archives

Leslie Brodie

Leslie Brodie is a reporter, writer, blogger, activist, and a religious leader in the community.
Leslie Brodie has written 6345 posts for TLR's SP (Support Platform)

MetNews: Obama Nominates André Birotte to be U.S. District Judge

 

President Obama yesterday nominated U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. to be a U.S. district judge for the Central District of California.

 

 

 

—Courtesy Photo

 

André Birotte jr.

U.S. Attorney

 

He was an associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP from 1999 to 2001. From 1995 to 1999, Birotte served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District. 

 

He started his legal career as a deputy public defender for Los Angeles County from 1991 to 1995.

 

Please continue @:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/biro040414.htm

MetNews : Court of Appeal Finds Anti-Spam Statute Inapplicable

An anti-spam statute which bars the sending of unsolicited email containing falsehoods does not apply where the sender is not hawking goods or services, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday

The decision by Div. Five affirms the decision of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michelle Rosenblatt who awarded summary judgment to the defendants, Anil Vazirani and his company, Vazirani & Associates Financial, LLC. The opinion is not certified for publication.

 

The defendants were sued by Aviva USA Corporation and others based on a torrent of email Vazirani caused to be sent out by marketing companies disparaging Aviva, an insurance provider. Vazirani, an independent agent, was miffed over having been dropped by Aviva as a seller of its policies.

In February of 2011, and again on March 1 of that year, about 500,000 email went to persons in the life insurance and annuity industry and about 50,000 of the electronic messages were sent to stockbrokers

Source @:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/spam031914.htm

 

“Stake Out” of Ex CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown Home Proposed

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PLEADING

Notice was provided to parties and counsel that Plaintiff is aware of who were served to date by email.

The only party who has stated it will oppose the application is Morrison & Foerster, whose counsel asked Plaintiff to advise the Court that the firm will oppose the ex parte application, however counsel has not to date responded to a request that he provide the basis for the objection.

All the below named defendants have not yet been served primarily because a process-server was unable to locate a proper address for which to serve and/or because a process-server is in the process of serving said defendants and/or because Plaintiff was unable to locate the address of defendants and/or Plaintiff encountered myriad difficulties and obstacles in serving said defendants such as Larissa Parecki, Voice of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Mary Ann Todd, Munger Tolles, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison International, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee,Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom, Southern California Edison, Wilson Sonsini, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach, Mark Robinson, Arnold Porter, Mark Friedman – Fulcrum Properties, Mark Parnes, CalifomiaALL,Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Sarah Redfield, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, James Brosnahan,Geoffrey Brown, Ophelia Basgal, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Verizon Communications, Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, Freada Kapor Klein, James Hsu, Jeff Bleich, Sonnenschein Nath & RosenthaL.

Specifically, for example:

Jeff Bleich — process server who went to his office in San Francisco was informed Mr. Bleich is out of the country. Process server recommended to Plaintiff substituted service, and it will be attempted on Becky Bleich (his wife) at the home address in order to perfect service.

Raj Chatterjee — service has been attempted multiple times, both at his office and place of residence. Plaintiff anticipates Mr. Chatterjee will soon be served via substitute service.

James Brosnahan — service has been attempted multiple times, both at his office and place of residence. Plaintiff anticipates Mr. Brosnahan will soon be served via substitute service.

Geoffrey Brown — process server visited the home of Mr. Brown at least twice. Mr. Brown is either not home or not responding to the process server’s contact efforts. An envelope containing the Summons, FAC, ADR, CMC package was left on the stairs of his residence. The process server has advised that a “stake-out” may be necessary to serve Mr. Brown.

Freada Kapor Klein — process-server visited Freada Kapor’s office in Oakland and was told to leave papers with her assistant. As such, at this point Plaintiff is unsure if service has been perfected on Freada Kapor.

Sarah Redfield — out of state defendant (a resident of Maine). An attempt to serve Redfield pursuant to CCP by first-class-mail registered, return receipt has to date been unsuccessful.

Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach — Plaintiff served her company, “Martin
Investment Mangement,” located in Illinois, but to date could not locate Cary Martin Zellerbach’s residence in San Francisco to complete service.

Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties — Plaintiff is unsure if service was perfected as of yet.

 

Source @:

http://seenthis.net/messages/243091

 

Gregory Dresser of Morrison & Foerster to defend Morrison & Foerster in action filed by YR

Part 1 — please see @:    http://tinyurl.com/pe6ekfu

I am going to defend Morrison & Foerster LLP in the action that you have filed.

Your description of the purported service of process on our firm is not accurate, and you have not yet effected service.

Please forward for my review a copy of any proof of service that you have from the process server that specifies the papers that he says he served on Mr. Coffill.

Gregory Dresser
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.268.6396 | F: 415.276.7527
GDresser@mofo.com | http://www.mofo.com

–———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Mr. Dresser:

1. With all due respect, I want no further emails from Morrison & Foerster dealing with the issue of whether Morrison & Foerster has been properly served. Please note that the failure to make a timely appearance will result in the entry of default judgment.

2. My next objective is to perfect service on Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee. A process-server has been instructed to serve Mr. Brosnahan at his place of residence located at 2808 Oak Knoll Terrace, Berkeley.

