The Leslie Brodie Report

RELATED STORY, PLEASE SEE HERE

DEVELOPING BREAKING STORY....... DETAILS SOON.....

See paragraph 18, below:

Rory Little, Ninth Circuit judicial aspirant and professor of law at U.C. Hastings. Professor Little was appointed special prosecutor in the matter of In Re Girardi by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Prior to entering academia, Professor Little served as a federal prosecutor for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force, prosecuting cases of labor racketeering, money-laundering, narcotics and other organized criminal activity. (image:courtesy photo)

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.

From Left, John Keker, Jon Streeter, Elliot Peters, Robert Van Nest, Jan Little,
and  Matthew Werdegar (Image:courtesy photos)

IN RE HAWAIIAN & GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST

647 F.Supp.2d 1250 (2009)

In re HAWAIIAN & GUAMANIAN CABOTAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to: All Cases.
No. 08-md-1972 TSZ.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

August 18, 2009.

PARTIAL LIST

Thomas V. Girardi, Girardi & Keese, Edward Woords, Drier Stien Kahabrowne Woods George, Walter J. Jack, Engstrom Lipscombe & Lack, Brian S. Kabateck, Richard L. Kellner, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Peter George Safirstien, Jeff S. Westerman, Milberg, Los Angeles, CA, Steve W. Berman, Anthony D. Shapiro, Ronnie S. Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol, Emillia L. Sweeney, Carney Badley Spellman, Seattle, WA, Christina L. Beatty-Walters, N. Robert Stoll, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlacter, Portland, OR, Ara Ray Jabagchourian, Joseph W. Cotchett, Nanci E. Nishimura, Steven Williams, Stuart G. Gross, Cotchett Pitre Simon and McCarthy, Burlingame, CA, Eric M. George, Michael A. Bowse, Drier Stien Kahan Growne Woods George LLP, Beverly Hills, CA

Marty Fay Africa -- Co-Founder & Managing Director of San Francisco-based  legal recruiting firm Major Lindsey & Africa -- has been publicly asked by TLR to opine on the peculiar pattern of hiring and promotion proclivities at San Francisco-based Kerr & Wagstaffe -- a firm headed by UC Hastings Law Professor James M. Wagstaffe.

Ms. Martha Fay Africa (AKA Marty Africa), managing director at Major, Lindsey & Africa. Formerly Director of Law Placement at the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law, and a founder of ABA Women Rainmakers, she is Co-Chair of the ABA LPM Section's Management Core Group Standing Committee on Diversity. According to Schizophrenia specialist -- Berkeley-based psychiatrist Dr. Bruce Africa -- former patient James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster and Marty Africa were involved in an illicit love affair.  Recently Morrison & Foerster's Susan Mac Cormac was nominated by Marty Africa as Rainmaker of the Year.  Incidentally, both Brosnahan and Mac Cormac are under scrutiny in connection with non-profit entity CaliforniaALL for the alleged suspicious activities of laundering money to State Bar of California Executive-Director Joe Dunn of Voice of OC via California Bar Foundation -- Please see HERE and HERE for additional information. (image: courtesy of Major, Lindsey & Africa)

As was previously reported on The Leslie Brodie Report -- which also exposed the hiring proclivities of Kerr & Wagstaffe -- a proclivity which appeared to favor young white females as associates and males as partners,  to date, none of the young women who were hired as associates ever made it to the level of a partner at the firm. This, despite having stellar resumes.  Notable examples include:

Ms. Holly Hogan, prior to obtaining a J.D. from the Harvard School of Law, graduated magna cum laude from USF. Holly never made partner at Kerr & Wagstaffe despite her exceptional qualifications. She is currently an associate with the firm of K & L Gates (Photo: Courtesy Kerr & Wagstaffe)

Ms. Tricia Weaver, graduated magna cum laude from Claremont McKenna, she attended Georgetown University Law Center where she graduated cum laude. Tricia never made partner at Kerr & Wagstaffe and is no longer with the firm. (Photo: Courtesy of SuperLawyers)

Ms. Connie Merriett, earned her law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law where Wagstaffe is employed as an adjunct-professor. Connie never made partner at Kerr & Wagstaffe, and is currently employed elsewhere (Photo: Courtesy)

Ms. Elizabeth Arnold, was employed by Kerr & Kaus. However, Ms. Arnold did not remain when the firm metamorphosed itself to Kerr & Wagstaffe. She has a BA from Smith College (1965), a Master of Arts from Middlebury College (1966) and a law degree from the University of California Boalt Hall School of Law (1975). Elizabeth never made it to Kerr & Wagstaffe. (Photo Credit: linked from Kelley & Farren)

Ms. Dawn Marie Melton, currently an associate with Kerr & Wagstaffe. (Photo credit: linked form K & W)

Ms. Maria Radwick, currently an associate with Kerr & Wagstaffe. Obtained her legal education at Hastings College of the Law. (photo: linked from K & W)

Ms. Kelly Corcoran,currently an associate with Kerr & Wagstaffe. Obtained her legal education at Hastings College of the Law. (photo: linked from K & W)

UC Hastings law professor James Wagstaffe's penchant manifested itself  again recently by the hiring of a UC Hastings graduate Cheryl Mackey, seen below:

The Leslie Brodie Report also pointed to the fact that Kerr & Wagstaffe treat male associates differentially. Associate Michael von Loewenfeldt, for example, was made partner after only two(2) years.  Other male associates who made it to partnership in the firm include Messrs.Sawyer, Ng, and Labar.  When we published our first story concerning Kerr & Wagstaffe, the firm racial and gender make-up was as follows:

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

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

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

*All the females' associates are white (Ms. Melton, Ms. Radwick, and Ms. Corcoran)

*All the female associates are young.

* Two out of the three associates are from Hastings College of the Law, where Wagstaffe teaches. Their resume is not as impressive as that of Mr. Ng.

TLR is closely monitoring the situation and will keep readers apprised of the opinion, if any, of Marty Fay Africa -- Co-Founder & Managing Director of San Francisco-based  legal recruting firm Major Lindsey & Africa.

WAYNE GRETSKY

In the legal dispute between MGA (Bratz Dolls) and Mattel (Barbie Dolls), it is estimated that MGA's legal cost to date are close to $200 million.  According to Mattel, Bratz Dolls were designed by a former Mattel employee (Carter Bryant) before he jumped ship to MGA. Mattel sought $2 billion in damages, and according to Bob Eckert, Mattel's CEO, pursues the case "as a matter of principle."

Representing El Segundo, California-based Mattel was John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Defendant Carter Bryant was represented by Keker & Van Nest's John Keker. Los Angeles-based MGA and founder/CEO Isaac Larian were initially represented by O'Melveny & Myers. However, a dispute erupted when O'Melveny insisted that partner Daniel Petrocelli serve as lead counsel in the case.

Mr. Larian was not thrilled about Petrocelli and fired O'Melveny altogether. O'Melveny immediately demanded payment of $10 million it claims MGA and Mr. Larian owe the firm in unpaid and outstanding legal fees.

With a looming  trial date, no counsel, and a threat from O'Melveny that if he does not pay he will be sued, Mr. Larian went knocking on the door of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

MGA TEAM -- COUNSELS WHO REPRESENTED DEFENDANT MGA ("BRATZ DOLLS".) FROM LEFT: SKADDEN ARPS' RAOUL KENNEDY AND THOMAS NOLAN ; HOWARD RICE'S JEROME FALK AND DOUGLAS WINTHROP; KEKER & VAN NEST'S JOHN KEKER AND MGA'S IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. CRAIG HOLDEN.

Specifically,  Larian asked Girardi to look into the fees it had paid to O'Melveny.  According to media reports, Girardi stated, "When O'Melveny couldn't get Petrocelli in the lead chair it wanted off the case. We are taking a look at the massively large fees that happened with the O'Melveny representation. On first blush, it seems like an awful lot of money for what has been accomplished. I think the client has strong reason to have great concern."

At approximately the same time, Girardi's friend -- Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps -- was chosen to serve as counsel for MGA and Mr. Larian instead of O'Melveny.  At that time, also representing MGA  was its own in-house counsel, Mr. Craig Holden.

Thomas Nolan, who served as Girardi's defense counsel (along with Diane Karpman) in the Ninth Circuit disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi stemming from an attempt  by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi to defraud the Ninth Circuit , is a well-known and respected attorney. According to Mr. Girardi, Thomas Nolan "is like "Wayne Gretsky" - he doesn't look any bigger, tougher or faster, but the next thing you know he's scored four goals. And he's always a gentleman."

Following a verdict against MGA, preparations were made for the second stage of the trial to set damages, which were estimated to be approximately $500 million. At the conclusion of that stage, the jury awarded $100 million to Mattel. In addition, Judge Stephen Larson issued a draconian injunction against MGA, ipso facto dissolving it.

Following the trial, Wayne Gretsky of Skadden Arps quickly arranged for Howard Rice's Jerome Falk and Douglas Winthrop to join the legal team and file an immediate emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which subsequently reversed the entire judgment.

WAYNE GRETSKY-THOMAS GIRARDI -JOHN KEKER-JOE COTCHETT  PROXIES REVEALED

At the conclusion of the appeal in a civil case prosecuted by the firms of Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack against Dole Food Company, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack should not be disbarred, suspended, or sanctioned for the attempt to defraud this Court for the purpose of unjustly collecting a $500 million judgment.

Representing Thomas Girardi in those disciplinary proceedings before ther Ninth Circuit were Wayne Gretsky of Skadden Arps and ethics expert Diane Karpman.

Oral arguments ensued, during which one of the judges on the panel stated that the "elephant" in the room is the manner in which the matter would be developed by the State Bar of California.

Subsequently, the Court found both Girardi and Lack culpable, and imposed close to $500,000.00 in monetary sanctions, reprimanded Girardi, and suspended Lack.   Some of the findings included that Lack and Girardi have resorted to employing "the persistent use of known falsehoods" and that "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly" during years of litigation.

The State Bar of California assigned the matter to an outside special prosecutor (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) since Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese served as President of the State Bar, and had hired the Chief Trial counsel of the State Bar at the time, Mr. James Towery.

After conducting an interview with Walter Lack, Jerome Falk chose to not file any charges against Lack or Girardi based on his position that any false statements submitted were not "intentional." This determination was contrary to findings made by the Ninth Circuit.

Within days of the issuance of Mr. Falk's decision, YR advanced an ethics complaint against James Towery, Jerome Falk, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop, contending that it had been improper for Mr. Towery to select Jerome Falk (of Howard Rice) to serve as special prosecutor because, among other reasons, Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) had appointed Howard Rice's managing partner (Douglas Winthrop) as president of the California Bar Foundation, a foundation owned, controlled, and maintained by the State Bar of California, as well as because of the close business relationship between Howard Rice's Jerome Falk and Wayne Gretsky of Skadden Arps.

