question is a conflict of interest between the attorney and the client, the appropriate fee for the attorney in question is zero. Despite the admittedly harsh consequences, courts routinely and liberaly employ this remedy. See generally Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135. As such, and due to the serious nature of the violations described above, it is respctfully requested that no attorney fees be awarded to counsel in this case. Instead, any amount which was origianly designated for that purpuse should be shifted to the pool of money designed to companastate the class.
INTEREST OF UNDERSIGNED
This Court should be aware that the undersigned is not a member of the plaintff-class in this matter, and never owned any policy issued by Farmers or any of its subsidieries.
In January of 2011, undersigned filed an ethics complaint against Howard Rice's Jerome Falk, who acted as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, for his decision to "exonarate" Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack for the grave misconduct the two committed before front of the Ninth Circuit. The basis of the complaint was that Jerome Falk should have declared a conflict due to his ongoing relationship with Skadden Arps's Thomas Nolan. Not surprsingly, Jerome Falk was also part of the legal team that represented MGA in the litigation between MGA and Mattel.
While researching this matter, the undersigned learned that Skadden had moved the Ninth Circuit to remove its name from the decison in the matter of In Re Girardi.
In March 2011, the undersigned advanced a wholly separate ethics complaint concering the conflicts of interest in the case of Fogel vs. Farmers Group, Inc. based on the facts described above. Named in the complaint were Thomas Girardi, Graham LippSmith, Rauol Kennedy, and Thomas Nolan. Because Mr. Girardi has numerous contacts and close acquaintances within the State Bar (i.e. Executive Director Joe Dunn, who Girardi assisted in launching an online newspaper, for example), and because of other factors and externalities, there appears to be a very small likelihood that the State Bar will take any action in response to this complaint.
As such, it is up to this Court to ensure that 12.5 million consumers recieve fair and honest dispensation of justice. The undersigned also asks the Court to recognize that, without the actions taken by the undersigned, the Court would have remained ignorant of the above-described facts. As such, it will also be up to this Court to determine the manner in which to treat this objection (which was styled as an "equitable objection" given potential issues with standing) and the related informal request to intervene in the interest of justice.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if the Court needs any further information or clarification of the above-described facts.
Related articles:
@ 14/08/2011 – 18.44:23
A long-standing involvement with an entity which cater exclusively to Asian-American has led to a complaint being filed against California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.
The ethics complaint -- filed with the California Commission on Judicial Performance -- alleges that Chin's involvement with the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment (CAUSE) is prohibitive due to CAUSE's invidious discrimination against those who are non Asian-American.
As such, the complaint alleges, Associate Justice Chin must be disciplined as "Canon 2 (C) of the Judicial Ethics Canon specifically prohibits judges from holding positions in any organization that practice invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and the like."
The complaint further alleges that the associate justice must be disciplined due to CAUSE involvement in the political-process, conduct that Chin is otherwise prohibited in engaging in pursuant to Canon 5, as well as the fact that Chin intentionally hid his involvement with CAUSE.
Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. Ming, not a stranger to The Leslie Brodie report, partook in the "60 Days Suspension Scandal," wherein a lawyer with a prior criminal history engaged in a pogrom in a San Francisco synagogue, yet was only suspended for 60 days due to his political connections within the Democratic party, and courtesy of Judy Johnson, former crack-addict Mike Nisperos, and JoAnn Remke. (Photo:courtesy)
The complaint alleges Justice Chin's clandestine nature and undisclosed involvement is particularly troubling based on facts as they relate to Mr. James Hsu -- CAUSE's treasurer as well as a board member of a (now defunct) sham charitable entity known as CaliforniaALL -- as matters relating to CaliforniaALL would soon be considered by the California Supreme Court.
According to the complaint, several months ago records were sought pertaining to sham charity CaliforniaALL from the California Bar Foundation as well as from the State Bar of California to no avail. As such, and based on the blatant refusal to produce these records, a petition for relief will shortly be filed with the California Supreme Court seeking an order to compel the State Bar and its Foundation to make these public records available.
