The Leslie Brodie Report

You might also like a related story -- "One Degree of Separation from CaliforniaALL, Howard Dickstein, Jeannine English, and Pat Fong Kushida" @:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/sacramento-chamber-honors-sutters-pat-fry-mcg

A "brilliant trial attorney who could pull a rabbit out of the hat in court", a self-proclaimed born boat rocker who plays to win on behalf of those for whom he battles, continues to flex his legal skills by initiating legal proceeding against his own spouse, TLR has learned.

Pierce O'Donnell                         Dawn O'Donnell

Petitioner Pierce O'Donnell is asking Judge Thomas Anderle of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court for "legal separation" from Dawn O'Donnell.

Respondent O'Donnel, also an attorney, obliged by filing an answer on the same day the petition was filed.

Court records provide Respondent O'Donnell is requesting child support, spousal support, attorneys' fees and costs. Tacked on was also the obligatory motion for sanctions.

Both are expected to appear in court on February 3, 2012

Officers from the San Francisco Police Department arrested Sanaz Nikaein in connection with an alleged battery, TLR has learned.

Nikaein, 34, an Assistant District-Attorney in San Francisco, was placed on administrative leave following the arrest.

Ms Sanaz Nikaein (image:courtesy)

Police have also arrested a male, Faysal Nuri, 38, believed to be Nikaein's estranged husband.

In a sworn declaration, Nikaein alleged that "Faysal Nuri has made repeated threat to 'end my career' if I leave him by filing false DV Report; that way we both have nothing."

According to media reports, Nikaein's attorney (Tony Brass) stated that each had made a citizen's arrest against the other, adding that his client was reluctant to call the police because "public scandal isn't what she needed."

Both are expected to appear in court on Thursday.

 

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter

DEVELOPING....

Ms Jill Sperber of the  State Bar of California

In reply to a complaint concerning, among others, unsettling financial transaction involving the California Bar Foundation and CaliforniaALL, Sperber wrote:

"No Bar or Foundation funds were used for CAAL creation (AKA CaliforniaALL - by TLR). The State Bar had no involvment with CAAL once it was incoparated and operating."

"The State Bar Foundation served as CAAL's escrow holder only to hold fundraising funds before its formal incoparation. Once CAAL was formed as non-profit entity, the funds were paid over to it."

"Several of the informational items that you list are not factually accurate: to wit, that 1 - CaliforniaALL and the State Bar are bussiness partners. 2- a sub-rosa transfer of funds from the State Bar to CaliforniaALL took place."

Below, an image which reflects part of the communication, for a complete copy, please see HERE.

 

Contrary to Ms. Sperber's position, California Bar Foundation (which is owned and controlled by the State Bar of California) acknowledged in its annual report a transfer of $769,247 to CaliforniaALL, see below:

Similarly , below is  an image which reflects State Bar of California Foundation (DBA  California Bar Foundation)  IRS Tax-Return showing a transfer of  $774,247 to CaliforniaALL.

 

 

Likewise, and notwithstanding Sperber's fraudulant assertion that  "The State Bar had no involvement with CAAL once it was incorporated and operating."  State Bar of California own records provide the State Bar was responsible for designating, appointing, as well as re-appointing some of CaliforniaALL's board of directors. See below  an image which relfects a meeting  agenda  of State Bar of California Board of Governors.

 

 

 

Moreover, Sperber's claim that  "The State Bar had no involvement with CAAL once it was incorporated and operating"  is clearly false as State Bar of California own executive-director (Ms Judy Johnson) served on CaliforniaALL's Advisory Council alongside Judge Morrison England. See below:

 

Jill Sperber of the State Bar of California further wrote:

"Several of the informational items that you list are not factually accurate: to wit, that 1 - CaliforniaALL and the State Bar are bussiness partners. 2- a sub-rosa transfer of funds from the State Bar to CaliforniaALL took place."

As we previously mentioned on TLR, other than in Foundation tax records and a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its 2008 annual report, the State Bar contribution was never mentioned again ? not by the State Bar itself, not in the Cal Bar Journal, not in the Foundation's "newsroom," and not by anyone or any publication of CaliforniaALL. See below, California Bar Foundation's Newsroom, which made no mention of the "hush-hush" sub-rosa transfer to CaliforniaALL

 

In 2008, serving as President of the Foundation was Mario Camara. A joint letter published and signed by Camara and Hatamiya also made no mention of the hush-hush transfer. Wasn't Mr. Camara proud of it, just like he was proud of other money which went to support "pipelines?" After all, CaliforniaALL was also intended to support "pipelines". See below:

 

Below an image taken from CaliforniaALL own newsletter which alludes to the fact that the State Bar of California is a "Founding Partner" of CaliforniaALL.  As such, the denial by Jill Sperber that CaliforniaALL and the State Bar of California were not  partner of each other is false.