Subsequently, and fortuitously, YR  also discovered that Lack and Girardi were actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice.  YR had inquired with Mr. Hawley of the State Bar of California whether this fact was known to the Special Master investigating the complaint.  The State Bar of California remained mum.

Subsequently, Jerome Falk wrote to YR:

I received your November 13 email concerning my participation in the State Bar's investigation of Walter J. Lack, Thomas V. Girardi and other attorneys. It is filled with disparaging characterizations, all of which seem to stem from your allegations that I or my firm have represented Mr. Lack and Mr. Girardi.

Your allegations are false.

I have never represented either person, or their firms. Neither has Douglas Winthrop. Nor has my firm ever represented Mr. Lack or Mr. Girardi.

From 2006-2008, my firm represented several law firms, including Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Girardi & Keese, in a litigation matter. The public records of that litigation show that neither Mr. Winthrop nor I had nothing to do with that representation; in fact, I was unaware of it. The public records also show that my firm represented the law firms, but did not represent Mr. Girardi or Mr. Lack. The attorney responsible for that representation had left Howard Rice and taken the files with him before I was asked to serve as Special Deputy Trial Counsel in the State Bar matter.

You are on notice that your allegations are false. The falsity of those allegations can be determined from the public records of the litigation in question.

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

Complainant YR wrote back:

Dear Mr. Falk:

Thank you for replying to my letter of November 13th, 2011 This will serve as a reply.

In your letter dated December 7, 2011, you attempt again to defraud and mislead in your attempt to avoid responsibility for your repugnant and deceitful actions taken in connection with your actions as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm's clients -- Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack (and by operation of law, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), as part of a scheme to exploit your authority for financial gain.

By analogy, rather than acknowledging that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you seek to bamboozle the unwary by stating that it wasn't actually your hand in the cookie jar but, rather, only your fingers, and in any event it wasn't a jar but, rather, a plastic container which you contend doesn't qualify as a jar. Therefore, you devote an entire paragraph proclaiming, "Your allegations are false." You conclude by placing me on "notice" that my allegations are "false."

The contents of your communication are unethical in the extreme, as well as entirely frivolous factually, legally, and by operation of law, to wit:

You claim, "In fact, I wasn't aware of it" (referring to the fact that you and your firm had represented Girardi & Keese and ELL). While you acknowledge your firm (Howard Rice) did represent Girardi & Keese and ELL from 2006 to 2008 , you assert that you were not aware of this representation. Simply put, your assertion is false; it is simply implausible that for two entire years you were unaware that your firm represented such celebrity/famous/notorious attorneys such as Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, and Pierce O'Donnell.

This is particularly true since you are a member of Howard Rice's "attorney liability" group, which consists of between 7-9 attorneys (including your colleagues Sean SeLegue, Pamela Phillips, and Steve Mayer), and the subject matter of the litigation was a suit advanced against Girardi & Keese, ELL, and O'Donnell for legal malpractice in connection with alleged attorney misconduct in the litigation involving El Paso Natural Gas/Sempra Energy, a series of cases which received significant publicity.

I am also hard-pressed to believe that you were unaware of the estimated $250,000 retainer Girardi & Keese and ELL paid to your firm (money which paid your and your colleagues' salaries), and that no one ever discussed this matter with you for purposes of addressing legal strategy or legal issues in person or during meetings.

Most importantly, in your letter to Robert Baker you acknowledge that you had interviewed Walter Lack. Again, you ask me to believe that Walter Lack did not mention the fact that Howard Rice represented him and his firm only one year prior to your meeting.

The fact that Walter Lack did not speak up during the interview with you is just too convenient, and is further circumstantial evidence that you and he both knew of the prior representation, and chose to nevertheless further continue with the conspiracy to obstruct justice for financial gain, to the detriment of the public and the proper administration of justice. Complete story, please continue HERE.

Proxies at the State Bar of California Board of Governors are the president of  State Bar of California Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, Nancy Fineman of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, Craig Holden, and executive director of the State Bar of California -- Voice of OC's Joe Dunn, below:

(image: courtesy source)

Demeter Energy, a start-up bio-fuel energy company, has filed a legal malpractice action claiming more than $600 million in damages against Los Angeles-based law firm Girardi & Keese and named partner Thomas Girardi.

As was first reported by Alison Frankel of ThomsonReuters:

"Demeter hired the famous Los Angeles plaintiffs' shop Girardi Keese to bring a malpractice suit against DLA. According to Demeter's new suit, Girardi drafted a proposed complaint asserting that DLA's actions had damaged Demeter to the tune of $600 million. Girardi even sent the draft to DLA, allegedly with the hope of beginning settlement discussions. But when DLA refused to talk, Girardi supposedly failed to get Demeter's malpractice suit filed before the one-year statute of limitations had expired – even though Demeter allegedly sent Girardi panicked emails about time running out."

To understand whether the demand letter sent by Mr. Girardi ran afoul of California Penal Code dealing with extortion and/or attempted extortion, TLR turned to a source qualified to issue such an opinion.

According to the source, Girardi's actions, while not customary, were not in violation of any statute, penal or otherwise.  Per the source, since Mr. Girardi did not threaten to advance criminal charges and/or administrative proceedings, no violation took place.  For additional reading, the source recommended the following:

"Normally, conduct of the type engaged in by Mr. Mauro falls within the protective provisions of section 425.16.  (See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1115 ["communications preparatory to or in anticipation of the bringing of an action or other official proceeding” are protected under section 425.16]; Kashian v. Harriman, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 908 [filing a lawsuit]; Shekhter v. Financial Indemnity Co., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 153 [attorney's use of the media is entitled to protection under section 425.16].)  The problem is that Mr. Mauro went further than threatening to file a lawsuit and then disseminate the information about the complaint to journalists.  Rather, in addition to the threatened lawsuit and media exposure, Mr. Mauro threatened criminal prosecution or publication of defamatory matter about the rape as a means of obtaining leverage in the proposed civil action if "seven figures” was not paid. " Source See HERE

In Flately v. Mauro, the California Supreme Court stated:

"We emphasize that our conclusion that Mauro's communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law are based on the specific and extreme circumstances of this case.   Extortion is the threat to accuse the victim of a crime or "expose, or impute to him · any deformity, disgrace or crime” (Pen.Code, § 519) accompanied by a demand for payment to prevent the accusation, exposure, or imputation from being made.   Thus, our opinion should not be read to imply that rude, aggressive, or even belligerent prelitigation negotiations, whether verbal or written, that may include threats to file a lawsuit, report criminal behavior to authorities or publicize allegations of wrongdoing, necessarily constitute extortion.   (Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. Chuidian, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 1079, 267 Cal.Rptr. 457 ["a person, generally speaking, has a perfect right to prosecute a lawsuit in good faith, or to provide information to the newspapers”].)   Nor is extortion committed by an employee who threatens to report the illegal conduct of his or her employer unless the employer desists from that conduct.   In short, our discussion of what extortion as a matter of law is limited to the specific facts of this case." Source see HERE

Pierce O'Donnell -- a Democratic Party operative associated with the Girardi Syndicate -- has been found guilty of a "serious crime" which involves misrepresentation, fraud, deceit or the use of dishonesty by funneling illegal campaign contributions to former Sen. John Edwards

U.S. Chief Judge Audrey Collins of the Central District of California quickly ordered O'Donnell -- former co-counsel in the El Paso Natural Gas/Sempra litigation -- suspended from practicing law before any federal court located in the district. He has been assigned a federal prison ID # 49097-112. It is how he will be known for as long as he is behind bars when he begins his 60 days prison sentence on May 7, 2012.

As was reported HERE earlier, O'Donnel is still under extreme scrutiny (by both YR/ TLR) in connection with the strong prima facie showing by which money which was "laundered" through and/or misappropriated from the California Bar Foundation was used to launch "Voice of OC" -- a newly-created online publication which State Bar of California Executive-Director Joe Dunn had launched with the help of Democratic Party operatives Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster.

(For more about this story, please see HERE and HERE and HERE. About CaliforniaALL --sham non-profit entity allegedly used to execute and mask the plan, please see HERE.)

O'Donnell has been involved in countless legal proceedings involving his numerous acts of misconduct, described briefly below:

1. Criminal proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court relating to unlawful contributions to James Hahn.

2. State Bar of California Court proceedings relating to his conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

3. State Bar of California alternative proceedings relating to his mental illness (O'Donnell failed to comply with the conditions of the program and his participation was terminated).

4. Administrative proceedings advanced by both the City of Los Angeles and the State of California.

5. State Bar of California Court proceedings relating to his attempt to mislead a Nevada state court.

Separately,and as was reported HERE earlier, Petitioner Pierce O'Donnell is asking Judge Thomas Anderle of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court for "legal separation" from spouse Dawn O'Donnell.

Additional articles about  this topic, please see HERE and HERE.

By Debbie Maimon

With the Senate Judiciary Committee poised to consider the nomination of U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose to the federal bench, critics are urging committee members to take a searching look at this nominee who was a chief prosecutor in the controversial 2008 Postville Prosecutions.

An op-ed in the Des Moines Register by Dr. Camayd Freixas, a federal interpreter who witnessed the prosecutions, adjured the Senate not to "rubber-stamp” Rose's nomination "as if Postville never happened.”

"Postville, May 12, 2008, will be remembered in infamy as a stain on American justice,” he wrote.

He urged the senators to question Rose closely about her role in the prosecutions that drew harsh criticism for alleged abuses of due process and civil rights.

One of the most serious allegations against Rose's office concerned its collaboration with Chief Judge Linda Reade, who later imposed prison and deportation sentences on the defendants.

The nation's top judicial experts have said that the judge's close involvement in the enforcement operation had compromised her neutrality, and should have compelled her to recuse herself from the trials of the defendants, including that of Sholom Rubashkin.

Revisiting ‘Disturbing Allegations' About Rose And Colleagues -- The Des Moines Register article highlighted "the disturbing allegations of unethical ex parte communications between Rose's office and the chief judge, in the planning of the raid and prosecutions for 8 months leading to the ICE operation.” It also slammed the "withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense.”

"Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in [theSholom Rubashkin prosecution] showed that Rose's office involved Chief U.S. District Judge Linda Reade in the pre-raid planning,” the article attested.

"Rose saw nothing wrong with this, but considered it a proper role for both judge and prosecutor. So much for her ethics and impartiality.”

The author of the op-ed, Dr. Eric Camayd-Freixas wrote a detailed and widely quoted essay about the abuses he had personally witnessed. He also gave testimony to a congressional committee investigating the raid and the prosecutions of the defendants.

First Mass Felony Prosecution In History of Modern Democracy -- "More than 300 undocumented meatpackers were hammered with the anti-terrorism-related charge of identity theft, forced to plead guilty to felony fraud, jailed up to a year at public expense and deported without an immigration hearing,” the author recounted in his current op-ed.