The complaint further alleges that without the "fortuitous discovery " by the Petitioner, he would not have known that Justice Chin and Hsu are involved with CAUSE as to seek the recusal of Justice Chin in matters relating to CaliforniaALL.
Mr. James Hsu, CAUSE's treasurer as well as a board member of a (now defunct) sham charitable entity known as CaliforniaALL.
Similarly, the complaint alludes to a State Bar of California petition in the matter of Sander vs. State Bar of California which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. In that case, the State Bar seeks review of a decision that established a common law right of access to data concerning minorities which the State Bar possesses. Hence, the complaint alleges, there is an impression that Justice Chin may exercise his power in such a way which would benefit minorities, much like his involvement with CAUSE conclusively establishes that he stands united with APIA and otherwise wishes self-improvement for APIA more so than he does for the population as a whole.
As a public service to the community, we shall publish the complaint, below:
In lieu of using a form complaint, this communication serves as an official judicial misconduct complaint against California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.
Secretly, and without making his involvement public, Justice Chin has been and is involved with a questionable outfit in the role of "advisory counsel." The organization at issue is known as the "CENTER FOR ASIAN-AMERICANS UNITED FOR SELF IMPROVEMENT" ( in short "CAUSE"), an entity designed to empower exclusively Asian-Americans in the political arena and otherwise. (See attachment 1.)
CAUSE defines itself as "A Community Based Organization with a Mission to Advance the Political Empowerment of the Asian Pacific Islander American Community ('APIA') Through Voter Registration and Education, Community Outreach and Leadership Development."
In practicality, however, CAUSE also serves as a lobbying group for APIA causes and, in fact, recently petitioned the California Citizens Redistricting Commission seeking modifications to various gerrymandering boundaries for Congressional, Senate, and Assembly Districts. In addition, CAUSE perpetuates job discrimination through its internship program, by which only APIA members are selected for internships in local, state, and federal government.
However, Associate Justice Chin's official biography, as posted on the California Supreme Court's website, makes no mention of the fact that he is a member of CAUSE's Advisory Council. Likewise, nowhere else on the California Supreme Court website is there any reference to the fact that Justice Chin has been advising CAUSE, nor it is possible for the public to ascertain the amount and type of legal (or otherwise) advise Justice Chin has been purveying for CAUSE, and for how long.
As will be shown below, as well as in future complaints, there is more than meets the eye here; however, to start with and only based on the above, the undersigned hereby alleges that Justice Chin violated multiple canons of judicial ethics and otherwise engaged in grave misconduct, to wit:
1. Canon 2 (C) of the Judicial Ethics Canon specifically prohibits judges from holding positions in any organization that practice invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and the like. Justice Ming clearly violated this canon and, as such, must be disciplined.
As a Justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice Ming should strive to empower all Californians and Americans, and not just those who fit into a certain racial group (i.e., his own). By doing so through his involvement with CAUSE -- an entity which caters exclusively to APIA -- Justice Chin has eroded the public's trust in the judiciary. If Justice Chin possesses an overwhelming desire to benefit his own racial group, he should relinquish his position as a California Supreme Court Justice, and join one of undoubtedly many organizations that would surely find his services useful. By aligning himself with a group of Asian-Americans who are "United" for "self improvement," doubts exists as to the impartiality and loyalty of Justice Chin, as well as the appearance of impartiality and whether he is capable of fair and unbiased trial conduct and decisions.
There is absolutely no justifiable reason for CAUSE to not extend its services and programs to non-APIA members, other than its own capricious desire to exclude other races from receiving its benefits. Hence, CAUSE's practices are invidious.
While the undersigned concedes that the APIA community was subjected to animosity in the past (from all levels of government as well as discrimination by private groups and individuals), the present situation does not justify such corrective action. Generally speaking, APIA members are, on average, members of a higher income bracket than the average American, and are otherwise over-represented in professional schools and professions, which is, of course, a positive. However, for Justice Chin to lend the prestige of his office to a group whole sole existence is predicated on its racial discrimination is misconduct on his part. Hence, Justice Chin's involvement with CAUSE and his knowing approval of invidious discrimination on the basis of race gives the appearance of impropriety, and undermines and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. This is particularly true if the matters before Justice Chin involve an APIA party or a matter which would affect APIA.