Stingy with credit and despite the transfer of close to $780,000 from the California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL, only utility companies are listed as "Founding Funders."  See below:

 

 

 

For a complete set of the above described sources, please see @:

http://tinyurl.com/79qba29

 

Motives behind above fraudulant claims by Jill Sperber, please see @

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/23/voice-of-oc-orange-county-s-nonprofit-investigative-news-agency-subject-of-formal-complaint-referral-to-irs-for-alleged-noncompliance-with-tax-la-12207865/

AND @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/03/18/antics-by-state-bar-of-california-continues-refuses-to-process-complaint-against-its-own-executive-director-voice-of-oc-s-joe-dunn-12399488/

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

 

No Man Is Above The Law

John Keker of Keker & Van Nest

Armen Adzhemyan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

Adzhemyan wrote:

Adzhemyan also wrote:

California Driver License makes no mentions of race, see below:

Adzhemyan also wrote:

Patrick Bageant of Susman Godfrey

Bageant wrote on Adzhemya's blog:

 

TLR NOTE:

IN THE INTEREST OF SAFER ROADS, CIVILIZED SOCIETY, AS WELL AS SAVING TLR'S TIME AND RESOURCES, ARMEN ADZHEMYAN AND PATRICK BAGEANT MUST AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. While operating a vehicle, drive safely and fully comply with all applicable laws.
2 View video @ ( http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/11/tlr-urged-not-to-file-ethics-complaint-against-susan-shalit-prerna-lal-watch-video-instead-11466831/ )
3. Within 48 hours, permanently post said video on Nuts & Boalts, code below:

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_72yI6RMIk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"/><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_72yI6RMIk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"/></object>

As a service to the community, The Leslie Brodie Report shall publish a communication recently delivered to McGeorge School of Law Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, below:

"In that a former employee (Sarah Redfield) of McGeorge School of Law engaged, and continues to engage, in fraud and misrepresentation, and as civil litigation appears unavoidable, I ask that you arrange for McGeorge to contact me with the precise dates (day, month, and year) of Professor Redfield's employment with the school in order to allow me to ascertain potential legal liability, if at all, on the part of McGeorge.

Ms Ginger Bredemeier (right), from May 2007 to May 2008 was employed at CalPERS as Administrative Assistant, Diversity Outreach Program. From May 2008 to August 2009 she was a "Writing Projects Manager – Human Resources and Grant Projects" at CaliforniaALL. Ms. Bredemeier was elected President of the National Asian Pacific American Law Student Association (NAPALSA) while a law student at McGeorge, and is seen here with Ms Holly Fujie (image: courtesy photo)

As things currently stand, preliminary and ongoing research shows that while Redfield was employed at McGeorge, she conspired with others to create a charitable entity that would serve as a vehicle to misappropriate close to $800,000 from the Foundation of the State Bar of California, and otherwise engage in other unlawful and deceitful conduct.

While I am still presently struggling to unravel the entire scheme known as CaliforniaALL, liability on the part of Redfield (and, vicariously, on the part of McGeorge) is clear and supported by overwhelming evidence sufficient to potentially allege multiple causes of actions (such as negligent supervision, civil conspiracy, fraud, Civil-RICO, and violation of the UCL) against McGeorge and Redfield's current employer in a California court given that jurisdiction exists due to Redfield's membership in the State Bar of California, Council on Access and Fairness.

As you recall, you extended an invitation of employment to Redfield which lasted approximately 5 years. One of Redfield's job duties was to engage the community in different projects to promote diversity, such as Pacific Pathways and others. You also were an active participant in Redfield's other projects, such as the Wingspread series. As such, McGeorge will be hard-pressed to claim that any misconduct I allege against Redfield was outside the scope and course of her employment with McGeorge.

Other employees and/or former employees of McGeorge with connection to CaliforniaALL include Robert Hawley, Ruthe Ashley, Larissa Parecki, and Gilles Attia, as well as former students Sarah Attia and Ginger Breadmeier.

While researching matters relating to CaliforniaALL in connection with McGeorge, I unfortunately noticed a pattern of violations and utter and complete disregard for legislation and case law prohibiting discrimination on bases such as race, national origin, and the like, under the guise of "diversity."

As such, I ask that you and McGeorge ensure that no such violations occur any further, and that McGeorge calibrate itself to full and complete compliance with all laws, forthwith.

Note that should such compliance fail to occur within 30 days, I shall begin to explore remedies available under the law to enforce said compliance. Additionally, I ask that McGeorge -- even if it believes its operation are legal -- also ensure that they are fair and otherwise do not violate California's UCL.

From my perspective, the diversity initiative is a complete and total failure as it promote mediocrity, which later manifests itself in a lack of standards and injustices. President Clinton once commented that he perceives the AIDS epidemic as a matter of national security, and likewise I perceive the diversity initiative as such.

A case in point is your confederate Ruthe Ashley. At least from my limited observations, Ashley appears to be a very energetic and warm person. However, a great lawyer she is not; perhaps this is because she, at one point after graduating from law school, was given a free pass and didn't have to keep struggling and develop skills which would eventually have gelled to make her a better attorney. It became easier and more financially profitable to run around and scream diversity, a talent which Holly Fujie had also unfortunately acquired, despite the over-representation of APIA in all ABA-approved law-schools.

There is absolutely nothing in Ashley's legal background, even to date, to have ever justified her position as "Vice-President of the State Bar of California." To carry such a title, I would imagine someone whose legal career is awe inspiring, such as Pierce O'Donnell, Holly Fujie, John Keker, Jim Brosnahan, and last, but certainly not least, Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker.

Thank you for your time and your and McGeorge's anticipated cooperation in the above matters. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your assistant contact me."

Below, selected parts. For a complete copy of the order, please visit:

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/california-court-of-appeals-biting-ruling-sla

-- Indeed, the trial court expressed its frustration that the issue even had come before it again:

“[DBSI's Counsel]:  But the stipulation [between the Themis defendants and plaintiffs] was entered into by [Themis] and [counsel for plaintiffs].   And they deliberately in my estimation or recklessly represented to you that we just want to go off [to] FINRA and arbitrate before FINRA.   They take your order, and they absolutely misrepresent that order to the arbitrators.