"Hundreds of families were left to starve and the Postville economy was devastated. The seven-day ‘fast-track' proceedings, with one lawyer for every 20 defendants, were a mockery of due process, condemned nationally by the legal community and slammed at a congressional hearing.”

Camayd-Freixas said that the fast-track, "assembly-line” justice—where defendants' individual circumstances were completely disregarded—stands out as the only "mass felony prosecution” in the history of modern democracy.”

A Federal Judge Must Be Held To A Higher Standard -- While many denounced the proceedings as a travesty of justice, then Assistant U.S. Attorney Rose called it "a ton of good work,” praising the "tireless” efforts of those who took part in the proceedings.

But Camayd-Freixas noted that her serious errors of judgment in the Postville prosecutions cast a shadow over her fitness for the federal bench.

"A federal judge must be held to a higher standard of fairness, impartiality and understanding of the law,” he wrote, noting egregious breaches of all three credentials in the Assistant U.S. Attorney's conduct.

He harshly criticized Rose and her colleagues for using "the identify theft” charge against immigrants who were ignorant of the Social Security system, and had no clue their false papers contained identification numbers belonging to another person.

That felony charge carries far more serious penalties that the civic offense of entering the country illegally or overstaying one's visa.

Holding the "aggravated identity theft” charge over the heads of the arrested workers drove most of them, guilty or not, to waive the right to trial or immigration hearing, Camayd-Freixas noted. In addition, it coerced them to plead guilty to felony charges that landed them in jail for five months, followed by automatic deportation.

The vast majority of this group had no criminal history. If they were not going to be allowed to stay here legally, shouldn't they have been sent back immediately to rejoin their impoverished families in Guatemala and Mexico?

What purpose was served by jailing them at taxpayers' expense, while their families back home starved?

Rose and Reade Misapplied Identify Theft Charge-- The Postville strategy, using the identity theft charge as a weapon to coerce guilty pleas, backfired two years later. That's when the Supreme Court ruled in an unrelated case that the charge was inapplicable in cases where the defendant did not knowingly steal the identify of a specific individual.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose and Chief Judge Linda Reade, it now became clear, had misapplied the law in the hundreds of Postville prosecutions they oversaw.

"This landmark 9-0 decision overturned three appellate courts, including the 8th Circuit, and thousands of cases,” wrote Camayd-Freixas. "So much for Rose's ‘ton of good work'.

"The Supreme Court ruling,” he said, "showed how easily a biased interpretation of the law can put politics and prejudice before justice.”

Just Following Orders?  The author noted that Stephanie Rose's nomination had been sponsored by Iowa Senator Tom Harkins, the same person who had nominated her for the U.S. Attorney position a year after the raid. [At that time of the raid, she had been third in the chain of command in the U.S. Attorney's Office.]

Facing down criticism of his nominee for her actions in the Postville tragedy, Harkins claimed Rose had a very minor role in the operation and was just following orders.

That image contrasts sharply with an eye-witness description of a private meeting that took place at the United States District Courthouse in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on May 12, 2008, as the ICE raid was underway.

The eye-witness report was written by Rockne Cole of Iowa City, one of the public defenders summoned to the meeting along with instructions "not to tell anyone” about it.

Cole addressed his July 2008 letter to Rep. Zoe Lofgren who chaired the congressional committee scrutinizing the raid and the legal proceedings that followed. Parts of his letter were printed in the New York Times.

A Handbook For How To Get Your Client Jailed And Deported -- Cole wrote of his astonishment at the meeting's agenda, which he summed up as a legal scheme in which "a court-appointed attorney's role was to act as a ‘guilty-plea processing clerk', serving only to expedite the mass waiver of rights.”

"It was like a handbook on how to get your client jailed and deported,” he told this writer.

In Cole's report, far from playing a minimalist role in the proceedings, Rose appeared to be a key player. She chaired the meeting, describing at length the well-crafted strategy by which the attorneys were to guide their clients into waiving their rights to a trial or immigration hearing, and to agree to plea deals that required 5 months of jail time and deportation.

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Rose began the meeting by scanning the audience for media officials…. She then began the presentation,” Cole wrote. He said Rose advised the attorneys they would be handling a large number of defendants at one time. [The number started out at 10 but later jumped to a staggering 20.]

After a court clerk handed out to all attorney "guilty plea handbooks,” Rose launched into a description of the various plea deals being offered to the defendants, all of which presumed guilt of a felony crime.

There was no allowance in the Rose's "representation plan” for a plea of innocence, Cole told the congressional committee in his letter.

"What I found most astonishing,” he said, "is that apparently Chief Judge Reade had already ratified these deals prior to one lawyer even talking to his or her client.”

Cole said that he concluded from what he heard at the meeting that Judge Reade [who was present at the meeting] and the United States Attorney's Office coordinated the mass detention; roundup; representation plan; plea deals and sentencings, before he or any of the attorneys could speak to their clients.

Breathtaking Level of Coordination -- "I hope I am wrong about that inference,” Cole wrote, "but the overwhelming facts suggest a breathtaking level of coordination between the United States District Court Judge and the Department of Justice, [i.e. between Judge Reade and Assistant U.S. Attorney Rose--ed.].

Cole said he realized he could not be part of what he saw as a legalized assault on human rights, and walked out in disgust.

"I nevertheless strongly encourage the Committee to keep an open mind, and afford all officials involved a fair hearing, which unfortunately was not given to the defendants in Postville,” Cole concluded.

Almost four years later, on the eve of the Senate confirmation hearings for President Obama's nominees that will decide Rose's future, an op-ed appeared by Cole appeared in the Iowa Gazette.

"On May 12, 2008, prosecutor Stephanie Rose and her colleagues in the Northern District of Iowa brutally removed a large ethnic group from Postville through the infamous immigration raid. President Obama has now nominated Rose to be a federal judge for the Southern District of Iowa,” Cole began.

"Neither Rose nor any of her colleagues have ever acknowledged the slightest injustice arising from their brutal tactics,” Cole wrote. "To the contrary, she has celebrated the [government] operation.”

Could Not Keep Silent -- Still practicing in Iowa City, Cole said he could not keep silent as he watched Stephanie Rose "about to ascend to lifetime employment on the backs of the "huddled masses.” He could not forget the "injustice” and "brutality” inflicted on the hundreds of defendants "by Rose and her colleagues.”

Aware that he has probably endangered his career by speaking out, Cole told this writer he "would rather stand up against this injustice than capitulate to further my own career, as [Rose] has done. It is sickening what happened to the workers and to Sholom Rubashkin, and they are getting away with it.”

"Since the raid,” he wrote in the Gazette, "I have wondered why so many of the legal elite have walked in lock-step supporting Rose and her colleagues while turning their backs on [the victims]. Perhaps, I will never have that question answered.

"But I do know one thing for sure: I will never forget what happened to Rosanna Meijia who was one of the ‘cattle' rounded up and brought to the Cattle Congress…. and every person who, like her, was stripped of dignity.”

"I will never endorse any person who, after four years of reflection, cannot recognize the basic inhumanity that was shown on that day of infamy.

"President Obama,” he wrote, "shame on you for validating this injustice by nominating Stephanie Rose to be a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Iowa.”

Following on the heels of a dismissed grand jury indictment against Michael Gressett, a Contra Costa County sex crimes prosecutor who was accused of raping a fellow deputy district attorney Holly Harpham at his Martinez home, as well as findings by an arbitrator that the case was muddied by politics, prominent trial lawyer J. Gary Gwilliam of Oakland-based Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer announced his plan to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of the victim against Contra Costa County and the City of Martinez for maliciously pursuing the case.

According to the Contra Costa Times, Gressett, a veteran prosecutor and three-time district attorney candidate, said he had rough but consensual sex with the woman  and denies having used weapons. His September 2009 arrest rocked the DA's Office and exposed a seedy culture where inappropriate talk in the workplace was rampant.

'Slumber' parties: The exploits of the sex crimes unit in Contra Costa County, California came to light in court documents after their deputy district attorney was charged with rape (Image source: dailymail.co.uk)

Harpham told police he raped her at his Martinez home while the two were on a lunch break May 8, 2008. The woman said she had wanted to sleep with Gressett, but objected to the type of sex he initiated. He pressed on, she said, sodomizing her, holding a gun to her head, handcuffing her and jamming ice into her. Gressett said the sex had been kinky but mutual - that a gun, cuffs and ice were brought out but only in a playful way.

According to the Daily Mail, there was a 'raunchy' environment at the Contra Costa County sex crimes unit, north-east of San Francisco. Staff apparently engaged in crude banter and boasted about taking part in sex parties. Members of the department once held a co-ed 'slumber party', court records revealed.

A search of Michael Gressett's home found 200 Viagra tablets and marijuana. An ice pick, gun and a pair of handcuffs were also discovered in the nightstand.

A retired judge was assigned to the case after it emerged that one of the county judges had previously dated Gressett.

Michael Gressett will be present at the press conference on March 21, 2012 at 10:30 AM at the Law Firm of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1600, Oakland, California 94612

The State Bar of California denied it has received a formal ethics complaint against its own executive director Joe Dunn -- creator of online publication "Voice of OC."

The complaint alleged that a request to produce Voice of OC's tax returns has been ignored, despite the clear mandate by the U.S. Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to fully comply with such requests.  As such, the failure of Senator Dunn to comply with the law, as well as his utter and complete indifference to the law of the land, mandates that discipline be imposed.

Moreover, and according to the complaint, the fact that Senator Dunn is the Executive Director of the State Bar of California should only serve as a factor for enhanced discipline, as his conduct should be beyond reproach and he should fully comply with all laws and regulations. This is particularly true because those documents were sought as part of an inquiry into circumstances involving a charity known as CaliforniaALL, in the context of events surrounding Voice of OC.

The State Bar of California, which controls and operates the California Bar Foundation, quietly transferred $780,000 to CaliforniaALL, a charitable entity created by former BOG member Ruthe Catolico Ashley. 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, the Foundation never acknowledged this transfer to CaliforniaALL -- the largest grant it ever bestowed -- via publications issued by 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.

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 Senator Dunn serves as trustee and chair of the Audit Committee.

In September 2009, Ruthe Ashley abruptly exited CaliforniaALL. That month, Senator Dunn publicly launched his online publication, " Voice of OC." Public sources have stated that the Voice of OC was financed by various foundations, unions, and the like.

Events surrounding the State Bar of California, California Bar Foundation, CaliforniaALL, Voice of OC, and UCI Foundation, as well as the fact that those who were involved with CaliforniaALL (i.e. Morrison & Foerster's Susan Mac Cormac and Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller in his capacity as BOD member of Cal Bar Foundation, as well as BOG members who voted to endorse CaliforniaALL) were also involved with the creation of Voice of OC (Morrison & Foerster's James Brosnahan and Girardi & Keese's Thomas Girardi ) created the appearance of suspicious activities that funds were misappropriated by Voice of OC, vis-a-vis CaliforniaALL.