For example, a State Bar of California petition in the matter of Sander vs. State Bar of California is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. In that case, the State Bar seeks review of a decision that established a common law right of access to data concerning minorities which the State Bar possesses. Hence, there is an impression that Justice Chin may exercise his power in such a way which would benefit minorities, much like his involvement with CAUSE conclusively establishes that he stands united with APIA and otherwise wishes self-improvement for APIA more so than he does for the population as a whole.
In contrast, if Justice Chin was instead involved with an entity dedicated solely to the preservation of ethnic or cultural values of Chinese-Americans (i.e. a historical society, library, or museum, for example), such involvement would not be at all problematic even though it would also be dedicated exclusively to APIA matters because prohibited discrimination would not be involved, and as such, no invidious discrimination would exist under such facts.
2. One of CAUSE's purposes is to encourage Asian-Americans to register for voting. This creates the impression that Justice Chin is involved in the political process, conduct that he is otherwise prohibited in engaging in pursuant to Canon 5. The involvement of Justice Chin -- an elected official -- with an entity whose purpose is to register APIA members to vote creates the impression that Justice Chin chose to be involved with CAUSE hoping those individuals who were registered to vote cast a vote in the last election in favor of him, especially if they, like him, possess the same overwhelming desire to benefit member of their own race.
In addition, and as stated above, at times CAUSE engages in lobbying and political activities, as was the case when it sent a letter to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission . As such, CAUSE's political activities serve as further evidence that Justice Chin has violated Canon 5 and should be disciplined.
Moreover, Justice Chin should be disciplined for creating the impression that he practices law which, as a sitting judge, he is prohibited from doing. As stated above, Justice Chin is a member of CAUSE's advisory council, and it is reasonable to believe that he provided legal advice to CAUSE in that capacity, even without any direct evidence of such activities.
3. An additional act of misconduct arises from the clandestine nature and undisclosed involvement of Justice Chin with CAUSE, given that such activities are prejudicial to the administration of justice because the lack of disclosure places litigants and parties at a disadvantage. Knowing that his actions are questionable, Justice Chin intentionally,willfully, and recklessly ensured that his involvement with CAUSE does not appear on his profile listed with the California Supreme Court, a clear act of moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption designed to mislead and defraud Californians in general, and parties and litigants who appear before the California Supreme Court. By doing so, Justice Chin violated Canon 1, and otherwise eroded the public's trust in the judiciary; such conduct also begs the question, which organizations is Justice Chin involved with that he has failed to disclose? Justice Chin should be disciplined for not making his involvement with CAUSE known to the public because such information should not be left for interested parties to unearth through their own efforts.
Just in the past few years, there were countless cases before the California Supreme Court in which parties and their attorneys would have benefited from the disclosure, and potentially would have moved to disqualify Justice Chin had they been made aware of his involvement with CAUSE. Also, cases involving some of the entities which make financial contributions to CAUSE (common carriers and utility companies, for example) would have benefited from such a disclosure as, without a doubt, the common carriers and utility companies which donated to CAUSE expect something in return.
4. In addition to the above-described troubling circumstances surrounding Justice Chin's involvement and lack of disclosure with respect to CAUSE, the following problematic factors should also be considered: 1) the enmeshment of APIA entities with the CPUC and utility companies, from which millions of dollars were extracted to benefit APIA causes; and, 2) Justice Chin's relationship with James Hsu, who is CAUSE's treasurer as well as a board member of a (now defunct) sham charitable entity known as CaliforniaALL.
Note that matters relating to the CPUC, utility companies and the enmeshment with APIA entities will be the subject of a separate complaint against Justice Chin and others in connection with an entity known as the "California Consumer Protection Foundation" ("CCPF"), which has been secretly controlled for the last 7-8 years by State Bar Executive Director Emeritus Judy Johnson. CCPF obtained, with the help of Judy Johnson and the State Bar of California, close to $30 million from class action cy pres awards and settlement and fines imposed by the CPUC on utility companies. CCPF forwarded close to $25 million of those funds to minority communities such as "Philipinos for Affirmative Action," "Little Tokyo Service Center," the "Asian Law Caucus" and other questionable ACORN-like entities.