“The Court:  And I agree.   I don't have anyway of saying that it was deliberate or reckless or otherwise.   But the November 2nd order was clear, and, frankly, I don't know [why] we're here.

--First, the Court finds that Plaintiff HBI improperly asserted claims against DBSI in Claimants' First Amended Statement of Claim (‘FASOC’) submitted in the FINRA Arbitration.7  The November Order stayed all claims by HBI against DBSI. Notwithstanding, HBI made allegations against DBSI, both on the face of the FASOC and by claiming the existence of a so-called ‘joint venture’ involving DBSI and Themis.   Plaintiff HBI also seeks an award against DBSI and the other respondents ‘jointly and severally.’   Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff HBI violated the stay imposed against it by the Court's November Order by including such allegations in the FASOC.

-- the Court did not intend for the parties to participate in a single arbitration proceeding by its November Order.   Furthermore, and contrary to Plaintiffs' representations to FINRA in the FASOC, the Court did not intend for Plaintiffs to prosecute their claims in a single arbitration proceeding when it signed the order on December 28, 2009 granting the Stipulation to Compel Arbitration Against Themis Asset Strategies, LLC and Derek Clark and Stay Order (the ‘December Order’).8  Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs previously sought, or now seek, to move for such consolidation, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof under Section 1281.3 of showing that the disputes arise from the same transactions or series of related transactions, and/or that there are common issues of law or fact creating the possibility of conflicting rulings by more than one arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, and therefore, any such request for consolidation is denied.

-- “Well, it's not that you came in just once.   It's that you came in twice.   And in the second instance, it was really a 1008.   It was a motion for reconsideration, which was not timely.   We had had a discussion at the earlier hearing about what the court intended.   It was very clear what the court intended.   The record was clear.   The minute order was clear, and, yet, you came in again and did the same thing all over again.”

The trial court granted the motion under both sections 1008, subdivision (d), and 128.7, but reduced the amount sought by more than half—to $10,000.   The court found that the motion seeking clarification was frivolous, brought for an improper purpose, brought to delay the arbitration, and had been brought before the court three times already.   The court, having previously given plaintiffs and their counsel the benefit of the doubt was obviously no longer of the same mind.   In announcing the ruling, the court made its views quite clear.

--  The Sanction Award Was Reasonable

The reason for the trial courts' broad discretion in deciding to award sanctions under section 1008 was aptly stated in Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt:  “Section 1008 is designed to conserve the court's resources by constraining litigants who would attempt to bring the same motion over and over.”  (Darling, Hall & Rae v. Kritt, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 1157.)   Here, the trial court went even further, awarding sanctions not only because the attorneys had violated the mandate of section 1008, but also because they had violated section 128.7.13

In essence, plaintiffs' argument, unsupported by any declaration, is “we acted in good faith because we were so certain that the trial court was wrong.”   But believing that the trial court was “wrong” in its ruling is no grounds for ignoring every mandate of section 10DP1⌑Given all the circumstances, the trial court was well within its discretion in finding that the attorney had brought a frivolous motion for clarification “for an improper purpose.”   As the trial court expressly recognized, the amount it intended to impose was modest.   It saw repeated motions on the same topic, months and months apart, and a series of writ petitions attacking the very orders plaintiffs later would brand as “unclear.”   There was no—and could be no—reason for the motion for clarification other than to try to persuade the trial court, once again, to change its mind.   The sanctions award was modest and proper.   It was not an abuse of discretion.

--  The Motion for Sanctions on Appeal

DBSI filed and served a timely motion for additional sanctions against the attorneys for filing and prosecuting a frivolous appeal.   We previously ordered that such motion would be heard, considered and ruled upon contemporaneously with the merits of the appeal.   The attorneys have filed a written response to such motion and have had the opportunity to argue against the motion at oral argument.

The applicable rule of law governing sanctions on appeal is found in Code of Civil Procedure section 907, which states:  “When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just.”   Our Supreme Court interpreted this to include both a subjective standard and an objective standard in In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 649.   To summarize, the rule established by our Supreme Court is that “an appeal should be held to be frivolous only when it is prosecuted for an improper motive – to harass the respondent or delay the effect of an adverse judgment – or when it indisputably has no merit – when any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit.  [Citation.]”  (Id. at p. 650.)   Although a finding of either standard is enough to warrant sanctions, “[t]he two standards are often used together, with one providing evidence of the other.   Thus, the total lack of merit of an appeal is viewed as evidence that appellant must have intended it only for delay.”  (Id. at p. 649.)

“An appeal that is simply without merit is not by definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions ․ [t]he punishment should be used most sparingly to deter only the most egregious conduct.”  (In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 650–651.)  “An unsuccessful appeal should not be penalized as frivolous if it ‘ “ ‘presents a unique issue which is not “indisputably” without merit’ ․, involves facts which are ‘not amendable to easy analysis in terms of existing law’ ․, or makes a reasoned ‘argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law’․   “ ‘ [Citation.]”  (Westphal v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1081 (Westphal ).)