Additionally, the belief is heightened given various events' proximity in time -- as noted above, Ruthe Ashley left CaliforniaALL in the same month Mr. Dunn 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 the suspicion. This is heightened by Mr. Thomas Girardi's lack of credibility (pursuant to findings made by a panel of federal judges), and the friendship Mr. Dunn shares with Mr. Girardi.

The above is an image of the complaint which was electronically mailed  to the Intake Office of  the State Bar of California, Ms. Jayne Kim as well as to Mr. Robert Hawley.  Below are images of various prior communications between the complainanat and the State Bar of California confirming a new policy by which ethics complaints may be submiited via electronic mail.  For more about the complaint against Voice of OC and  Joe Dunn, please see Here and Here

TLR is closely monitoring the situation and will keep readers apprised of any new developments.

Article placed on platform on January 6, 2012

Marvell Co-Founders' Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs

*Photos and links by TLR, and not part of original letter.

RE: NINTH CIRCUIT MATTER OF IN RE THOMAS GIRARDI ; U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MORRISON C. ENGLAND; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, JOE DUNN OF VOICE OF OC; JAMES BROSNAHAN OF MORRISON & FOERSTER; LAW OFFICES OF SKADDEN ARPS; HOLLY FUJIE

Dear Honorable Chief Judge Kozinski and Honorable Judges Berzon, Smith, Tashima, and Fletcher:

This is written to advise you of circumstances relating to the California State Bar's handling of the matter of In re Girardi pursuant to an order issued by this Court.

By way of background, at the conclusion of the appeal in a civil case prosecuted by the firms of Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack against Dole Food Company, Judge Kozinski issued an order to show cause why Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack should not be disbarred, suspended, or sanctioned for the attempt to defraud this Court for the purpose of unjustly collecting a $500 million judgment.

Representing Thomas Girardi in those disciplinary proceedings before this Court were the law firm of Skadden Arps and ethics expert Diane Karpman. Ms. Karpman asked this Court to appoint a special prosecutor, and the Court appointed Hastings Law School professor Rory Little.

Oral arguments ensued, during which one of the judges on the panel stated that the "elephant" in the room is the manner in which the matter would be developed by the State Bar of California.

Subsequently, this Court found both Girardi and Lack culpable, and imposed monetary sanctions, reprimanded Girardi, and suspended Lack. This Court also ordered Girardi and Lack to report its findings to the State Bar of California.

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.

The day after this Court issued its ruling, respondents' counsel moved to redact their names from the published decision, a motion this Court denied. (This issue will surface again, below.)

The State Bar of California assigned the matter to an outside special prosecutor (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) since Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese served as President of the State Bar, and had hired the Chief Trial counsel of the State Bar at the time, Mr. James Towery.

After conducting an interview with Walter Lack, Jerome Falk chose to not file any charges against Lack or Girardi based on his position that any false statements submitted were not "intentional." This determination was contrary to findings made by this Court.

Within days of the issuance of Mr. Falk's decision, I advanced an ethics complaint against James Towery, Jerome Falk, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop, contending that it had been improper for Mr. Towery to select Jerome Falk (of Howard Rice) to serve as special prosecutor because, among other reasons, Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) had appointed Howard Rice's managing partner (Douglas Winthrop) as president of the California Bar Foundation, a foundation owned, controlled, and maintained by the State Bar of California.

(Incidentally, while examining materials in connection with California Bar Foundation board members, including Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice, Holly Fujie of Buchalter Nemer, Annette Carnegie of Morrison & Foerster, and ex-CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown (cousin of governor Jerry Brown, I also unearthed disturbing events relating to a Section 501 entity known as CaliforniaALL involving many of the same individuals and related entities.)

The peculiar nature of the motion to redact the names of respondents' counsel from the published decision of this Court prompted me to look into the matter further. I then discovered that, beginning in 2003, Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack were prosecuting a class action case against Farmers Insurance Company, which was represented by Skadden Arps. This was a nationwide class action with estimated damages of close to $15 billion that had originally been filed by Texas Governor Rick Perry.

I thereafter informed the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Judge William Highberger) of this information, and filed a State Bar ethics complaint against attorneys Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Thomas Nolan and Raoul Kennedy of Skadden Arps because neither the class of plaintiffs (consisting of 14 million Americans), nor the courts (the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi and the Los Angeles County Superior Court in the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers) had been informed of the concurrent representation by which Skadden Arps represented Girardi & Keese (in the Ninth Circuit matter), while at the same time defending Farmers against Girardi and Keese's clients (in the Fogel v. Farmers matter). (This background may help explain why Skadden Arps rushed to defend Thomas Girardi before the Ninth Circuit.)

Shortly after I filed this ethics complaint, Skadden Arps moved ex parte (which, not surprisingly, was unopposed) to amend the settlement agreement in the Fogel matter and the notice to the class of 14 million Americans throughout the country to include a proviso by which members of the class would be prohibited from suing anyone due to the concurrent representation described above. Nevertheless, the State Bar of California decided not to take any action on this ethics complaint.

In the meantime, I also discovered that during the period that Howard Miller, Douglas Winthrop, Holly Fujie of Buchalter Nemer, Annette Carnegie of Morrison & Foerster, and ex-CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown were serving as board members for the California Bar Foundation, a highly unusual financial transaction took place in which approximately $780,000 was quietly transferred, causing the California Bar Foundation to end the year in the red.

Upon further examination, I discovered that the money had been transferred to a newly-created Section 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (headed by a friend of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue -- Ruthe Catolico Ashley) known as CaliforniaALL. In turn, CaliforniaALL funneled a large portion of the money to the UCI Foundation, where State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn served as trustee.

CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, the 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.

Various factors and evidence caused me to suspect that a significant portion of the funds transferred from the California Bar Foundation ended up financing a newly-created online publication which Joe Dunn had launched with the help of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster; this online publication is known as "Voice of OC."

Those factors include, but are not limited to, the fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of CaliforniaALL and the subsequent transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting Joe Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC" to wit – Morrison & Foerster's Susan MacCormac as legal counsel for CaliforniaALL; Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller in his capacity as BOD member of Cal Bar Foundation; and BOG members who voted to endorse CaliforniaALL and consider it to have been a partner of the State Bar of California. Morrison & Foerster's James Brosnahan and Girardi & Keese's Thomas Girardi also assisted Joe Dunn in establishing Voice of OC.

While James Brosnahan and Thomas Girardi served as members of the Voice of OC board of directors, for unknown reasons they subsequently chose to quit.

Based on my concerns, I requested that Voice of OC provide me with copies of its IRS 990 forms. Voice of OC did not comply with applicable IRS regulation in that it failed to reply to my request for copies of its 990 forms submitted to the IRS, whereupon I filed a complaint against Voice of OC and Joe Dunn with the IRS.

Also in connection with CaliforniaALL, I have advanced a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Morrison England since State Bar of California Executive Director Judy Johnson, Judge England, his wife (Torie Flournoy-England), and State Bar of California employee Patricia Lee were all members of CaliforniaALL's board of directors and/or advisory council. The basis for that complaint was these individuals' failure to inform plaintiff Sara Granda -- who had filed an action in federal court naming the State Bar of California as a sole defendant that was heard by Judge Morrison England -- of these facts.

On January 27, 2009 DLA Piper's Gilles Attia and the Office of Assembly-member Mike Davis co-hosted a reception honoring California ALL at the Tsakopoulos Galleria in Sacramento. Bottom (left to right): Ruthe Ashley; Judge Morrison England and Mrs. Torie Flournoy-England; Ruthe Ashley, Gilles Attia, News 10 Presenter Sharon Ito, and Assembly-member Mike Davis. Top right is Karina Hamilton. Mike Davis, an ally of former assembly-member Gwen Moore and Karen Bass, is the vice-chair of the Legislative Black Caucus.

Specifically, without informing plaintiff Granda of his relationship with Judy Johnson (the State Bar's Executive Director) vis-a-vis CaliforniaALL and either obtaining a waiver from this plaintiff or independently recusing himself, Judge England summarily dismissed Ms. Granda's complaint against the California State Bar. Fortunately for Ms. Granda, several days later then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger championed her cause and pressured the California Bar to accommodate her needs.

Unfortunately, the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit rejected my complaint against Judge England claiming, incorrectly, that I did not comply with a requirement to insert wording to the effect that I understand that irrespective of the complaint, the outcome of the underlying case will not be affected. At that point, I chose not to resubmit the complaint against Judge England.

My discovery concerning Jerome Falk (specifically, that Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack were clients of his firm) occurred only a few months ago, and my plan was to approach the Ninth Circuit to request either that the Court reopen the matter of In Re Girardi or that it appoint a special prosecutor to determine what, if any, ethical violations transpired.

However, in a shocking turn of events, I was recently served with a search warrant while at home. Six investigators from the Yolo County District Attorney's office (some of them armed) arrived at my home on February 23, 2012, searched the premises, and confiscated two computers and documents relating to, among others, Joe Dunn, Thomas Girardi, Judy Johnson, Holly Fujie, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, James Towery, and State Bar attorneys Mark Torres Gil, Lawrence Yee, and Rachel Grunberg, as well as material belonging to online publication The Leslie Brodie Report, and communications from the Internal Revenue Service relating to the complaint I had filed against Joe Dunn and Voice of OC.

My understanding is that members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (presumably, State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, and others with their own financial and liberty interest at stake due to my whistleblowing activities) have presented claims to the Yolo County District Attorney's Jeff Reisig and Michael Cabral to file criminal charges against me, for among other things, alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 6043.5, on the purported basis that the ethics complaints I filed were unfounded and constituted criminal conduct.  (See ethics complaint concerning Rachel Grunberg, Mark Torres-Gil, Lawrence Yee in matter of Sara Granda HERE, ethics complaint against Thomas Girardi in the Fogel v. Farmers Group HERE., ethics complaint against James Towery HERE)

Incidentally, I was informed by friendly sources many months ago that if choose to expose corruption concerning Joe Dunn and Thomas Girardi via these complaints, they will try to frame me by various means similar to the ones used against Erin Baldwin. At that time, my reaction was complete skepticism of Erin Baldwin and her story because I could not imagine that such conduct could occur in our country. It appears that I may have been naive.

Consequently, please note the motion to re-open the In Re Girardi matter will be delayed.

Thank you for your time.

As public service to the community, The Leslie Brodie Report publishes a letter from Mr David Peffer to UCAN's Board of Directors, below:

For complaints recently submitted to the Internal Revenue Service against entities with close connection to money obtained from utility companies through the CPUC, please see HERE and HERE.