Justice Chin knew of the scheme quietly perpetrated by his confederates Judy Johnson, Stewart Kwoh, Beth Jay, Holly Fujie, Geoffrey Brown, and the State Bar of California (which, not surprisingly, became an extension of the CPUC and individuals with related backgrounds, such as Gwen Moore (present member of State Bar Board of Governors ), Peter Arth (former member of the Access Council of Access and Fairness), Geoffrey Brown (former board member of the Foundation of the State Bar of California), and Joe Dunn (presently executive director of the State Bar with connections to the CPUC via his law partner, Marta Escutia).
As relates to CaliforniaALL, a few years ago Ruthe Catolico Ashley was employed at CalPERS as a diversity officer and also served as a member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California. Ashley -- with the direct and indirect help of Buchalter Nemer's Holly Fujie, Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller, and others -- bamboozled the State Bar, CalPERS, the CPUC, and the Department of Insurance into endorsing the proposition known as CaliforniaALL. To further the plan, and along with her friend Ms. Sarah Redfield, Ashley convinced the State Bar of California, CPUC, Department of Insurance, and her employer (CalPERS) to enter into a partnership, the purpose of which would be to create a Section 501(c)(3) charity that Ashley would later lead as CEO and president, and that would absorb contributions from utility companies as well as serve as a vehicle to misappropriate $780,000 from the State Bar of California Foundation (dba California Bar Foundation), an entity which is under the complete control of the State Bar of California Board of Governors.
In addition to the unlawful transfer of $780,000, the State Bar of California Board of Governors, through the productive efforts of Holly Fujie, nominated James Hsu to CaliforniaALL's board of directors, a role in which he served from the day the entity was created to the day it was dissolved.
Even though the transfer of the close to $780,000 from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL was the largest ever in the Foundation's history, it was never publicly acknowledged by CaliforniaALL in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, California Bar Foundation never acknowledged the largest grant it ever bestowed in its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.
CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (i.e. Verizon Wireless, Sempra, etc, including the aforementioned sub rosa transfer of $780,000 from the California Bar Foundation, and was dissolved in or about 2010. Based on present calculations, CaliforniaALL only forwarded $300,000 of the donations it received to the UCI Foundation (where Joe Dunn serves as trustee and chair of the audit committee and a trustee), and paid various expenses (i.e., a salary to Ruthe Ashley and other incidental expenses). At least based on the undersigned calculations, and estimated $700,000 - $800,000 remains unaccounted for.
In addition, tax returns and statements made to the IRS show that CaliforniaALL claimed that in 2008 it paid rent in the amount of close to $16,000; in actuality, CaliforniaALL was housed rent-free at the Sacramento office of DLA Piper for an extended period of time.
Circumstantial evidence concerning CaliforniaALL, as well as the involvement of the same people and entities, has caused the undersigned to entertain the suspicion that some of the money misappropriated from the California Bar Foundation ended up financing the launch of an online news magazine established by Joe Dunn known as Voice of OC. [Specifically, for the CalBar Foundation/CaliforniaALL Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller and Morrison & Foerster's Susan Mac Cormac (who legally created CaliforniaALL) were involved; on the side of Voice of OC were Girardi & Keese's Thomas Girardi, Morrison & Foerster's James Brosnahan, and the present Executive Director of the State Bar who launched the Voice of OC in September 2009 -- Joe Dunn.
Several months ago, the undersigned sought records pertaining to CaliforniaALL from the California Bar Foundation as well as from the State Bar of California to no avail. As such, and based on the blatant refusal to produce these records, a petition for relief will shortly be filed with the California Supreme Court seeking an order to compel the State Bar and its Foundation to make these public records available.
James Hsu was a CaliforniaALL board member, as well as a past and present treasurer of CAUSE. These facts give credence to the argument that it was important for Justice Chin to have made his involvement with CAUSE public; simply stated, without the fortuitous discovery of this information, Petitioner would not have known that Justice Chin and Hsu are involved with CAUSE. Hence, discipline must be imposed on Justice Chin for failing to disclose his involvement with CAUSE in general and, more specifically, for his attempt to subvert justice as part of a grander scheme to support the transfer of millions of dollars from utility companies to APIA related causes.