On March 24, 2010, the attorneys sought writ relief in this court from the trial court's order of March 22, 2010 which enforced the November 2, 2009 order.   We rejected that petition with a jacket denial (No. B223252).  The attorneys' petition for review of that denial was also denied by our Supreme Court.   While the writ was pending before this court, a motion to “clarify” the March 22, 2010 order was filed on April 22, 2010.   After that motion was denied by the trial court, the attorneys again sought writ relief before this court.   We again denied the requested relief by a jacket denial (No. B226165) on September 1, 2010.   Now, in their two-and-a-half page opposition in which they cite no legal authority, the attorneys assert the same arguments that were repeatedly raised in the two prior writ petitions filed in this court, which we previously denied.   As a result, we find that the appeal before us today does not present any unique issues.   Additionally, the attorneys neither allege any facts not amendable to an easy analysis in terms of existing law nor make a reasoned argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.   Under Westphal, the appeal is not one that is merely unmeritorious, but rises to the level of frivolous.   Therefore, we find that any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal, which asserts the same meritless arguments which were previously put forth in writs denied by this court, is totally and completely without merit.   The total lack of merit of the appeal is also evidence that the attorneys brought it solely for delay or harassment of the respondents.

Based on the foregoing, we will grant DBSI's motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal against appellants' attorneys.  (See e.g., Cohen v. General Motors Corp. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 893, 897 [“we believe the burden of paying the sanctions most properly belongs exclusively to appellant's counsel”].)   The issue as to the amount of such sanctions, however, should be determined by the trial court upon remand.  (See e.g., Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 461.)

DISPOSITION

The order imposing sanctions of $10,000 upon the attorneys is affirmed.   DBSI's motion for sanctions upon appeal is granted;  the amount of which is to be determined by the trial court on remand.   DBSI shall recover its costs on appeal.

CROSKEY, J.

We Concur:

KLEIN, P. J.ALDRICH, J.

The Clerk's Office of the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected and refused to process a complaint against United States District Court judge Morrison C. England, TLR has learned.

The complaint alleged that Judge England's failure to disclose to the plaintiff in the case of Sara Granda v. State Bar of California the nature of his and his wife's (Tori Flourny-England) close relationship to the defendants (State Bar of California and Judy Johnson) or, alternatively, to recuse himself from the matter, constituted misconduct.

While the case of Sara Granda v State Bar of California was litigated before Hon. Judge Morrison England, serving on the board of directors of CaliforniaALL (which was in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California) was Torie Flournoy-England, the esteemed and educated spouse of Hon. Morrison England.   Judge Morrison England, as well as then-State Bar of California Executive Director Judy Johnson and State Bar employee Patricia Lee were part of CaliforniaALL's Advisory Council. See above.

Knowledgeable sources maintain that the Clerk's excuse for refusing to process the complaint is based on the purported lack of a declaration at the end of the complaint stating, "I understand that even if I successfully prove that the judge engaged in misconduct or is disabled, this procedure cannot change the outcome of my underlying case."

These sources maintain, and it was previously shown here, that – even though it was irrelevant given that the complainant was not a party to the action at issue – the declaration was, in fact, included in the complaint as mandated by Local Rule 6.1(d), which requires the inclusion of the statement on the first page of the complaint.

Specifically, the following was placed on Page 1 of the complaint against United States District court judge Morrison C. England. (See also previously published story which contains said language)

"The undersigned Complainant was not a party to the litigation, and by filing this complaint is not seeking to change the outcome of the "underlying case” – i.e., the case presided over by the Judge England which is the subject of this complaint. However, in order to fully comply with the requirement stated in Local Rule 6.1(d) and the requirement to place the statement on page 1 of the complaint, I hereby state the following: "I understand that even if I successfully prove that the judge engaged in misconduct or is disabled, this procedure cannot change the outcome of my underlying case."

The complaint alleged that Judge Morrison C. England is a United States District Court judge for the Eastern District of California who sits in Sacramento. Prior to assuming the role of a federal judge, he served as a judge with the Sacramento Superior Court. He is a graduate of McGeorge School of Law, also located in Sacramento.

In approximately 2005, as part of his community involvement and extra-judicial activities, Judge England became involved in programs initiated by Elizabeth Parker, dean of McGeorge, and Sarah Redfield, a visiting professor from New Hampshire, relating to the promotion of diversity within the legal profession. Ruthe Catolico Ashley, an assistant dean at the career office at McGeorge School of Law who later assumed a position as a Diversity Officer at CalPERS, was also involved in these activities.

The diversity initiatives instigated by McGeorge were both local and national in scope. The local program in Sacramento was entitled "PacificPathways.” The program to promote diversity on a national level became known as "Wingspread," which evolved into a series, including Wingspread – Blackboard, Bench, and Bar and Wingspread – Delivered and Deliverable, and the like. Torie L. Flournoy, a school principal from Sacramento, was also involved in these programs at the local level.

Because Ruthe Ashley also served on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California and Sarah Redfield served on the State Bar's Council on Fairness and Access, the parties from Sacramento (namely, Parker, Ahley, Flournoy, Redfield and Judge England) became acquainted with individuals from the State Bar of California who are involved in matters relating to diversity, including Executive Director Judy Johnson, State Bar employee Patricia Lee, and Buchalter Nemer's Holly Fujie. As such, it was common to observe the same participant names at various diversity-related events taking place around the country.

For example, over a 3 day weekend in Monterey on October 5-7, 2006, part of the Wingspread program ran concurrently with the State Bar of California's annual convention. Some of the attendees included Judy Johnson, Holly Fujie, Patricia Lee, Ruthe Ashley, Torie L. Flournoy, Hon. Morrison C. England, Dean Elizabeth Parker, and Sarah Redfield. (See attachment 1.)

This event, Wingspread -- Blackboard Bench and Bar, was organized by Sarah Redfield. Similarly, in June 2007, and also part of the "Wingspread" series, a summit was held in Honolulu, Hawaii at which Dean Elizabeth Parker, Hon. Morrison C. England, Sarah Redfield and Torie L. Flournoy were all in attendance. (See attachment 2.)