March 4, 2011
David A. Peffer
Staff Attorney
Utility Consumers Action Network

Neil Lynch [nmlynch@juno.com]
Marc Lampe [mlampe@sandiego.edu]
Elliot Becker [elliot.becker@sbcglobal.net]
Kendall Squires [squires.sherman@cox.net]
Dan Conaway [cdanconaway@yahoo.com]
Ed Valencia [eyvalencia@cox.net]
Larry Gardner [GGardnerBL@aol.com]
Deborah Burger [debeberger@cox.net]

UCAN Boardmembers:

I am contacting the board pursuant to Rule 3-600 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, to inform the board of unlawful conduct by UCAN's executive director, Michael Shames.

I believe that this conduct represents an existential threat to UCAN, and I urge the board to address it with all possible swiftness.

This conduct is detailed and documented as follows.

1. Unlawful Bonuses

Executive director Michael Shames benefits from an unlawful bonus scheme under which he receives a 10% share of all intervenor compensation awards. The attached receipts show that between August 2008 and June 2009 Shames was awarded at least $116,678 in bonuses. (Attachment 1).

For the May 2009 (SDG&E AMI) and June 2009 (SBC) bonuses, I've attached copies of the Public Utilities Commission decisions granting the intervenor compensation awards.

These decisions demonstrate that Shames' bonuses are based on the entire intervenor compensation awards, not merely the fraction of the award directly attributable to his billable hours. (Attachment 2)

Colleagues have informed me that this bonus arrangement has been in place for at least a decade. These bonuses are not listed in any of UCAN's publically available IRS filings. (Attachment 3).

This bonus scheme violates Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3), which provides that no part of a tax exempt organization's net earnings may inure (be distributed) to the benefit of any private shareholder

Rule 3-600 provides that an attorney working for an organization may, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, refer unlawful or harmful conduct to the organization's highest authority (in this case, UCAN's board).

For reference I have attached UCAN's 2008-2009 IRS-990. UCAN's 990s for 2000-2009 can be retrieved by using the California Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts' website's registry search feature, available at http://ag.ca.gov/charities/

In audits, the IRS typically takes the position that any sharing of net profits between an insider and a charity is per se private increment.” (Advising California Nonprofit Corporations (3d ed Cal CEB 2009) § 3.15, Prohibition on Inurement).

Shames' bonuses constitute an even more egregious violation of the inurement prohibition than a traditional distribution of net profits, as Shames takes a 10% share of gross revenue (i.e. before expenses), rather than a cut of net profit (what's left over after expenses have been accounted for).

I also feel that it is my duty to advise you that each member of the board may be exposed to personal liability due to these unlawful bonuses. I strongly suggest that the board consult outside council on this matter.

Aside from the potential legal consequences, I believe that this bonus scheme has severe public relations and ethical implications. UCAN is an organization that thrives, in large part, due to its public reputation for honesty and advocacy. UCAN is seen as a watchdog – an organization that protects consumers from corrupt and abusive utilities. If the public were to find out that an organization occupying such a place of trust had been awarding its Executive Director hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlawful bonuses, UCAN's image and legitimacy would be effectively destroyed.

At a minimum, I believe that the board must end this unlawful bonus scheme, report all bonuses that have been awarded under this scheme to the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and California Attorney General, and cooperate fully in any resulting investigations.

2. Unlicensed Practice of Law

Michael Shames is registered with the State Bar of California as inactive, and has been since 1988. Despite this, Shames regularly holds himself out to be an attorney and engages in the practice of law. Attached is one of many examples of Shames publically holding himself out as an attorney. (Attachment 4).

Shames has also engaged in the practice of law by requesting attorney's fees from the California Public Utilities Commission. (Attachment 5a, 5b). In at least one instance Shames has represented UCAN as an attorney before the California Court of Appeals, Second District by filing an Amicus Brief (Attachment 6).

Under California Business and Professions Code § 6126(a): "Any person advertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (Emphasis added).

Under Rule 3-600 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney "shall not aid any person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law.” By allowing Shames, an employee, to practice law without a license, the attorneys on UCAN's board may fall within the scope of this rule.

I advise the board to take all steps necessary to prevent Shames from any further unlicensed practice of law. I also advise all attorney board members to seek independent counsel specializing in ethics issues.

3. Failure to Audit as Required by Law

UCAN is currently in violation of the Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004 (Gov. Code § 12586(e)(1)), which requires that nonprofits with over two million dollars in gross revenue subject their finances to a thorough and independent audit.

The most recent review of UCAN's finances (Attachment 7) was limited to a "review” which "consists principally of inquiries of the organization's personnel and analytical procedures applied to financial data.”

This review "is substantially less in scope than an audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States.” (Attachment 7).

Rather than being conducted by an independent auditor as required by the Nonprofit Integrity Act, UCAN's review was conducted by Gregory Villard, UCAN's usual accountant.

In order to avoid possible penalties for violation of the Nonprofit Integrity Act and insulate itself from personal liability, the board should immediately have UCAN's finances audited by an independent auditor.

The auditor should be selected and overseen solely by UCAN's board.

4. Suspicious Bank Accounts

Shames currently has at least four investment accounts under the name "Utility Comsumers Action Network” (spelled with an "m” rather than an "n”) rather than "Utility Consumers Action Network.” (Attachment 8). The accounts are with the American Stock Transfer and Trust Company, Ironstone Bank, BNY Mellon, and Morgan Stanley. All share the same address with UCAN.

The Board of a California nonprofit has a fiduciary duty of "reasonable inquiry” when circumstances indicate that further inquiry is needed. (Corp. Code § 5231; see also Advising California Nonprofit Corporations (3d ed Cal CEB 2009) § 9.110, Director's Duty of Inquiry; Right to Rely on Advice of Others).

In order to satisfy its duty of inquiry, I advise the Board to procure complete transactional records directly from each bank, have the records analyzed by an independent auditor, and, if appropriate, notify the IRS and Franchise Tax Board of the results.

5. Conclusion

I would be more than willing to consult with the board to answer any questions raised by this letter. I urge you seriously consider the information and legal advice provided in this letter and take all steps necessary to remedy the unlawful activity described herein.

Sincerely,
/s/
David A. Peffer, Esq.

Below are communications from Jerome Falk to Yoloan, and from Yoloan to Jerome Falk.

From Jerome Falk to Yoloan (originally published on December 08, 2011):

I received your November 13 email concerning my participation in the State Bar's investigation of Walter J. Lack, Thomas V. Girardi and other attorneys. It is filled with disparaging characterizations, all of which seem to stem from your allegations that I or my firm have represented Mr. Lack and Mr. Girardi.

Your allegations are false.

I have never represented either person, or their firms. Neither has Douglas Winthrop. Nor has my firm ever represented Mr. Lack or Mr. Girardi.

From 2006-2008, my firm represented several law firms, including Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Girardi & Keese, in a litigation matter. The public records of that litigation show that neither Mr. Winthrop nor I had nothing to do with that representation; in fact, I was unaware of it. The public records also show that my firm represented the law firms, but did not represent Mr. Girardi or Mr. Lack. The attorney responsible for that representation had left Howard Rice and taken the files with him before I was asked to serve as Special Deputy Trial Counsel in the State Bar matter.

You are on notice that your allegations are false. The falsity of those allegations can be determined from the public records of the litigation in question.

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from Jerome Falk to Walter Lack, Below:

From Yoloan to Jerome Falk (originally published on December 13, 2011):

Dear Mr. Falk:

Thank you for replying to my letter of November 13th, 2011 This will serve as a reply.

In your letter dated December 7, 2011, you attempt again to defraud and mislead in your attempt to avoid responsibility for your repugnant and deceitful actions taken in connection with your actions as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm's clients -- Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack (and by operation of law, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), as part of a scheme to exploit your authority for financial gain.

By analogy, rather than acknowledging that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you seek to bamboozle the unwary by stating that it wasn't actually your hand in the cookie jar but, rather, only your fingers, and in any event it wasn't a jar but, rather, a plastic container which you contend doesn't qualify as a jar. Therefore, you devote an entire paragraph proclaiming, "Your allegations are false." You conclude by placing me on "notice" that my allegations are "false."

The contents of your communication are unethical in the extreme, as well as entirely frivolous factually, legally, and by operation of law, to wit:

You claim, "In fact, I wasn't aware of it" (referring to the fact that you and your firm had represented Girardi & Keese and ELL). While you acknowledge your firm (Howard Rice) did represent Girardi & Keese and ELL from 2006 to 2008 , you assert that you were not aware of this representation. Simply put, your assertion is false; it is simply implausible that for two entire years you were unaware that your firm represented such celebrity/famous/notorious attorneys such as Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, and Pierce O'Donnell.

This is particularly true since you are a member of Howard Rice's "attorney liability" group, which consists of between 7-9 attorneys (including your colleagues Sean SeLegue, Pamela Phillips, and Steve Mayer), and the subject matter of the litigation was a suit advanced against Girardi & Keese, ELL, and O'Donnell for legal malpractice in connection with alleged attorney misconduct in the litigation involving El Paso Natural Gas/Sempra Energy, a series of cases which received significant publicity.

I am also hard-pressed to believe that you were unaware of the estimated $250,000 retainer Girardi & Keese and ELL paid to your firm (money which paid your and your colleagues' salaries), and that no one ever discussed this matter with you for purposes of addressing legal strategy or legal issues in person or during meetings.

Most importantly, in your letter to Robert Baker you acknowledge that you had interviewed Walter Lack. Again, you ask me to believe that Walter Lack did not mention the fact that Howard Rice represented him and his firm only one year prior to your meeting.

The fact that Walter Lack did not speak up during the interview with you is just too convenient, and is further circumstantial evidence that you and he both knew of the prior representation, and chose to nevertheless further continue with the conspiracy to obstruct justice for financial gain, to the detriment of the public and the proper administration of justice.

Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, an appellate specialist with a mercurial personality. 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.” After visiting Vietnam, Mr. Falk joined East meets West, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of children in Vietnam. (Photo:courtesy of Vietnam, East meets West)

Your claim that Ethan Schulman took the file with him when he left Howard Rice is also suspect, as I am confident that records of transactions were and remain on Howard Rice's computer system, including the computerized conflict check system.

Moreover, the fact that Mr. Schulman has left the firm is immaterial. Courts have held that even where the attorneys in a firm who had been primarily responsible for the representation of a client had left the law firm, there was a rebuttable presumption that they had shared client confidences with lawyers remaining with the law firm. See generally Elan Transdermal Ltd. v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems (N.D. Cal. 1992) 809 F.Supp. 1383.

Similarly, your alleged present recollection is immaterial. See generally Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 70, 79), particularly given the rule that creates a presumption that lawyers in the same firm will confer on their cases and exchange confidences.

Even if I were to accept that you and your firm did not represent Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and only represented the firms of Girardi & Keese and ELL (which I do not), your absurd argument still fails.

The findings of grave misconduct by the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi, as well as the sanctions imposed, were directed not just at Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi , but also at their law firms -- your and your firm's clients, Girardi & Keese and ELL. In fact, both Girardi & Keese and ELL were considered to have been "respondents" and were represented by counsel Robert Baker, Diane Karpman, and your MGA and Gennetech confederate -- Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps.