Please inform whether Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee are willing to waive formal service.

Thanks

Source @:

http://seenthis.net/messages/235162

Arcadia Weekly: Governor Brown releases 2013 judicial appointment data

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Friday released annual applicant and appointee data for the administration’s judicial appointments.

From 2011 through 2013, there were 1,345 applicants for judicial appointments and Governor Brown appointed 161 judges, including 71 in 2013. Women accounted for about 41% of the applicant pool and 45% of Governor Brown’s judicial appointees in 2013. Approximately 40% of Governor Brown’s appointees in 2013 identified their ethnicity as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African-American; Hispanic; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; or Other/Unknown.

Governor Brown’s 2013 judicial appointees included a number of notable firsts, including:

” Paul Lo, the first Hmong American judge ever appointed in the country;
” Sunshine Sykes, the first Native American judge ever appointed to the Riverside County Superior Court;
” Sunil Kulkarni, the first South Asian American judge ever appointed in Northern California; and
” Rupa Goswami, the first South Asian American woman judge ever appointed in California.

Please continue @:

http://www.arcadiaweekly.com/current-news/governor-brown-releases-2013-judicial-appointment-data/

Governor Moonbeam and Ben Nitai sign pro-business pact

According to the Los Angeles Times: Gov. Jerry Brown and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the heart of the Silicon Valley on Wednesday and signed a deal that would promote trade and joint research between the Jewish state and California.

The ceremony at the Computer History Museum was the latest international agreement signed by Brown, who led a trade mission to China last year and plans to take a delegation to Mexico this summer.

The governor, a three-time failed presidential candidate who has said he will not be a candidate in 2016, said he will continue to forge accords with international leaders as an end-run around partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C.

“California and Israel will build on their respective strengths in research and technology to confront critical problems we both face, such as water scarcity, cybersecurity and climate change,” Brown said.

Israel is home to more NASDAQ companies than any country outside of the United States, including many of the world’s leading cybersecurity firms, and technology was a major focus of the prime minister’s visit.

Please continue @:

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-benjamin-netanyahu-google-drought-20140305,0,4319034.story

Frank Lindh — CPUC general counsel to step down

The San Francisco-based California Public Utilities Commission announced Monday that its general counsel, Frank Lindh, is resigning to go into private law practice.

Lindh became the commission’s general counsel in 2008 after working for 15 years for PG&E.

He will join the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP and work on energy law in its San Francisco office, the firm said.

Please continue @:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/state-puc-general-counsel-to-step-down-for-private-sector/Content?oid=2720288

Freada and Mitchell Kapor Hires Former NAACP President Benjamin Jealous [ TLR Note: 1. Kapors met Benjamin Jealous during ADL ceremony arranged by Kapors to honor Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest 2. To date, evidence suggest for every dollar Kapors spend on Diversity, they pocket two either directly or through various tax-deductions 3. Predicition — within six months Benjamin Jealous figures out Kapors’ antics and quits )

Just months after stepping down as head of the nation’s largest civil rights organization, former NAACP President Benjamin Jealous is changing his career from an East Coast political activist to a West Coast venture capitalist….

The Northern California native and self-confessed computer geek will be joining entrepreneurs Mitchell Kapor and Freada Kapor Klein at their venture capital investment firm that backs information technology startups committed to making a positive social impact.

Please continue @:

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25270444/former-naacp-president-joins-bay-area-based-kapor

YR confronts Morrison & Foerster partner Eric Coffill over allegations Morrison & Foerster and James Brosnahan suspect interactions with governmental officials such as Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey on behalf of clients and related acts of grave misconduct surrounding California Energy Crisis

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Hello Mr. Hendricks:

As you recall, around 2011 you wrote and introduced yourself as the associate general counsel of Morrison & Foerster .

As you probably know by now, a suit naming, among others, Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Brosnahan, and Mr. Chatterejee was filed a few days ago in Yolo County Superior Court.

Presently, I am in the process of causing the action to be served by a process server on the various defendants. As far as Morrison & Foerster defendants, however, I have learned from official records maintained by California Secretary of State Debra that Morrison & Foerster (entity number C0980795 ) is now DISSOLVED.

I do know for a fact, however, that the Sacramento office is still operational and am wondering whether I can instruct the process-server to drop off the papers at the Sacramento office instead since the San Francisco office is now DISSOLVED.

Please let me know ASAP because time is of the essence and I am being prejudiced by MoFo’s failure to maintain current records with California Secretary of State.

Thank you for your time.

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:43 AM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Mr. Hendricks:

I just noticed that other entities associated with Morrison & Foerster use a service known as CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE with an address of 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N, SACRAMENTO.

Please inform if I I can send the process server to CSC.

Thanks,

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

The Morrison & Foerster law firm operates as a California limited liability partnership and is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. CSC is not the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Douglas L. Hendricks
General Counsel
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
P: 415.268.7037 | F: +415.276 7037 | C: 510.384.8994
DHendricks@mofo.com | http://www.mofo.com

Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:56 PM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Thank you for replying.