In approximately 2007, Ruthe Ashley and Munger Tolles & Olson's Jeffrey Bleich served as vice-president and president of theCalifornia State Bar, respectively. During that time frame, an idea was formulated to replicate an existing entity that would also absorb large sums of money from utility companies and which would be used to promote diversity.

The original entity, the California Consumer Protection Foundation (CCPF), was secretly controlled for years by State Bar Executive Director Judy Johnson. Fines and settlements from proceedings before the CPUC and other cy pres funds of approximately $30 million dollars were funneled to CCPF, primarily from legal and administrative proceedings. Unlike the funds funneled to CCPF via cy pres funds or fines imposed by the CPUC, the funds flowing to the new entity would come from utility companies' voluntary donations after they were urged by the CPUC and others to donate in order to further diversity.

As such, Peter Arth (Chief of Staff to then-president of the CPUC, Michael Peevey) invited Ruthe Ashley to a restaurant in San Francisco. As a result of the meeting, a new entity known as CaliforniaALL was formed as a Section 501(c)(3) charitable entity that would collect funds to theoretically be used to invest in promoting diversity.

CaliforniaALL, which came into existence in 2008 and was abruptly dissolved in 2010, was considered to have been in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California. (See first page Attachment 3 - CaliforniaALL newsletter dated December 12, 2008 which consists of 4 pages.) In addition, the partnership stipulation between the State Bar and CaliforniaAll provided that the Board of Governors would appoint two of CaliforniaALL's members to the Board of Directors.

Executive Director of the State Bar of California Judy Johnson,Patricia Lee , and Judge Morrison England were members of CaliforniaALL's "Advisory Council” (see Attachment 3, page 4), affording Judy Johnson and Judge England numerous opportunities to meet and collude or, at a minimum, to create such an appearance.

CaliforniaALL obtained donations of almost $2 million, primarily from utility companies such as Sempra, AT&T, PG&E and, of course, Verizon Wireless.

In addition, Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, Buchalter Nemer's Holly Fujie , and Leslie Hatamiya colluded to transfer $780,000 sub-rosa from the State Bar of California Foundation (dba California Bar Foundation) to CaliforniaALL. (See attachment 4 -- Cal Bar Foundation 2008 IRS Form 990, Schedule I, which lists $774,247 to CaliforniaALL).

The transfer of $774,247 from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL was never acknowledged by CaliforniaALL. (See page 1 of Attachment 3, making no mention of Cal Bar Foundation as a Founding Funder. Similarly, it was never mentioned in the California Bar Journal or the NewsRoom of Cal Bar Foundation, where all other grants were heavily reported.)

It is worth noting that the California Bar Foundation is part and parcel of the State Bar of California, despite claims to the contrary and the contention that it is only affiliated with the State Bar. The fact of the matter is that the State Bar's Board of Governors appoints all Foundation board members, including the president, and that the Executive Director of the California Bar Foundation reports directly to the Board of Governors and needs the Board's approval to change any bylaws, for example.

In the meantime – after Judge England filed for summary dissolution in the Sacramento Superior Court, and after Judge England and Torie L. Flournoy wed, and after Torie Flournoy-England was appointed to serve as a member of CaliforniaALL's board of directors, and while CaliforniaALL was in existence – a lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of California in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant. (See Attachment 3; page 4 which lists Torie Flournoy-England as board member of CaliforniaALL)

The action was filed by plaintiff Sara Granda and was titled Sara Granda v. the State Bar of California (Case Number 2:09-cv-02015-MCE). The matter was adjudicated by Judge England, who promptly
dismissed it. Neither Judge England nor the defendant or its counsel disclosed to Granda the ongoing relationship with CaliforniaALL, to wit:

1. CaliforniaALL and the defendant (State Bar of California) are business partners.

2. Judge England and the Executive Director of the State Bar of California (Ms. Judy Johnson) are members of CaliforniaALL's advisory council.

3. Torie Flournoy-England, the spouse of Judge England, is a board member of CaliforniaALL, an entity that is a partner of the State Bar.

4. And, the unusual sub rosa transfer of $780,000 from defendant to CaliforniaALL.

By failing to make the disclosure mandated by these facts, and/or by failing to recuse himself from hearing this matter, Judge England committed misconduct, irrespective of the merits of the case or its outcome. As such, Judge England must be disciplined for not acting in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Even though the outcome of the Granda matter is irrelevant to a determination of Judge England's misconduct, the following paragraphs are included to provide further background and to rebut any allegation that the relationship between the Englands and the defendant caused no prejudice to plaintiff Sara Granda, or that the failure to provide fair administration of justice was otherwise harmless. The fact of the matter is that the plaintiff was severely prejudiced by Judge England's misconduct.

Granda, a 2009 graduate of the Davis school of Law, intended to sit for the July 2009 bar exam. The recent graduate, a quadriplegic who can only move her head and fingers, arranged for the California Department of Rehabilitation to pay the examination fee of $600, which it did via check. However, the State Bar of California stated that it only accepts payments made via credit card, and would not allow Granda to sit for the fast-approaching bar examination.

Plaintiff sensed unfairness and, like many recent law school graduates before her who approached federal court, she asked the federal court to award her both monetary and equitable relief in her lawsuit, which claimed that defendant State Bar of California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The State Bar of California, which was represented by Michael von Lownedfelt of Kerr & Wagstaffe, as well as Lawrence Lee, Mark Gil-Torres and Rachel Grunberg (State Bar in-house attorneys) asserted that the State Bar was immune pursuant to the 11th Amendment.