Since you concede that Girardi & Keese and ELL were clients of your firm, and the Ninth Circuit made findings against Girardi & Keese and ELL, it was improper for you to accept the appointment at issue. This is especially true given fiduciary duties you owe Girardi & Keese and ELL -- including the duties of loyalty and confidentiality -- as well as the requirement that you obtain a waiver from a client in instances in which you may take a position adverse to them.

This last prong is a bit unusual when applied to the present facts, as it differs from the usual scenario wherein an attorney has a financial incentive to be adverse to a former client. Here, and as the facts clearly provide, you had a financial incentive to not prosecute, as well as an additional incentive to not prosecute since such would have exposed you to professional discipline.

Lastly, even though plaintiff Robert Copple only named the firms and not the partners as defendants, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack are still considered to have been your and Howard Rice's clients by operation of law. For example If anyone would ask Howard Rice to disclose communications with Girardi & Keese regarding the suit and the representation, Howard Rice would certainly assert the attorney-client privilege.

Likewise, if Howard Rice were asked to disclose communications between itself and Thomas Girardi relating to the litigation, Howard Rice would, again, assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to Thomas Girardi; similarly, both Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi would do the same. As such, it is disingenuous for you to attempt to argue that these individuals were not clients of you and your firm.

Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Communication as was sent to DLA Piper in December 2011, below:

Mr. Brenbrook:

In reference to the above case, and in connection with the decision to utilize Mr. James Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe as an expert witness to offer an opinion as to the reasonable value of past legal services rendered by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to Mr. Siller and CWS, please be advised that Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Mr. Wagstaffe currently represent a common defendant in litigation pending in San Mateo County Superior Court.

Without exploring any legal intricacies, common sense dictates that Mr. Wagstaffe may be disinclined to offer unfavorable testimony to the effect that Cotchett inflated its billable hours (not that I suggest that it did), or that the quality of the firm's work was sub par (not that I suggest that it was) since any such testimony by Mr. Wagstaffe could, in essence, cast doubt on the value of services being offered mutually by him and the Cotchett firm in the San Mateo litigation. As such, I urge you to address with the Court, your client, and opposing counsel the ethical and practical implications of such an arrangement.

Mr Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe.  In the above, Mr Wagstaffe offers his students legal counsel on how to avoid a traffic ticket. Wagstaffe urged the students to deceive law enforcement personnel.  He stated: "Do what I do, put a CHP magazine in your car, so they think you are one of them."

Additionally, in that you are a partner at the Sacramento Office of DLA Piper, I am extremely uncomfortable with such an arrangement given my research into the alarming circumstances involving the now-defunct charity CaliforniaALL, which was housed at your offices pursuant to an arrangement by DLA managing partner Gilles Attia.

My ongoing research into CaliforniaALL, which recently also resulted in a complaint filed with the IRS against Voice of OC, indicates the existence of a unsettling relationship between Joe Cotchett, James Brosnahan, Pierce O'Donnell, Geoffrey Brown, Senator Joe Dunn (Ret.) of Voice of OC, and his confederate, Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

Moreover, events surrounding DLA Piper, its former client DeMeter Energy, and a botched malpractice suit by Girardi & Keese against DLA Piper on behalf of DeMeter Energy, caused me to entertain thoughts that Girardi & Keese may have intentionally let the statute of limitations expire so as to sabotage the suit against DLA Piper.

As such, and based on the above, I am also entertaining thoughts that DLA Piper may have intentionally selected Mr. Wagstaffe to testify in the bankruptcy matter of Siller/CWA to further draw him into the circle, and to offer favorable testimony on behalf of Cotchett Pitre & Mcarthy and against the interests of Siller/CWA. Granted this may sound far-fetched; however, given my familiarity with past events and the parties' modus operandi, I still consider it a possibility.

Note that I am on friendly terms with Mr. Wagstaffe and, despite our involvement in highly contentious litigation which settled after Mr. Wagstaffe's client took the case on appeal, I am concerned that he may be pressured, either externally or due to financial consideration, to offer testimony which is inconsistent with the truth.

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter

The latest article published on The Leslie Brodie Report  which exposed potential misconduct on the part of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy in concert with Kerr & Wagstaffe in the Charles Siller litigation was originally published on 26/12/2011, and is being rebublished below:

"In Part 1, we discussed the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings involving CWS and owner Charles Siller ("Siller"), former clients of Burlingame-based Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy ("Cotchett").

After Siller unsuccessfully sought to renegotiate the amount of fees owed to Cotchett, Cotchett commenced legal proceedings against Siller and obtained a judgment. Siller, defiant, filed for bankruptcy. Cotchett, also defiant, continues to pursue Siller in bankruptcy court.

Presently, Siller is asking the bankruptcy court – through a trustee represented by DLA Piper in Sacramento – to essentially renegotiate the fees by examining the "reasonable value" of the benefits obtained from Cotchett. Presumably, the parties are operating under the assumption that the determined reasonable value will not exceed the original amount.

As an aside, DLA Piper's Sacramento offices housed non-profit CaliforniaALL, the entity that obtained the sub rosa $780,000 contribution from the California Bar Foundation.

In yet another strange twist, Jim Wagstaffe of Kerr Wagstaffe – Cotchett's co-counsel in an ongoing separate matter in San Mateo – has been selected to offer expert testimony as to the reasonable value of Cotchett's services to Siller.

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Stiffed Cotchett

Parties seeking representation by Cotchett, particularly in a contingency fee arrangement, had better stick to their word and their side of the agreement, and otherwise conduct themselves honorably. Shenanigans are not tolerated.

Mr Joseph Cotchett of Burlingame-based Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (Image:courtesy photo)

At least based on our observation, Cotchett is not a corporate firm that will pretend to crunch the numbers and offer discounts or send an unpaid bill to a collection agency that might offer a client a "deal", say 30 cents on the dollar.

The way the firm sees things, the client came to it in a time of need, the firm took a risk, the firm worked hard to earn the fees and invested its own money to pay for expenses, and ultimately it delivered; so, please, do not try to disrespect the firm by not paying it what it is entitled to.

A client engaging in waggery, or otherwise trying to pull a fast one on Cotchett, is perceived as committing an act of betrayal, which is highly and deeply offensive to Cotchett's sense of fairness, justice, and what is right and wrong in the universe.

Hence, the same efficient and fearless legal machinery that initially worked on behalf of the errant client is now ready to take that client on – and justifiably so we might add.

That having been said, we have also observed that Cotchett, at times, enters into convoluted agreements with its clients regarding the payment of attorney's fees, which usually involve business transactions post-settlement, and otherwise prolong the attorney-client relationships as they move into adversarial business relationships.

This new arrangement between a toxic client and the orderly Cotchett provides both, for a short while longer, the needed platform to co-dependently remain in a relationship for Cotchett to right another wrong until a court writes it off."

Story 1, originally published on 2/12/2011 :

In addition, a red flag continue to fly over Sheldon Sloan, Ronald George, Laura Chick, and Robert Chick -- CEO of a Burbank-based legal malpractice insurance carrier known as Lawyer's Mutual Insurance Company.

MGA Team -- Counsels Who Represented Defendant MGA ("Bratz Dolls".) From Left: Skadden Arps' Raoul Kennedy and Thomas Nolan ; Howard Rice's Jerome Falk And Douglas Winthrop; Keker & Van Nest's John Keker and Former MGA'S In-House Counsel and Present Partner with Lewis Brisbois, Mr. Craig Holden.

These sources maintain that the inquiry involves personnel at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, the State Bar of California, as well as a close examination of the relationship between Laura Chick and Edith Matthai of Robie & Matthai.

A source maintains that one aspect of the inquiry involves 3 sub-parts concerning the alleged:

1) Circumstances surrounding events relating to the State Bar of California/California Supreme Court and its enmeshment with Lawyer's Mutual Insurance Company vis-à-vis Laura Chick, Sheldon Sloan, Ronald George, and operative Beth Jay.

2) circumstances surrounding the removal of Craig Holden from MGA (a client of Girardi & Keese) to Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, as well as the subsequent positioning of Holden as member of the BOG, and thanks to an endorsement by the Breakfast Club -- A Los Angeles-based entity which the recruiting of candidates for the State Bar of California Board of Governors is its primary function.

3) Circumstances surrounding actions taken (or, most likely, lack thereof) by the State Bar of California against clients of the Lawyer's Mutual Insurance Company, as well as circumstances surrounding actions taken by the OCTC/State Bar Court/California Supreme Court in "fixing" cases against errant clients of Lawyer's Mutual (at times via State Bar Court "Default Judgement"), as to allow Lawyer's Mutual an opportunity to potentially argue the misconduct was "intentional", and hence to reject coverage.

Here, particular attention is given to the examining transactions surrounding Sheldon Sloan, Ronald George, Judith Epstein, Ronald Stovitz, and former-crack-addict Mike Nisperos.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story 2, originally published on 20/12/2011

.

.

.
MORRISON & FOERSTER TEAM --- ALSO Diane E. Pritchard

ADDENDUM -- Diane E. Pritchard

.

.

.

MGA TEAM -- COUNSELS WHO REPRESENTED DEFENDANT MGA ("BRATZ DOLLS".) FROM LEFT: SKADDEN ARPS' RAOUL KENNEDY AND THOMAS NOLAN ; HOWARD RICE'S JEROME FALK AND DOUGLAS WINTHROP; KEKER & VAN NEST'S JOHN KEKER AND MGA'S IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. CRAIG HOLDEN.

.

JEROME FALK OF HOWARD RICE: "The public records of that litigation show that neither Mr. Winthrop nor I had nothing to do with that representation; in fact, I was unaware of it." SEE HERE

Originally published 12/02/2012

Please see original story @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/12/05/in-re-toyota-motor-corp-unintended-acceleration-of-interest-are-thomas-girardi-of-in-re-girardi-eric-george-son-of-ronald-george-gilmur-murray-of-12320033/

For additional stories (including updates) about Kreindler & Kreindler, please see:

http://bit.ly/yqv5BV

Originally published on 15/10/2011

Controversial former California assemblywoman Gwen Moore has been named a defendant in an action recently filed in federal court, TLR has learned.

Also named as defendants, amongst many, are Douglas Winthrop, managing partner of embattled Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin; former Sacramento lobbyist Jeannine English; State Bar of California Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley; and Judy Johnson, president of the California Consumer Protection Foundation ("CCPF").

From left, Gwen Moore of GeM Communication (who, according to confidential sources, was known in Sacramento as a "Shakedown Artist"), Howard Rice's Douglas Winthrop, and CCPF's Judy Johnson.