A search for “Morrison & Foerster” at California Secretary of State’s Business Search database http://kepler.sos.ca.gov under “Corporation Name” yields:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C0980795 04/21/1980 DISSOLVED MORRISON & FOERSTER DOUGLAS L HENDRICKS
C1257410 09/21/1984 ACTIVE MORRISON & FOERSTER/GIRVAN PECK MEMORIAL FUND CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE
C1532498 06/02/1986 ACTIVE THE MORRISON & FOERSTER FOUNDATION CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

However, a similar search under “Limited Liability Company” yields: Record not found.

In essence, if I understand correctly, CSC is an agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster Foundation and Morrison & Foerster Girvan Peck Memorial Fund only. While Morrison & Foerster was structured as a corporation, you were the registered agent for service of process. Presently, Morrison & Foerster is structured as an LLP and claims that it is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. At least according to California Secretary of State, which may or may not be an appropriate authority, Morrison & Foerster LLP does not exist and/or did not designate an agent for service of process.

If not a bother, can you please write back with name and address of the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP. ?

Thank you.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

I am sorry, but I am not in a position to assist you in your suit against my law firm.

Doug Hendricks
Morrison & Foerster LLP
(415) 268-7037

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:59 PM
To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
Subject: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Dear Mr. Hendricks:

Thanks again for replying. I understand your predicament and accept your apology.

In any event, the entire issue is now moot because service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today.

My understanding is that the registered process server encountered both the receptionist and Mr. Coffill, and was told by Mr. Coffill that he can’t accept service on behalf of the individual defendants.

If Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee are willing to waive personal service, please let me know.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Coffill, Eric J. <ecoffill@mofo.com> wrote:

Please let me correct a statement below. Your statement below that “service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today” is factually incorrect. The individual who appeared in our office yesterday morning was told we could not and would not accept service of process on behalf of anyone other than Morrison & Foerster, and the individual then left. Service was not made and the individual left our office with the complete envelope of materials he arrived with.

Regards,

Eric

Eric J. Coffill
Managing Partner, SA
Morrison & Foerster LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2600
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
P: 916.325.1324 | F: 916.448.3222
ECoffill@mofo.com | http://www.mofo.com

Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM
subject: Re: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

Coffill, Eric J.” <ecoffill@mofo.com>
cc: “Hendricks, Douglas L.” <DHendricks@mofo.com>,
“Brosnahan, James J.” <JBrosnahan@mofo.com>,
“Chatterjee, Somnath Raj” <schatterjee@mofo.com>,
“Farman, Charles S.” <CFarman@mofo.com>

Mr. Coffill:

My understanding is that the process-server met and spoke with you and the receptionist.

Furthermore, my understating is that you told the process-server that you will only accept service on behalf of Morrison & Foerster, that you can’t accept papers on behalf of Defendant James Brosnahan and Defendant Raj Chatterjee, and that subsequently the process-server served Morrison & Foerster only with one envelope containing summons, first amended complaint, ADR package, and notice of CMC.

Personally, I view your version of events as not credible, suspect, implausible, as well as illogical. Please note that I have absolutely no reason to doubt the creditability of the process-server — who yesterday also served other defendants in Sacramento (such as Accenture, Fulcrum Properties, McGeorge, and others.) Also, why would a professional process-server would leave your office without serving Morrison & Foerster — an assignment which he was hired to complete ??!!

On the other hand, to date, Morrison & Foerster has been understandably evasive, uncooperative, and motivated to lie due to the potentially catastrophic consequences stemming from allegations relating to Morrison & Foerster and James Brosnahan suspect interactions with governmental officials (such as Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey) on behalf of clients and related acts of grave misconduct surrounding California Energy Crisis.

Please note that a failure to appear in a timely manner will result in the entry of a default judgment against Morrison & Foerster.

Source @:   http://seenthis.net/messages/234044

LA Times: 2014 PEN-Faulkner finalists are announced

The 2014 PEN-Faulkner Awards announced its five finalists Wednesday. Dubbing the winner “a first among equals,” prize money is awarded to all five: the winner will get $15,000 and each runner-up $5,000.

The finalists are:

“At Night We Walk in Circles” by Daniel Alarcón
“Percival Everett by Virgil Russell” by Percival Everett
“We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves” by Karen Joy Fowler
“Fools” by Joan Silber
“Search Party: Stories of Rescue” by Valerie Trueblood

Please continue @:

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-the-2014-pen-faulkner-finalists-are-announced

Dixon Coach’s Troy Hensley sentenced to one year in jail for unlawful sex with then minor Katie Jacobs by controversial Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg

A former Dixon coach convicted for an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor was sentenced to four years of felony probation and a year in jail, on Tuesday.

Troy Anthony Hensley, 38, had pleaded no contest to one felony count of digital penetration and two felony counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

On Monday he sat beside his attorney Steven Sabbadini, while his son, Brevin and wife Brandy testified to his character as a father and husband. Both discussed his involvement as a coach in Dixon, his wife stating that he has coached more than 50 different teams in their 15 years of marriage.

Please continue @:

http://www.thereporter.com/crimebeat/ci_25230131/former-dixon-coach-sentenced

Investigators say his consensual relationship with the then-17-year-old lasted for months before he was caught.