In its filing, defendant mostly cited as authority cases adjudicated by district courts around the country, as there is no clear authority addressing the interactions between the ADA and Eleventh Amendment Immunity. Cases which held otherwise were not referenced by defendant, such as Stoddard v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

Judge England promptly dismissed the case without giving Granda the chance to amend or plead around the issue of Eleventh Amendment Immunity by, for example, naming Judy Johnson as a defendant in her individual capacity. In addition, Granda's claim for monetary relief was completely ignored by the judge, and was never ruled upon.

Sacramento-based  Pacific Legal Foundation President Robin Rivett, as well as staff-attorneys Meriem Hubbard and James Burling have been publicly asked by TLR to opine on events relating to CAUSE's Ming Chin and Judy Johnson's CCPF

(Image:courtesy PLF)

California Supreme Court Associate-Justice Ming W. Chin and CAUSE

As was previously reported, Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Ming W. Chin has abruptly quit his position recently with the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment ("CAUSE"). The resignation took place amidst an ongoing investigation by the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

The formal ethics complaint filed with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleged that Chin's involvement with CAUSE is prohibitive due to CAUSE's invidious discrimination against those who are non Asian-American. The complaint further alleged 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.

Hon. Ming W. Chin

In Addition, Justice Chin's clandestine nature and undisclosed involvement was 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 sham charity CaliforniaALL would soon be considered by the California Supreme Court.

According to the complaint, records were sought 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.

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.

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 alleged, 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.

California Consumer Protection Foundation and Judy Johnson

Johnson, who until recently served as the Executive Director of the State Bar of California, secretly headed CCPF for the past 7-8 years.  During this period, she used her "clout" as the head of the agency to arrange for "cy pres" from class action settlements, as well as fines and settlements imposed by the CPUC on utility companies, totaling close to $30 million to be funneled to CCPF, which then  forwarded those funds to various other non-profits, and mostly questionable ACORN-like entities located in South Los Angeles.

In 2010 Johnson left the State Bar of California in disgrace after a prolonged embezzlement of close to $800,000 by employee Sharon Pearl was discovered, and after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed State Bar related legislation as a result.

Johnson was recently also the subject of a complaint to the IRS for alleged noncompliance with various laws and regulations.

The complaint alleges CCPF and Johnson defrauded and mislead the public by intentionally omitting various data from CCPF's web-site.  Specifically, data concerting financial transactions between CCPF and an entity known as  Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety ("CARS").  In addition, the complaint also point to various alleged inconsistencies in the reporting of grants from CCPF to CARS.

Ms Judy Johnson

CARS is a non-profit entity located in Sacramento, California. It was established and is headed by Rosemary Shahan. In addition to heading her own non-profit entity (CARS), Shahan also serves as an "adviser" to CCPF.  See http://consumerfdn.org/advisors.php

According to sources familiar with the situation, CCPF professes and declares that it lists on its website all the grants it has issued and all the corresponding grantees going back to 2001. When visiting CCPF's website, one is given the option to search by year or the name of the grantee. A search for grants funneled to CARS yields only 2 results – a grant in 2006 in the amount of $60,000, and another in 2009 in the amount of $7,400.

One can also visit http://consumerfdn.org/granteesList.php for a list of all the grantees. (See also here.)

Each of the above search options yields the same result – to wit, only 2 grants are listed that were made to CARS.  Unfortunately, however, this allegedly is not the case, as CCPF's own tax returns provide otherwise. For example, page 28 of CCPF's IRS Form 990 for 2004 lists a $60,000 grant.

This misrepresentation is allegedly the fruit of an unlawful conspiracy between Judy Johnson and Rosemary Shahan, and is very troubling on its face. This is particularly true given that Ms. Shahan, who serves as an adviser to CCPF, and presumably is familiar with the content of the website, should have alerted CCPF that the information presented is inaccurate and false, by omission and otherwise.

In addition, sources allege that various inconsistencies were discovered in connection with two types of grants from CCPF to CARS: the first is the Consumer Auto Advertising Fund ("CAAF") grant and the second is the Bank of America ("BA1") grant.

In 2004, CARS reported to the IRS revenues from all sources in the amount of $91,009. (See page 28 of CARS 2004 IRS 990 return.) By comparison, CCPF reported that it had funneled to CARS $60,000 from the CAAF grant, and $61,215 from the BA1 grant.

Also in 2004, CCPF reported a leftover "payable" of $61,212 from the BA1 grant which it holds in reserve for future payment to CARS.

In 2005, CARS reported to the IRS revenues from ALL SOURCES in the amount of only $58,212. (See CARS 2005 IRS 990 returns.)

By comparison, in 2005 CCPF reported funneling $60,000 to CARS out of the CAAF grant. This, according to the sources, already raises a red flag as it shows that CARS under-reported its revenues for 2005 by the difference of $1,788. (See here on page 22.)

Most importantly, however, in 2005 CCPF also reported an additional $48,970 distributed to CARS from the BA1 fund, leaving only $12,242 in reserve as "payable." (See entry on page 22.)

Unfortunately, the sources maintain, no corresponding reference to the $48,970 was found on CARS' 2005 tax returns.

TLR is closely monitoring the situation and will keep readers apprised of the opinions, if any, of Pacific Legal Foundation's President Robin Rivett and staff-attorneys Meriem Hubbard and James Burling.