If Justice Chin were serving as a Superior Court judge, the undersigned would have asked to have him admonished or reprimanded. However, as a justice of the California Supreme Court, Justice Chin is held to a higher standard, and even a reprimand will render him morally unqualified to serve in that role. As such, if the Office of Judicial Performance imposes any discipline on Justice Chin -- no matter how slight -- it logically follows that Justice Chin should be removed from his position as Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court because it would be inappropriate for him to continue to serve in that capacity.
Thank you for you time and attention to this matter.
@ 13/08/2011 – 12.35:47
Monika Konczyk, a 33 year old Londoner who moved to Britain from Poland only 5 months ago, is the woman who leapt from a burning building during the London riots.
While she was in her flat above a row of shops, she was warned by her sister of rioting in the area. When rioters set fire to the building below, she became paralysed by fear.
Konczyk described her ordeal "The flat was getting hotter and hotter and when I tried to escape out of the front door the heat was just too much, I was panicking. All I could do was put my head out the window and people saw me down the street below."
Finally, after police on the street convinced her to jump, she leapt into what has become a defining image of the riots
Ms Monica Konczyk stated to the Sun: “I came to England because I thought it was a great country full of kind and gentle people. I thought London was a civilised society full of gentlemen and ladies. But it is not like that. England has become a sick society. I found myself jumping for my life after being attacked by thugs and thieves. They set fire to my building without any thought for anyone's safety. They were like animals — greedy, selfish animals who thought only of themselves."
"Despite what has happened, I still believe I can build a better life here."
@ 12/08/2011 – 15.30:01
Wanted by Law Enforcement
@ 10/08/2011 – 16.08:59
Wanted by Law Enforcement
From: http://www.met.police.uk/disordersuspects/ Operation Withern's priority is to bring to justice those who have committed violent and criminal acts. If anyone recognises individuals in the photographs or has any information about the violence and disorder that has occurred they should contact the Major Investigation Team on 020 8345 4142. Alternatively anyone can report crime and provide information anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111
@ 09/08/2011 – 23.00:00
From: http://www.met.police.uk/disordersuspects/
Operation Withern's priority is to bring to justice those who have committed violent and criminal acts. If anyone recognises individuals in the photographs or has any information about the violence and disorder that has occurred they should contact the Major Investigation Team on 020 8345 4142. Alternatively anyone can report crime and provide information anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
@ 06/08/2011 – 14.03:56
@ 01/08/2011 – 10.51:11
* The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) urges the readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by anyone. We are carefully following a major developing story out of California, and will provide around-the-clock coverage and post updates as they become available.
CaliforniaALL, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity, was the brainchild of Ruthe Ashley (a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and Vice-President of the State Bar of California) and Peter Arth Jr., Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey.
In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra), including a sub-rosa contribution of $769,247.00 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation.)
CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June of 2010.
"THE VOICE OF OC" TEAM -- Girardi & Keese's Thomas Girardi , Morrison & Foerster's James Brosnahan, and Joe Dunn. In Septermber of 2009, Dunn (with the help of Girardi and Brosnahan) launched "The Voice of Orange County" -- an online publication. Additionaly, Dunn is a trustee with the UCI Foundation -- an entity which absorbed most of the grants CaliforniaALL had bestowed.
Sources with knowledge of the inquiry into CaliforniaALL, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain the ongoing multi-prong inquiry is continuing and expanding, and that a red flag has been raised over Joe Dunn, "The Voice of OC", Thomas Girardi, and James Brosnahan due to convenient circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL, UCI Foundation, Voice of OC, and Cal Bar Foundation.
Recently, Mr. Dunn was informed about the existence of convenient circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL and his publication -- "Voice of OC." We shall publish the letter, below:
Dear Senator Dunn:
This is to inform you that, in connection with my inquiry into the charitable entity known as CaliforniaALL, circumstantial evidence points to potential wrongdoing on your part as well as on the part of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and James Brosnahan of Morrsion & Foerster.