Moore, not a stranger to The Leslie Brodie Report, was "the author of special-interest bills to benefit phony companies set up by the FBI in the sting. They passed but were vetoed. Moore received $10,500 in campaign contributions from the businessmen, including $3,500 funneled through a lobbying firm and a $5,000 contribution, which she promptly returned," according to the Los Angeles Times.

The sting operation in question was conducted by the FBI's Bribery and Special Interest unit, which was investigating corruption in the California State Legislature. The operation was also known as "Shrimpscam” because FBI agents posed as representatives of a West Sacramento-based shrimp processing company who gave campaign contributions to lawmakers in exchange for favorable legislation. A couple of the bills were actually passed by both the Assembly and Senate, but were ultimately vetoed by the Governor, who was tipped off in advance. (Source: Wikipedia.)

The operation sent Board of Equalization member Paul Carpenter to prison. Three other members of the state legislature also spent time in jail: Pat Nolan, minority leader at the time of the raid; State Senator Joseph Montoya; and Assembly Member Frank Hill. (Source: Wikipedia.)

According to media reports, the "scandal has shaken the political world in Sacramento and ignited new criticism of the way California's "third house" - lobbyists - routinely doles out millions to open-handed legislators. The FBI scheme came to light after 30 FBI agents, armed with seven search warrants and accompanied by David Levi, the U.S. attorney for eastern California, descended on the Capitol. The agents went through the offices of four Southern California lawmakers: Assemblyman Patrick Nolan of Glendale, the leader of the house's Republicans; Assemblyman Frank Hill, a Republican from Whittier and a former aide to former U.S. Sen. S.I. Hayakawa; Assemblywoman Gwen Moore, a Los Angeles Democrat who was the sponsor of the FBI's bogus legislation, and state Sen. Joseph Montoya, an El Monte Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Business and Professions Committee."

In a nine-count indictment, a federal grand jury charged Tyrone Netters, Moore's former aide, with extortion, conspiracy, racketeering, money laundering and income tax evasion. Netters was later convicted of one count of violating RICO, three counts of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, four counts of money laundering, and one count of subscribing to a false tax return.

More specifically, the conviction included charges of conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c); (2) conspiracy to affect commerce by extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1951; (3) extortion under color of official right and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1951 and 2; and (4) extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1951.

TLR is closely monitoring the situation and will keep readers apprised of any developments in this civil action, entitled Baldwin v. State Bar of California.

Originally Published on 29/06/2011

Mr. Elliot Peters of Keker & Van Nest who represented Howard Dickstein in a suit containing 14 causes of action such as Fraud, Constructive Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion ,Civil Conspiracy, and Negligence. (Photo:courtesy amlawdaily)

Toward the end of 2007, Plaintiffs Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians (now known as the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation) -- represented by Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy -- filed a suit in Yolo County Superior Court against Howard Dickstein and Jane Zerbi of Dickstein & Zerbi and Arlen Opper, a financial consultant, accusing them of unjustly enriching themselves with tribal money by defrauding the tribe of millions of dollars over more than a decade.

Howard Dickstein, the spouse of State Bar of California Board of Governors member Jeannine English. allegedly engaged in "a course of dealing that involved breaches of trust and violations of duties of the most basic, and, indeed, sacred kind."

The complaint, Rumsey vs. Dickstein, alleged 14 causes of action, to wit:

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT
(2) BREACH OF CONTRACT
(3) NEGLIGENCE
(4) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(5) AIDING AND ABETTING AND PARTICIPATING IN BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(6) FRAUD/CONCEALMENT
(7) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
(8) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(9) CONVERSION
(10) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200
(11) UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(12) DECLARATORY RELIEF
(13) NEGLIGENCE
(14) CIVIL CONSPIRACY

In statements to the media, Howard Dickstein referred to the allegations as a "pack of lies," while disparaging his client. Dickstein also stated that he plans to fight the suit and "fight hard."

Appearing on behalf of defendant Dickstein was Elliot Peters of Keker & Van Nest.

Defendants claimed that only a U.S. District Court has jurisdiction over the matter, and removed the case to federal court.

Plaintiff remanded back to state court. Defendants filed for a change of venue and moved the action from Yolo to the Superior Court in the county of Sacramento.

On its website, http://www.kvn.com/Lawyers/Peters-Elliot , Keker & Van Nest and Elliot Peters describe the above mentioned suit:

Paraphrasing the answer as a question.

1) Do you believe Keker & Van Nest and Elliot Peters, who represented Howard Dickstein in a suit which alleged 14 causes of action which was transferred to Sacramento Superior Court, refer, truthfully, to the case of Rumsey vs. Dickstein by stating "The plaintiffs alleged our client, the plaintiff's former attorneys, were negligent"?

Originally published on 05/04/2011

TLR has learned an ethics complaint alleging multiple acts of misconduct has been filed with the State Bar of California against attorneys from the firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Girardi & Keese.

Knowledgeable sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain the complaint alleges that ethical breaches took place as a result of Skadden Arps' representation of Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi because, at the same time, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps were on opposing sides in the case of Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc.

According to the sources, the parties named in the complaint are Raoul Kennedy, Thomas Nolan, and Richard Zurmoski of Skadden Arps as well as Graham LippSmith and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese.

The complaint alleges that in August 2003, Walter Lack (of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack) and Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith (of Girardi & Keese) filed a class action suit on behalf of plaintiffs Benjamin Fogel against Farmers Group, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit -- which is still pending and is anticipated to settle in September 2011 -- was defended by attorneys from Skadden Arps (Raoul Kennedy and Richard Zurmoski).

Despite their respective roles as plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel in Fogel v. Farmers, Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps entered into an 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.

On July 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an order suspending Walter Lack for a period of six months and reprimanding Girardi; the order also imposed almost $500,000 in monetary sanctions against the two attorneys.

On July 14 2010, in an attempt to conceal their attorney-client relationship, Skadden Arps and Thomas Nolan filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit asking for their names to be redacted from the published opinion.

According to sources, including TLR's legal correspondent -- known as State Bar Insider ("SBI") -- the arrangement described above is disfavored and unethical; moreover, for such a reltionship to be authorized, Thomas Girardi was required to notify each member of the class he represents about his status as a client of Skadden Arps, and seek a waiver and obtain approval from his clients.

According to SBI, "on its face and based of my reading of "Freivogel on Conflicts," it appears that Tom Girardi violated his duty of loyalty and zealousness as well as the duty of candor to his clients -- the class that he allegedly represents."

Moreover, according to sources, Skadden Arps has also violated multiple ethical rules and statutes by agreeing to undertake the representation of Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi.

A separate source stated: "Assume for the sake of argument that Skadden Arps feels a motion for sanction is warranted against Mr. Girardi in Fogel v. Farmers. Taking such action would require Skadden to be directly adverse to its client (Thomas Girardi) in the matter of In Re Girardi."

Moreover, according to SBI, he never heard of a practice by which counsel is asking a court to redact her or his name from a published opinion. "They obviously were attempting to conceal the relationship, and now I am fairly certain as to why it was done," SBI concluded.

Knowledgeable sources maintain that the ethics complaint seeks the removal of Thomas Girardi's name from the roll of members of the State Bar of California, and asks that multiple years of actual suspension be imposed on Graham LippSmith, Raoul Kennedy, Thomas Nolan, and Richard Zurmoski.

Originally published 23/11/2011

As public service to the community, The Leslie Brodie Report publishes* a complaint filed with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") against Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency DBA Voice of OC, below:

Internal Revenue Service
Exempt Organizations Unit
1100 Commerce St.
Dallas, TX 75242-1198

Re: A referral for noncompliance with tax laws against exempt organization "Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency" (dba "Voice of OC"):

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:

In lieu of using IRS Form 13909 (Tax-Exempt Organization Referral Form), please consider this communication a formal complaint (referral) against an Orange County, California not-for-profit entity known as "Orange County Nonprofit Investigative News Agency," which operates an online publication under the name "Voice of OC" (located at www.voiceofoc.org).

On September 1, 2011, Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency and Voice of OC (collectively, "Voice of OC") were duly served with a request for production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A, and Form 1023. (See Exhibit 1.) To date, this request to produce Voice of OC's tax returns has been ignored, despite the clear mandate by the Internal Revenue Service to fully comply with such requests within 30 days. As such, reluctantly, the undersigned makes this referral.

INTRODUCTION OF ACTORS:

1. Mr. Joe Dunn in his role as the creator of online publication "Voice of OC" – Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency.

2. Mr. Joe Dunn in his role as Trustee of the UCI Foundation (an entity which obtained funds from a separate charitable entity known as CaliforniaALL (FEIN Number 51-0656213).

3. Mr. Joe Dunn in his role as Executive Director of the State Bar of California – an entity which also controls and maintains a foundation known as the California Bar Foundation. The California Bar Foundation very quietly transferred close to $780,000 to CaliforniaALL.

4. Mr. Joe Dunn in his role as a politician and business partner of Martha Escutia, who was involved in matters relating to utility companies operating in California.

5. Ms. Gwen Moore – a former Assembly member in the California legislature. Ms. Moore has "clout" over the CPUC and utility companies. Ms. Moore presently serves as a member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors; she has previously been the subject of an FBI sting operation.

6. Mr. Geoffrey Brown – a former commissioner with the CPUC and former board member of the California Bar Foundation. During his tenure as a board member of the California Bar Foundation, a hush-hush transfer of $780,000 was made to CaliforniaALL. Subsequent to this transfer, Mr. Brown abruptly quit his position as board member.

7. Mr. Thomas Girardi of Los Angeles-based law firm Girardi & Keese. Mr. Girardi helped Joe Dunn to establish the Voice of OC, and was a member of its board of directors. Recently, he abruptly quit that position. Mr. Girardi is a well-known donor to the Democratic Party and, in particular, to California Senator Barbara Boxer.

8. Mr. Howard Miller of Los Angeles-based law firm Girardi & Keese. Mr. Miller was a member of both the State Bar of California Board of Governors and the California Bar Foundation board of directors when the "hush-hush" transfer of $780,000 from California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL took place.

9. Mr. James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster – Mr. Brosnahan represents utility companies. He – along with Thomas Girardi – helped Mr. Joe Dunn create the Voice of OC, the subject of this complaint. Like Mr. Girardi, Mr. Brosnahan also served as member of Voice of OC's board of directors, and recently also abruptly quit his position.

10. Ms. Susan Mac Cormac of Morrison & Foerster – Ms. Mac Cormac was part of the legal team that created the legal entity known as CaliforniaALL.

11. Mr. Victor Miramontes – a resident of San Antonio, TX and business partner of former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. Mr. Miramontes was the chairman of CaliforniaALL.

12. Ms. Ruthe Catolico Ashley – a former employee of McGeorge School of Law who later served as a "Diversity Officer" at CalPERS. Ms. Ashley also served as member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors, and came up with the idea to create CaliforniaALL during a meeting with Sarah Redfield and Peter Arth, Jr. (the assistant to CPUC President Michael Peevey). After CaliforniaALL came into existence, Ms. Ashley, after a simulated search, was selected to serve as CaliforniaALL's executive director.