Geoffrey F. Brown (AKA Geoff Brown) -- a former commissioner with the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), is under extreme scrutiny in matters relating Judy Johnson's CCPF and the saga known as "Bribing Pat," The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.

As was reported earlier, a red flag has already been raised over Brown due to the overall circumstances surrounding sham entity CaliforniaALL.

Confidential sources familiar with the situation now maintain an additional red flag has been raised over Brown due to the overall circumstances surrounding dubious entity California Consumer Protection Foundation ("CCPF").  An Oakland-based entity headed by Judy Johnson.

Johnson, who until recently served as the Executive Director of the State Bar of California, secretly headed CCPF for the past 7-8 years.  During this period, she used her "clout" as the head of the agency to arrange for "cy pres" from class action settlements, as well as fines and settlements imposed by the CPUC on utility companies, totaling close to $30 million to be funneled to CCPF.

Mr. Geoffrey Brown, professor of law at JFK School of Law. Between 2001 to 2007 served as Commissioner with the CPUC. From 2006 to 2009 Brown serve as director with the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA "California Bar Foundation"). In 2008, California Bar Foundation quietly transferred $769,247.00 to sham entity CaliforniaALL -- which also obtained additional 1.5 Million from utility companies.  In reaction to complainant's request for an inquiry to the State Bar of California Board of Governors, Brown immediately, as though bitten by a snake, threatened to file legal action even though the communication with the BOG was absolutely privileged and justified, and only made mention of Brown in passing.(image:courtesy photo)

Sources also maintain Brown is also under extreme scrutiny in matters involving the overall circumstances surrounding Golden Gate University, Peter Keane, Patrice McElroy,, as well as  in connection with  the failure to disclose the relationship between CPUC Commissioner and Golden Gate University Professor Geoffrey F. Brown and State Bar of California's Judy Johnson's CCPF.

During a hearing presided over by Judge McElroy, she disclosed that Peter G. Keane -- who was then Dean of Golden Gate University School of Law and was representing an adverse witness (Ms. Sara E. Raymond) -- had been her supervisor when she was previously employed as an assistant Public Defender.

However, Judge McElroy failed to disclose that at or about the time the hearing in question was taking place, she accepted as a gift from Mr. Keane an overseas trip.

Even more troubling is the fact that at or about the time the trip took place, Golden Gate University and the student in question were in the midst of litigating a civil case the student had filed in San Francisco Superior Court.

*The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) urges the readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions as the credibility of the anonymous source could not be verified.

California Assembly member Mary Hayashi is seriously thinking about quitting her position due to the pending criminal charges, TLR has learned.

According to sources seeking anonymity, Hayashi has instructed staff-member to begin the daunting task of writing a letter of resignation.

 

Image: courtesy SFPD

According to SF Gate: "Hayashi was already on Neiman Marcus' radar when she was arrested outside its Union Square store last month for allegedly shoplifting $2,450 worth of merchandise, including a pair of leather pants. According to sources close to the case, a week before the Neiman bust, a store saleswoman noticed that a dress was missing after a woman matching Hayashi's description tried it on. The saleswoman did not know who Hayashi was, but when the Castro Valley Democrat showed up Oct. 25, the clerk alerted store security and they began tracking her with surveillance cameras."

Hayashi has pleaded not guilty to the felony charge and is due to appear in court on Friday for the purpose of scheduling a date for a preliminary hearing to determine whether evidence is sufficient to face a trial.

Hayashi, 44, is married to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Dennis Hayashi, she is the Chair of the Business, Professions, and Consumer Protection Committee and serves the 18th Assembly District, which includes San Leandro, Hayward, Dublin, most of Castro Valley and Pleasanton, and a portion of Oakland, as well as the unincorporated areas of Ashland, Cherryland, San Lorenzo and Sunol.

Following on the heels of a $3.2 million jury verdict for professional malpractice against Girardi & Keese, a declaration of mistrial, as well as absurd remarks by Tom Girardi ("This is the most stupid case in the history of America"), prominent trial lawyer Terance Mix minced no words in accusing Girardi & Keese of profesional negligence, and for failing to accept responsibility for the catastrophic consequences befalling Girardi & Keese's former client, Richard Salerno.

As a service to the community, TLR shall publish Terance Mix's comment, below:

"Tom Girardi's comment reflects not only his ignorance about the actual facts of a case that sat in his office largely ignored for over two years, but from a lawyer unwilling to own up to the failings of his firm and accept responsibility for the catastrophic consequences befalling his client when Girardi & Keese bailed on the case only 42 days before trial.

Mr Terance Mix of Santa Barbara, California. Mix is the former president of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and spent 12 years on the Board of Governors of California Trial Lawyers Association. He is a legal author and lecturer on trial techniques and strategies, including the trial of drug product cases, which was his specialty for over 30 years. (image: courtesy photo)

What Mr. Girardi fails to acknowledge in his rant about the "most stupid case in the history of America” is that the only independent and impartial witness to the impact between Richard Salerno's motorcycle and the Volvo, being driven next to one another in the same direction, testified that as he passed the two vehicles, while traveling in the opposite direction, Mr. Salerno appeared to be "talking” to the Volvo driver as he passed them, and never saw Salerno remove his hands from the handlebars at any time before the impact.

This evidence is totally contradictory to Mr. Girardi's assertion that Mr. Salerno was in a "rage” and "beating on the car with his fists and shouting expletives,” as stated in the Metro News article. Indeed, the evidence produced during the trial overwhelmingly demonstrated that the Volvo driver swerved into the motorcycle, as a means of intimidation, knocking Mr. Salerno to the ground and then driving over him with the left rear tire of the car.