Katie Jacobs is 19 now and opened up to CBS13 about the relationship and her struggles.

“Because of me he finally got what he deserved,” she said.

She admits she was young and naive when she got involved with Hensley—something she says she doesn’t know why it happened.

Please continue @:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/former-dixon-high-student-opens-up-about-relationship-with-coach/

Text of Lawsuit (“First Amended Complaint”) Yolo County-based Rabbi Filed Against CPUC’s Michael Peevey, Geoffrey Brown, Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Mary Ann Todd , Munger Tolles & Olson, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties, Mark Robinson, Arnold Porter, Mark Parnes, CaliforniaALL, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Larissa Parecki, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield, McGeorge School of Law, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner, Accenture, Freada Kapor Klein, Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, James Lewis, Verizon Communications, Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Steve Poizner, James Hsu, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Davis Odd Fellows, Soroptimist International of Davis, Soroptimist International, Soroptimist International of the Americas, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith, Robert Bockwinkel, Michael Cabral, Peter Martin, and Does 1-100

Source @:

http://seenthis.net/messages/231516

PART 1 — INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff – an individual residing in Yolo
County who is an investigative reporter and a Rabbi – has been subject
to a campaign of systematic harassment ever since he uncovered
corruption in various matters dealing with the California Public
Utilities Commission; Democratic Party operatives; and Boyd Gaming
Director, owner of various casinos, and class-action attorney Thomas
Girardi (‘Girardi’) of Girardi & Keese in connection with financial
corruption, obstruction of justice, and related acts of misconduct.

2. For example, Plaintiff unearthed the fact that
subsequent to being disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
stemming from an attempt to defraud the court by resorting to the ‘use
of known falsehoods’, the State Bar of California appointed as
‘special prosecutor’ Girardi’s own private malpractice lawyer (Jerome
Falk of Howard Rice) to prosecute Girardi on the State Bar’s behalf.
(When later questioned about this matter, Falk asserted that his firm
had represented the law firm of Girardi & Keese, but not Girardi
himself.)
3. Plaintiff also discovered corruption in a
national class-action case (Fogel v. Farmers) in which Girardi – who
represented the class of plaintiffs – never disclosed that the
attorneys who represented defendant Farmers (Skadden Arps, Thomas
Nolan, Raoul Kennedy) were concurrently representing Girardi himself
in a separate legal matter. Very shortly after Plaintiff exposed the
corruption, attorneys for Farmers approached, sought and obtained from
the court a supplemental notice to the class of plaintiffs (consisting
of 14 million Americans) indicating that if they cashed their
settlement checks, they agreed to not sue Farmers or Girardi because
of the undisclosed relationship.
4. Plaintiff also unearthed corruption involving
Girardi (who has a reputation of ‘bankrolling’ the California
Democratic party) and individuals associated with the California
Democratic Party with connections to the California Public Utilities
Commission/Energy Commission (Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Geoffrey
Brown, Peter Arth, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Darrell Steinberg) and
utility lawyers involved in the ‘California Energy Crisis’ (Ron Olson
and Jeff Bleich of Munger Tolles; James Brosnahan of Morrison &
Foerster; John Keker of Keker & Van Nest; Jerry Falk and Douglas
Winthrop of Howard Rice; Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese; Joe
Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Mark Robinson of Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson; and the law offices of DLA Piper) to launder money
from utility companies (SCE, PG&E, Verizon, AT&T) to various members
of California’s Democratic Party (Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Kamala
Harris, Jerry Brown, Kevin Johnson, Darrell Steinberg) and OBAMA FOR
AMERICA via various non-profits (CaliforniaALL, Level Playing Field
Institute, California Consumer Protection Foundation).
5. Also involved in the various financial schemes were
Cache Creek Casino, Sacramento-based developer Mark Friedman of
Fulcrum Property, his business partner (gambling attorney Howard
Dickstein), and Dickstein’s wife, Jeannine English, who was also
acting on behalf of AARP to position Barack Obama in the White House
and on behalf of Mark Friedman to position Kevin Johnson as the mayor
of Sacramento. Additionally involved were Obama for America tech-guru
Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor Klein.
6. In connection with the above discoveries,
Plaintiff informed various law-enforcement agencies of these facts, as
well as filed ethics complaints against some of the above named
attorneys with the State Bar of California.
7. Plaintiff was repeatedly warned that Girardi is
‘well-connected’ and will seek to silence Plaintiff as a result of
Plaintiff’s discoveries and allegations.
8. Indeed, very shortly after Plaintiff unearthed
these events, a posse of eight armed investigators from the Yolo
County District Attorney’s office executed an invalid search warrant
at Plaintiff’s place of residence in Yolo County and confiscated all
documents and computers in his home relating to, inter alia, various
ethics complaints filed by Plaintiff on the ground that the ethics
complaints were baseless.
9. Plaintiff has been informed by credible sources,
and therefore alleges, that David Rosenberg was one of those
responsible for pressing criminal charges against him, that he
‘cleared the way’ for the search warrant, and that he is otherwise
friendly with Howard Dickstein, Mark Friedman, Jerry Brown, Mark
Robinson, and Chief Marshall McKay of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (all
actors in CaliforniaALL — a sham non-profit launched for the purpose
of laundering funds to finance the campaigns of various politicians,
including President Obama, Kamala Harris, Kevin Johnson of Sacramento,
and Governor Jerry Brown. )
10. Venue in this case is proper in Yolo County because the acts and
omissions of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in Yolo County.
11. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the
Defendants sued as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues
these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and therefore alleges, that the Defendants herein designated
as Does are legally responsible in some manner for the events and
happenings referred to which caused the injuries to Plaintiff for
which he now seeks damages. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to
allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that
at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the agents, servants,
employees and/or joint venturers of the other Defendants and were at
all times mentioned herein acting within the scope, course and
authority of this agency, employment and/or joint venture. Plaintiff
is further informed and believes and, therefore alleges, that each of
the Defendants consented to, ratified, participated in, or authorized
the acts of the remaining Defendants.
PART 2: BACKGROUND OF FACTS UNDERLYING CLAIMS AGAINST LEA ROSENBERG
AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 — PREDICATED ON 26 U.S. C. §
6104(d)