Please note that in referring to "you," I also refer to The Voice of Orange County ("Voice of OC"), the online newspaper you established in September 2009 with the assistance of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster.
As you may recall, CaliforniaALL was established after a meeting between Ruthe Ashley, Sarah Redfield, and CPUC's Peter Arth.
Ashley, a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and a member of the California Board of Governors, bamboozled the State Bar, CalPERS, the CPUC, and the Department of Insurance into endorsing the proposition. My suspicion -- thus far unconfirmed -- is that Howard Rice was involved in asking its client Steve Poizner to issue a letter supporting the measure.
Morrison & Foerster, specifically Susan Mac Cormac and Eric Tate, assisted with the legal aspects of creating the entity. (Presently, I am unsure of the extent of the involvement, if any, of Lori Schechter, wife of current State Bar President William Hebert. If there was any involvement, I please ask that such information be disclosed to me.)
Later, Sarah Redfield assumed the position of CaliforniaALL's Interim CEO; after a simulated search for a CEO, Ruthe Ashley was hired as the entity's president and CEO.
CAL BAR FOUNDATION TEAM -- Howard Rice's Doug Winthrop, Buchalter Nemer's Holly Fujie,Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller, and former CPUC Commisioner Goeffrey Brown. Arranged for the unlawful "hush-hush" transfer of $780,000 from Cal Bar Foundation to sham charity CaliforniaALL.
Once Ashley assumed the position, the Foundation of the State Bar of California (which is under the complete control of the BOG) made a quiet and unlawful transfer of approximately $780,000 from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL. At the time of the transfer, the individuals controlling the Foundation were Holly Fujie, Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller, Howard Rice's Douglas Winthrop, Geoffrey Brown, and a few others.
CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the approximate $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, California Bar Foundation never acknowledged the largest grant it ever bestowed in its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.
During its brief existence, CaliforniaALL obtained additional funding of close to $1.5 million from utility companies such as Verizon Wireless, Sempra, PG&E, and others.
As the purpose of CaliforniaALL was to transfer those funds forward, it did so by awarding approximately $300,000 in grants to the UCI Foundation, where you serve as trustee and chair of the Audit Committee. (Please note that this figure may change once I obtain CaliforniaALL's final tax return.)
Note that from my perspective, the award of this grant is suspect as it appears that CaliforniaALL pre-selected UCI Foundation, making the simulated request for proposal (RFP) by Sarah Redfield that led to the grant a sham process. (Note also that Sarah Redfield later falsely claimed she "launched" SAL-UCI, and falsely stated on her resume that she was part of the "Curriculum Committee"; in reality, you and I know that SAL-UCI was established by Santana Ruiz and Rob Vicario, several years earlier.)
In September 2009, Ruthe Ashley abruptly exited CaliforniaALL. In the same month and year, you publicly launched your online publication, "The Voice of OC." Public sources have stated that the Voice of OC was financed by various foundations, unions, and the like.
The fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting you with the creation of "Voice of OC" has caused me to entertain the thought that "Voice of OC" may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.
This belief is heightened given various events' proximity in time -- as noted above, Ruthe Ashley left CaliforniaALL in the same month you launched "Voice of OC" (as though her mission had been completed). Moreover, the recent abrupt departure of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan from 'Voice of OC" ( as though they were fleeing the scene with guilty consciences), the refusal of SAL-UCI to disclose the amount it receive from CaliforniaALL, the simulated RFP, and CaliforniaALL's pre-selection of the UCI Foundation as a recipient of funds only reinforce this belief. This is heightened by Mr. Thomas Girardi's lack of credibility (pursuant to findings made by a panel of federal judges), and the friendship you share with him (as you will recall, you participated in a special event held at the Beverly Hills Hotel to honor Mr. Girardi several years ago).
Consequently, and in addition to the above, I also must ask you to relinquish your position with the UCI Foundation. Since you assumed the position of executive director, any contributions made to the UCI foundation could be perceived as an attempt to gain favors with the State Bar of California.
Thank you for your time.
For an important update, please see @:
@ 01/08/2011 – 07.17:42
The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.