Mr Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese. Per findings adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing "the persistent use of known falsehoods" and "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly" during years of litigation. Subsequnet to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice's Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here. For additional allegations of misconduct leveled against Girardi, please see here, and here , and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. For the latest on Walter Lack, please see here.

What Mr. Girardi also failed to mention, as was likewise brought out during the trial, was that the firm's real reason for wanting out of the lawsuit was simply because they thought it was a lousy case and Mr. Salerno refused to accept a $20,000 offer for a client with a fractured skull, brain damage, multiple other injuries, and medical expenses in excess of $1,000,000. And that the lawyer in his firm that was assigned to the case contrived an allegation that Mr. Salerno intended to lie at the trial, only after the client refused to sign a substitution of attorney form about 50 days before the scheduled trial of the case.

Perhaps if Mr. Girardi had been present throughout the trial, rather than making just a couple of shorts visits, he might have seen how the underlying case could have been developed by his firm during the two years of representation and successfully resolved with the original defendant, thus avoiding last months trial for professional negligence."

Separate malpractice suit against Girardi & Keese, please see @:
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/03/tom-girardi-lashes-out-at-victim-as-girardi-keese-sued-for-legal-malpractice-12110166/

For more about Thomas Girardi, please visit:

http://bit.ly/xY2k5q

Related links, please see:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/perspectives122011.htm

And @:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/perspectives010312.htm

Stories related to Mr. Thomas Girardi, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/15/united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit-will-be-asked-to-disbar-tom-girardi-walter-lack-howard-rice-s-jerome-falk-for-scheme-to-circ-12170012/

And @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/04/05/ethics-complaint-filed-with-california-state-bar-against-skadden-arps-thomas-nolan-raoul-kennedy-and-girardi-keese-s-thomas-girardi-graham-lippsm-10958143/

And @:

http://bit.ly/xY2k5q

TLR has learned that a complaint for alleged noncompliance with U.S. tax laws has been lodged with the Internal Revenue Service regarding non-profit entities California Consumer Protection Foundation ("CCPF") and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety ("CARS").

According to sources familiar with the situation, alleged inconsistencies in IRS 990 forms submitted to the IRS by those two entities, as well as allegedly misleading statements made by CCPF on its website, prompted the complaint.

CARS is a non-profit entity located in Sacramento, California. It was established and is headed by Rosemary Shahan.

Shahan, who as an irate consumer picketed a car dealership for over a month with an illegible sign, has established herself as an advocate in areas concerning automobiles, pressing manufacturers to build safer and more reliable cars, lobbying legislators to pass laws in support of such matters, and exposing schemes and fraudulent conduct by car dealerships.

In addition to heading her own non-profit entity (CARS), Shahan also serves as an "adviser" to CCPF alongside others, including Michael Shames and Stewart Kwoh. See http://consumerfdn.org/advisors.php ( also here.)

CCPF is an entity headed by Judy Johnson, who until recently served as the Executive Director of the State Bar of California.

In 2010, Johnson left the State Bar of California in disgrace after a prolonged embezzlement of close to $800,000 by another employee was discovered, and after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed State Bar-related legislation as a result.

According to these sources, CCPF professes and declares that it lists on its website all the grants it has issued and all the corresponding grantees going back to 2001. When visiting CCPF's website, one is given the option to search by year or the name of the grantee. A search for grants funneled to CARS yields only 2 results – a grant in 2006 in the amount of $60,000, and another in 2009 in the amount of $7,400.

One can also visit http://consumerfdn.org/granteesList.php for a list of all the grantees. (also here.)

Each of the above search options yields the same result – to wit, only 2 grants are listed that were made to CARS.
Unfortunately, however, this allegedly is not the case, as CCPF's own tax returns provide otherwise. For example, page 28 of CCPF's IRS Form 990 for 2004 lists a $60,000 grant.

This misrepresentation is allegedly the fruit of an unlawful conspiracy between Judy Johnson and Rosemary Shahan, and is very troubling on its face. This is particularly true given that Ms. Shahan, who serves as an adviser to CCPF, and presumably is familiar with the content of the website, should have alerted CCPF that the information presented is inaccurate and false, by omission and otherwise.

In addition, sources allege that various inconsistencies were discovered in connection with two types of grants from CCPF to CARS: the first is the Consumer Auto Advertising Fund ("CAAF") grant and the second is the Bank of America ("BA1") grant.

In 2004, CARS reported to the IRS revenues from all sources in the amount of $91,009. (See page 28 of CARS 2004 IRS 990 return.) By comparison, CCPF reported that it had funneled to CARS $60,000 from the CAAF grant, and $61,215 from the BA1 grant.

Also in 2004, CCPF reported a leftover "payable" of $61,212 from the BA1 grant which it holds in reserve for future payment to CARS.

In 2005, CARS reported to the IRS revenues from ALL SOURCES in the amount of only $58,212. (See CARS 2005 IRS 990 returns.)

By comparison, in 2005 CCPF reported funneling $60,000 to CARS out of the CAAF grant. This, according to the sources, already raises a red flag as it shows that CARS under-reported its revenues for 2005 by the difference of $1,788. (See here on page 22.)

Most importantly, however, in 2005 CCPF also reported an additional $48,970 distributed to CARS from the BA1 fund, leaving only $12,242 in reserve as "payable." (See entry on page 22.)

Unfortunately, the sources maintain, no corresponding reference to the $48,970 was found on CARS' 2005 tax returns.