13. Following the execution of the invalid search
warrant on Plaintiff’s home, described above, Plaintiff began
conducting research into David Rosenberg’s background and learned that
he is a judge with the Yolo County Superior Court with a reputation of
being a ‘political animal’.
14. Plaintiff further learned, and thereupon
alleges, that Judge David Rosenberg and his wife (Lea Rosenberg), as
well as Judge David Reed and his wife (Sheryl Cambron), are deeply
involved — as either officers or directors — with a web of
non-profit entities worth millions of dollars known as Saratoga
Retirement Community, Meadows of Napa Valley, Davis Odd Fellows, Odd
Fellows Homes of California, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Soroptimist
International of Davis, David Odd Fellows Hall, and others. Plaintiff
is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Lea and David
Rosenberg are individuals residing in Yolo County.
15. Later on, Plaintiff also discovered a pattern by
which Lea Rosenberg and Sheryl Cambron — as the wives of two judges -
were energetically raising funds from various businesses for an entity
known as Progress Ranch headed by the foreperson of the Yolo County
Grand Jury, Barbara Sommer. (For example, Davis Odd Fellows
repeatedly held events to benefit Progress Ranch known as ‘Breakfast
with Santa’; Soroptimist International of Davis held an event to
benefit Progress Ranch known as ‘Texas Hold ’Em’; Davis Rebekah Lodge
held an event to benefit Progress Ranch known as ‘Crab Feed.’) During
the time period that Barbara Sommer served as foreperson of the Grand
Jury of Yolo County, the grand jury was investigating two prominent
entities — Cache Creek Casino (a casino which is owned and operated
by Yocha Dehe Wintun nation headed by Marshall Mckay) and ‘First 5
Yolo’ (headed by Yolo County Board of Supervisors member Don Saylor).
16. Judge Rosenberg’s judicial campaign treasurer, Victor
Bucher, is a nationally renowned expert in the area of accounting and
tax fraud, and also serves as the ‘treasurer’ of a separate non-profit
entity launched by David Odd Fellows — Davis Odd Fellows Charities,
Inc. — where David Rosenberg serves as president and Victor Bucher as
Treasurer.
17. On April 4, 2013 — consistent with the
statutory framework put into place by 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) — Plaintiff
served a request for Davis Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge (which
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges are
tax-exempt organizations) to make available for inspection their IRS
990 forms.
18. A tax-exempt organization must make available
for public inspection its application for tax exemption, three most
recent 990 annual information returns, and schedules and attachments
available, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d), which reads, in relevant
part:
‘Public inspection of certain annual returns, reports, applications
for exemption, and notices of status
(1) In general
In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of
section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) or an
organization exempt from taxation under section 527 (a)—
(A) a copy of—
(i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by
exempt organizations) by such organization,
(ii) any annual return which is filed under section 6011 by an
organization described in section 501 (c)(3) and which relates to any
tax imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax on unrelated
business income of charitable, etc., organizations),
(iii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of
exemption under section 501 or notice of status under section 527 (i),
the exempt status application materials or any notice materials of
such organization, and
(iv) the reports filed under section 527 (j) (relating to required
disclosure of expenditures and contributions) by such organization,
shall be made available by such organization for inspection during
regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of
such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or
more regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each
such regional or district office, and
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or
such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return,
reports, and exempt status application materials or such notice
materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other
than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in
writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be
provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within
30 days.
(2) 3-year limitation on inspection of returns
Paragraph (1) shall apply to an annual return filed under section 6011
or 6033 only during the 3-year period beginning on the last day
prescribed for filing such return (determined with regard to any
extension of time for filing).’
19. Plaintiff delivered the request through Lea
Rosenberg because she was the common denominator between the various
‘Odd Fellows’ entities and Soroptimist, in that she served as an
officer and/or director of the various ‘Odd Fellows’ entities, and as
president of Davis Rebekah Lodge.
20. Specifically, on April 4, 2013 Plaintiff
delivered to Lea Rosenberg at learose@jps.net the following email
request:
‘Re: Request for Production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A,
Form 1023 to entities associated with Lea Rosenberg, to wit:
Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd
Fellows

Dear Mrs. Rosenberg:

Consistent with U.S. Internal Revenue Service Regulations, please
consider this communication a formal request to produce their IRS Form
990, Form 990 Schedule A, as well Form 1023. This request is for all
documents submitted to the IRS within the past three years, which
generally means the three most recent returns.