13. Ms. Sarah Redfield – a visiting professor at McGeorge School of Law and a member of the State Bar of California Committee. Ms. Redfield was chosen to serve as the "interim executive director" for CaliforniaALL, and later also allegedly served as a consultant to CaliforniaALL. For her services, Ms. Redfield was paid for the year of 2008 close to $160,000 as an "independent contractor." Even though CaliforniaALL was housed pro bono at the law offices of DLA Piper in Sacramento, there is an entry on CaliforniaALL's tax return for close to $16,000 for "occupancy."

14. Ms. Judy Johnson – the former Executive Director of the State Bar of California. For the past 8 years, she has been secretly serving as the president of an entity with a misleading name ("California Consumer Protection Foundation"). This entity absorbed close to $30 million in class action cy pres awards, as well as fines and settlements imposed by the CPUC on utility companies. This entity forwarded those funds to mostly questionable ACORN-like entities. On its website, CCPF claims that it has available information on all grantees going back 10 years. Not so. The information is scattered and extremely difficult to ascertain. In fact, a whole year is missing (2002). During that year, incidentally, CCPF awarded funds to the real ACORN as well as to Eric Moore of Educate LA, who is presumably related to Gwen Moore. Ms. Johnson used her position as executive director of the State Bar of California (which is supposed to supervise and discipline lawyers) as "clout" to obtain cy pres awards from the settlement of class actions prosecuted and defended by countless law firms.

15. Mr. Jeffrey Bleich of Munger Tolles & Olson – presently the U.S. ambassador to Australia and a close friend of President Barack Obama. Mr. Bleich served as member of the BOG when CaliforniaALL was conceived. He is mentioned only in reference because Verizon Communications (which heavily contributed to CaliforniaALL) is a client of Munger Tules & Olson.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

In approximately 2007, Ruthe Catolico Ashley -- an attorney from Sacramento and a member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors -- was employed by CalPERS as a "Diversity Officer." Prior to her employment with CalPERS, Ms. Ashley was employed as a diversity officer at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. While at McGeorge, Ms. Ashley met diversity expert Sarah Redfield.

In April 2007, Ashley, along with Sarah Redfield, met Peter Arth at a restaurant in San Francisco. During that meeting the idea to create CaliforniaALL was conceived. Eventually, CalPERS, CPUC, and the State Bar of California endorsed in principle the creation of CaliforniaALL – a Section 501(c)(3) entity that would raise funds to be used to support a more diverse workforce in California.

Papers were filed with both state and federal agencies to allow CaliforniaALL to operate as a tax exempt entity. Victor Miramontes listed himself as Chairman of the Board, and Sarah E. Redfield served as CaliforniaAll's interim-executive director for a period of 6 months. Serving as CaliforniaALL's legal counsel was Susan Mac Cormac of Morrison & Foerster.

California Attorney General RCT reflects that CaliforniaALL obtained its "Charity” status on March 14, 2008 (FEIN Number 510656213). The address for CaliforniaALL is listed as 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400, Sacramento, California. This is actually the address of DLA Piper, where CaliforniaALL resided pro bono.
In June 2008, after a "nationwide search" and aided by a pro bono head-hunting firm in its search for a permanent CEO, CaliforniaALL, not surprisingly, hired Ruthe Catolico Ashley as its chief executive officer.

Also not surprisingly, Ruthe Catolico Ashley abruptly exited CaliforniaALL in September 2009 – the same month Joe Dunn launched his non-profit online publication "Voice of OC."

CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June 2010.

CaliforniaALL's 990 returns for 2008 list Sarah Redfield of Orono, Maine as an "independent contractor." Her job description is listed as "Program Director." and she was paid $157,763. It is unknown to the undersigned whether Redfield paid self-employment taxes or any other applicable state income taxes, either in California or Maine. (Incidentally, Redfield falsely states on her resume that she was part of a "curriculum committee" with SAL-UCI, an entity associated with UCI and the UCI Foundation where CaliforniaALL forwarded funds. In addition, Redfield falsely stated that she "launched" SAL-UCI, an entity that was already in existence from 2005.)

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 "hush-hush" contribution of $769,247 from the State Bar of California Foundation.

To date, data collected by the undersigned shows that CaliforniaALL (which was supposed to forward most of those funds) transferred between $300,000 to $400,000 to the UCI Foundation (where Joe Dunn serves as trustee), spent an unknown amount to honor Gwen Moore at a lavish dinner held at a luxury hotel in Sacramento, paid for other incidental expenses such as salaries, and subsequent to moving out from the offices of DLA Piper to a more modest location , paid for a UPS Store mail box slot in Citrus Heights. (Later, CaliforniaALL relocated its base to the loft of one Larrisa Parecki in Sacramento.)

Between 2001 and 2007, Geoffrey Brown served as a Commissioner with the CPUC. From 2006 to 2009, Brown served as a director of the State Bar of California Foundation. In 2008, California Bar Foundation quietly transferred $769,247.00 to CaliforniaALL. CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the $769,247.00 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.

Several months ago, the undersigned asked the State Bar of California Board of Governors to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL (i.e. the hush hush transfer, etc.). While simply presenting facts similar to the above, Geoffrey Brown immediately, as though bitten by a snake, threatened to file legal action against the undersigned even though the communication with the BOG was absolutely privileged and justified, and only made mention of Brown in passing.

The undersigned has met Brown casually once or twice, and was highly impressed with his modest and genteel nature. A group conversation transpired and Brown immediately, without even being asked, volunteered to help and assist. This however, can and will not serve to bar the mentioning of his name as part of the overall description of events (such as in this communication). Such tactics would be unfair to the other individuals and the proper administration of justice. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the undersigned possesses not even a scintilla of evidence that demonstrating that Brown somehow pocketed any money unlawfully or engaged in any other unlawful activities, other than the convenient circumstances described above.

Due to unsettling circumstances involving the State Bar of California (such as the highly secretive control of CCPF by Judy Johnson, the refusal of the State Bar of California to disclose amounts it transfers to Bet Tzedek, a Los Angeles-based entity, the amounts it obtains from "voluntary contributions," and, in particular, circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL, Joe Dunn, and the Voice of OC), the undersigned asked Voice of OC to produce its tax returns for the past 3 years.

Specifically, the following circumstances surrounding Voice of OC have caused concerns:

1. Senator Martha Escutia, Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications (EU&C) also participated in meetings with the CPUC concerning diversity. She is a founding member of The Senators (Ret.) firm, LLP, as is Joe Dunn.

2. The fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of CaliforniaALL and the subsequent transfer of $769,247.00 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL, were also involved in assisting Joe Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC" to wit – on one hand Morrison & Foerster's Susan Mac Cormac as legal counsel for CaliforniaALL; Girardi & Keese's Howard Miller in his capacity as BOD member of Cal Bar Foundation, as well as BOG members who voted to endorse CaliforniaALL and consider it to have been a partner of the State Bar of California. On the other hand Morrison &Foerster's James Brosnahan and Girardi & Keese's Thomas Girardi as part of helping Joe Dunn with the establishment of Voice of OC.

3. CaliforniaALL was to transfer funds forward. It did so by awarding approximately $300,000 in grants to the UCI Foundation, where Joe Dunn serves as trustee and chair of the Audit Committee. It appears that CaliforniaALL preselected UCI Foundation, making a prior simulated request for proposal (RFP) by Sarah Redfield that led to the grant – a sham process.

4. In September 2009, Ruthe Ashley abruptly exited CaliforniaALL. That same month, Joe Dunn publicly launched his online publication, "Voice of OC." (as though Ashley's mission had been completed).

5. The recent abrupt departure of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan from 'Voice of OC" (as though they were fleeing the scene with guilty consciences).

As such, several months ago, on September 1, 2011, the Voice of OC was duly served with a request for production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A, and Form 1023. (See Exhibit 1 attached) Additionally, said request was delivered to Joe Dunn.

To date, this request to produce Voice of OC's tax returns has been ignored, despite the clear mandate by the Internal Revenue Service to fully comply with such requests. As such, reluctantly, the undersigned filed this complaint.

As such, I urge you to investigate this matter to determine whether Voice of OC who ignored the request to produce said tax returns violated IRS rules and regulations. I ask that you impose appropriate sanctions against any and all involved, if supported by the results of your investigation.

I look forward to your response. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

*Links and photos inserted by The Leslie Brodie Report.

Originally published 27/01/2011

Mr. David Cameron Carr -- an expert in the area of legal ethics and the current President of the California-based Association of Discipline Defense Counsel -- has publicly criticized the State Bar of California, Howard Rice's Jerome Falk, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller, over the handling of disciplinary proceedings concerning misconduct by Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack in the litigation against Dole Food Company.

Mr David Cameron Carr, believes that "all lawyers must understand the rules of legal ethics, not only to fulfill their responsibilities to society and to the justice system, but to protect themselves."
(Photo credit: www.123people.com )

In a shocking move, Mr. Carr -– a former California State Bar prosecutor –- offered a stinging rebuke to Jerome Falk's decision not to pursue any discipline against Girardi and Lack despite the clear findings of misconduct on their part by the Ninth Circuit.

Previously, in a rare action, the Ninth Circuit suspended Walter Lack and Paul Triana of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for 6 months, and reprimanded Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese, while imposing close to $400,000 in monetary sanctions.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that the misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi involved "the persistent use of known falsehoods," and that the "false representations" were made "knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly."

Carr, writing on his blog http://www.ethics-lawyer.com/kafkaesq/ in an entry labeled "It is Good to Be King," wrote as follows on January 21, 2011:

"It’s hard to escape the troubling thought that, had Mr. Girardi and Mr. Lack been different lawyers with no connection to the State Bar like Howard Miller, the process and perhaps even the result would have been much different."

Mr. Carr offered legal analysis, referring to “Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(d) (codifying lawyer’s duty not ‘to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.’). As a matter of law, this, most assuredly, would warrant the imposition of discipline in California." Mr. Carr continued, noting that "the lack of intent to mislead the court doesn’t seem to matter for culpability purposes in State Bar Court."

In his conclusion, Carr stated:

"As a discipline defender, I am not inclined to second guess a decision not to prosecute a discipline case. And I don’t know all the facts that went into Mr. Falk’s exercise of discretion; he isn’t talking and neither is the State Bar. But I do know, now as ever, it is good to be king. Or at least very close to one. Very very good."

According to confidental sources , Mr. Carr should be commended for his courage in speaking up, as well as his intellectual honesty and integrity – the defining traits of a good lawyer.

One confidential source believe, however, that some of Mr. Carr’s comments regarding "intent" are superfluous as Walter Lack had stipulated that his misconduct was “intentional.”

See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434690835

Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

"I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night."

Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.