Said regulations require that these documents be produced within 30
days. Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis
Odd Fellows are entitled to charge reasonable costs for any copying
and mailing costs incurred in relation to this request. Alternatively,
you can email the documents to me as PDF attachments. I prefer the
latter method. However, if for some reason, you prefer to copy and
mail the documents, please send them to the following address:

[—address intentionally omitted—]

I ask that you draw no conclusion or develop any concern from the mere
fact that this request is being made about you, Soroptimist
International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows or any
other individual or entity.

In addition, I ask that you please produce the following:
1. A detailed and complete list of all other non-profit entities you
were involved beginning in 2008 to the present.
2. A detailed and complete list of all sums which were transferred
amongst any and all organizations you were involved, beginning in 2008
to the present. For example, if in 2009 Soroptimist International of
Davis transferred money to Davis Odd Fellows either as donation or
rent, I ask that such transaction be disclosed.
3. A detailed and complete list of all direct or indirect transfers of
funds from Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge,
Davis Odd Fellows to Progress Ranch and/or any other entity associated
with Barbara Sommer from 2007 to the present.

Thank you for your time and anticipated cooperation. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.’
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s email dated April 3, 2013.
22. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff delivered to Lea
Rosenberg a notice of change of address.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s requests for the
organizations’ IRS 990 forms, and while conspiring with other
Defendants, chose to breach the duty to comply with 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d).
24. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided,
abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged,
promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in,
enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted
in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
25. Due to this failure to comply with Plaintiff’s
request, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to
obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his
paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in
hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no
avail.
26. Still seeking a complete set of the requested
documents, on September 24, 2013 Plaintiff sent Lea Rosenberg the
following email:
“RE: Davis Odd Fellow Hall; Davis Odd Fellow – Second Request for
Production of IRS Documents

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

The purpose of this communication is to address the following matters:

1. Since you appear to have been involved with Davis Rebekah Lodge,
Davis Odd Fellow, and Sophomoric, I had previously asked you to
produce the IRS tax-returns for those entities.

For reasons which I do not understand, rather than complying with this
simple request (as you are required to do by law given the fact that
those entities are allowed to operate on a ‘tax-exempt’ status), you
have failed to respond. I am therefore reiterating my request that you
comply with the request for these tax returns and produce them to me
within the next 5 days.

As you know, I am troubled by events surrounding the almost exclusive
fundraising to ‘emancipated foster youth’, Barbara Sommer, Davis Odd
Fellow members Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral, Cache Creek Casino,
Vic Bucher, and Progress Ranch.

I am also troubled by the fact that Judge Rosenberg (and his Judicial
Campaign CPA Vic Bucher) lends money to the judicial campaign of other
judges (i.e. Tim Fall and Dan Maguire). Hence, I would like to get to
the bottom of things, and need the requested tax forms to do so.

2. In the previously submitted request, there was no mention of ‘Davis
Odd Fellow Hall.’ My position and understanding is that Davis Odd
Fellow Hall is part of Davis Odd Fellow.
Nevertheless, please consider this communication a formal request to
also provide copies of the last three tax return forms that ‘Davis Odd
Fellow Hall’ had submitted to the IRS.

3. Given that Davis Odd Fellow, David Odd Fellow Hall, and Davis
Rebekah Lodge are under the exclusive control of you, your husband
David Rosenberg, as well as David Reed and his wife Cheryl Cambron,
and given that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the
Yolo County Superior Court, I submit that these entities have a duty
to operate at an even higher level of transparency than mandated by
the IRS, and must comply with the common law duty of disclosure.

Thus, in addition to inspecting and copying the documents authorized
by the IRS, I request copies of detailed financial statements (i.e.
income, expenditures, names of donors, names of businesses and amount
of rent Davis Odd Fellow Hall charges its various tenants, identity of
subcontractors, identity of those who have rented the Hall etc.) For
example, my understanding is that David Greenwald (publisher of The
People’s Vanguard of Davis and Vanguard Court Watch) entered into a
contract with Davis Odd Fellow Hall. Given that Mr. Greenwald’s
publications purport to report on misconduct and malfeasance in the
local area, including the courts, it appears to me that there is a
direct conflict between this stated mission and his decision to rent
space from an entity whose Board is comprised of you, and two Yolo
County Superior Court judges.

I am looking forward to hearing from you and receiving the requested documents.”
27. Later that day, Plaintiff received an email
response from Lea Rosenberg stating only the following: ‘so he is at
it again.’
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 Predicated on
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of
Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California;
Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist
International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist
International of the Americas; and Does 1 – 100)

28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 27 as though fully set forth herein.
29. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests,
Defendants failed to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure
constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business
& Professions Code § 17200.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated,
advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to,
facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the
commission of the above-described acts.
31. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Per Se / Torts in Essence
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order
of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California;
Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist
International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist
International of the Americas; and Does 1 – 100)

32. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 31 as though fully set forth herein.
33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants were all aware of Plaintiff’s repeated
requests for the above-described entities’ IRS Form 990 forms, as
described in this Complaint.
34. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Defendants were under a duty to ensure
compliance, yet chose to breach a duty prescribed in 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d). This failure to comply with the statutory requirements
constitutes negligence per se. In the alternative, Plaintiff further
alleges that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) constitutes ‘torts in essence’ as a matter of
public policy, because the statute at issue was enacted to benefit
individuals in Plaintiff’s position, and because implied in 26 U.S.C.
§ 6104(d) is a private right of action.
35. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of duty,
as alleged above, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources
trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff
asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the
Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents,
also to no avail. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost
money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
36. Plaintiff further alleges that Davis Odd Fellows
owns a Hall (‘Davis Lodge Hall’), on a property adjacent to the two
Lodges, and is the owner (and landlord) of rental property currently
occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold
Real Estate.
37. The ‘Hall Board Association’ is a California
corporation, and is the actual owner of the Davis Lodge Hall, the
adjacent property of the two Lodges, and the rental property currently
occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold
Real Estate.
38. The ‘Hall Board Association’ is composed of
President David Rosenberg, Vice President David Reed, Secretary Lea
Rosenberg, Treasurer Sheryl Cambron, and Barbara Geisler.
39. The Davis Lodge Hall is available to rent by the
general public for receptions, fund-raisers, dinners, conferences,
trade shows, meetings, and other events.
40. The Davis Lodge Hall is also used by Davis Odd
Fellows for its own functions, such as Davis Odd Fellows Bingo and
Master Balls.
41. In approximately September 2013, and after the
expenditure of considerable time, resources, and efforts, Plaintiff
managed to ascertain that the actual legal name of Davis Odd Fellows
and David Rebekah Lodge is ‘Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd
Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge.’ Plaintiff then managed to obtain
partial copies of tax returns that ‘Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order
of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge’ had submitted to the IRS.
42. Upon reviewing partial copies of the
above-described IRS 990 forms from 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff noted that
false information had been submitted to the IRS on two occasions that
he was able to identify from the incomplete forms. Specifically,
according to those 990 forms, in 2010 David Reed served as the
president of Yolo Lodge 169; serving as the Treasurer of Yolo Lodge
was Sheryl Cambron. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Reed and Cambron are married to each other.
43. However, this was not the information provided
to the IRS. The 2010 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ’Did
any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family
relationship or a business relationship with any other officer,
director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge
states, ‘NO.’ Since two of the officers (Reed and Cambron) were
actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.
44. In 2011, Yolo Lodge officers submitted false
information to the IRS again, this time involving a different set of
actors — Lea and David Rosenberg, who are married to each other.
Specifically, in 2011 David Rosenberg served as President of Yolo
Lodge; his wife, Lea Rosenberg, served as ‘Secretary’ of Yolo Lodge,
and David Reed served as a board member.
45. The 2011 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge
asked, ’Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a
family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer,
director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge
states, ‘NO.’ Since two of the officers (David Rosenberg and Lea
Rosenberg) were actually married to each other, this is a
misrepresentation.
46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Virgil Smith is a CPA, a member of Davis Odd Fellows, and
a co-conspirator in the submission of these fraudulent tax-returns.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges that
also responsible for submitting these fraudulent tax-returns were
Davis Odd Fellows officers and directors David Rosenberg, Lea
Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, and Robert
Bockwinkel.
47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that the fraudulent tax-returns were submitted because David
Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler,
Virgil Smith and Robert Bockwinkel did not want the IRS and the public
to become aware that Sheryl Cambron is married to David Reed, and
because they were concerned that if such relationships (i.e. Lea
Rosenberg is married to David Rosenberg) would be disclosed, it may
trigger an IRS audit.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy to Violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl
Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; and Does 1
– 100)

48. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 47 as though fully set forth herein.
49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that subsequent to Plaintiff’s request to obtain copies of the
relevant IRS forms 990 delivered to Lea Rosenberg as described above,
Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron,
Robert Bockwinkel, Barbara Geisler, and Virgil Smith willfully and
knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which
they agreed to violate Plaintiff’s legal rights by not complying with
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) because they were concerned he would discover the
tax-fraud perpetrated on the IRS, as described above; that two Yolo
County judicial officers (Rosenberg and Reed) and an attorney employed
by Yolo County (Cambron) almost exclusively raised funds to support an
entity headed by the Foreperson of the Yolo County Grand Jury; and the
appearance that Davis Odd Fellows has been misused to indirectly curry
favors with the foreperson of Yolo County Grand Jury.
50. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore
alleges that as further overt acts (both lawful and unlawful) by
which to advance the objective of said conspiracy, committed by one or
more of the conspirators pursuant to their common design, were: (a) an
agreement between Defendants to intentionally violate 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d); (b) an agreement to ignore Plaintiff’s repeated requests for
information sought pursuant to this statute; (c) a lawful overt act to
belittle Plaintiff by sending him an email which reads, ‘so he is at
it again’’ and (d) an agreement by Defendants to mislead and defraud
Plaintiff by means of a plan they conceived and executed in which
David Reed falsely stated in writing ‘TO MY KNOWLEDGE DAVIS ODD
FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING
FOR PROGRESS RANCH’. (emphasis added)
51. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted,
instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled,
contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or
conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

PART 3 — Factual Background Dealing with In Re Girardi, Fogel v.
Farmers, CaliforniaALL, Voice of OC
3.1: IN RE GIRARDI
52. In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued its final ruling in the disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi by
imposing close to $500,000 in sanctions on Walter Lack of Engstrom
Lispcomb & Lack and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese stemming from an
attempt to defraud the court and cause injury to Dole Food Company in
the underlying litigation. Defending Girardi in the matter of In Re
Girardi was Skadden Arps.
53. The court ruled that Walter Lack (who stipulated to Special
Prosecutor Rory Little that his prolonged acts of misconduct were
intentional) and Thomas Girardi intentionally and recklessly resorted
to ‘the persistent use of known falsehoods,’ and that the ‘false
representations’ were made ‘knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly’
during years of litigation.
54. The Ninth Circuit suspended Lack, reprimanded Girardi, and
ordered Girardi and Lack to report their misconduct to the State Bar
of California.
55. The State Bar of California disqualified itself from handling the
matter since Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) served at that time as
its president, and had also made the decision to hire then-chief
prosecutor, James Towery.
56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that both
Joe Dunn (Chief Executive of State Bar of California and a long time
friend and protégé of Girardi) and Chief Justice Ronald George (father
of Eric George — at the time co-counsel with Girardi and Lack in
major class-action cases as part of an ongoing scheme by which Girardi
was bestowing benefits on George) conspired to appoint as ‘Special
Prosecutor’ Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, who they knew would
‘exonerate’ Girardi and Lack.
57. Around the same time, renowned criminal defense attorney Doron
Weinberg opined in the media as follows on the matter of In Re
Girardi: ‘Prosecutors can admit the 9th Circuit’s disciplinary order,
along with the entire record underpinning it’. ‘The State Bar
generally respects the findings and conclusions of other
jurisdictions’.
58. Mr. Falk, in turn, exercised ‘prosecutorial discretion’ and
concluded that he did not believe Lack acted intentionally and that no
charges will be brought against the two attorneys — despite the fact
that Lack had previously stipulated in writing that he acted
‘intentionally.’
59. Within days of Mr. Falk’s decision, Plaintiff filed an ethics
complaint with the State Bar of California against Jerome Falk, James
Towery, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop (managing partner of
Howard Rice and then-elected president of the California Bar
Foundation), alleging that it was improper for Mr. Towery to appoint
Mr. Falk given the close personal relationship between Howard Miller
and Douglas Winthrop. Specifically, Howard Miller — in his capacity
as president of the State Bar — had appointed Douglas Winthrop as
president of the California Bar Foundation.
60. State Bar of California Deputy Executive director Robert Hawley
contacted Plaintiff and informed him that he (Hawley) has been
appointed as ‘contact person,’ and that the matter will be handled by
the entire State Bar of California Board of Governors because one of
the named actors was chief prosecutor James Towery.
61. Specifically, on 12/27/2010 Robert Hawley wrote to Plaintiff in part:
‘On behalf of the State Bar of California its staff and its Board, I
acknowledge receipt of your email message below and the one separately
sent to James Towery, both on December 23, 2010.
In your email message to Mr. Towery you state that you have sent a
written letter of complaint to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
(OCTC) Intake Unit. As we have previously advised your colleague
Leslie Brodie, we provide status reports on pending matters involving
OCTC only to individuals who provide verifiable identification
information, including an address. I assume that your written
complaint provides this information. If not, we will not be able to
provide you with further status information on the subject of your
email messages.’
62. At or about that time, Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that
several other Board members had business relationships with Girardi or
other conflicts of interest which they were required to disclose
pursuant to a statute.
63. After several months, Mr. Hawley wrote Plaintiff, informing him
the investigation was closed.
64. A few weeks later, Plaintiff, while researching a separate topic,
discovered that Howard Rice (the firm of Jerome Falk) actually
represented Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a
malpractice action only two years prior (Copple v. Astrella & Rice).
65. On August 29, 2011 Plaintiff informed Robert Hawley and the
entire Board of Governors (consisting of, among others, Laura Chick,
Gwen Moore, Dennis Mangers, Jeannine English, George Davis, Alec Chang
of Skadden Arps, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler, Jon
Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, and Joe Dunn of Voice of OC about the
recent discovery in order to re-open the investigation. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and therefore alleges that, pursuant to an
ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice in the matter of In Re Girardi
and an ongoing conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s due process and equal
protection rights, Hawley never replied to Plaintiff’s inquiries, nor
did any member of the Board of Governors.
66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
said conspiracy was motivated in part by Democratic Party operatives
such as Joe Dunn and Jeannine English to protect Thomas Girardi
because of financial contributions to the Democratic Party, because
Girardi arranged close to one million in cy pres awards to California
AARP (where Jeannine English served as president), and because several
BOG member had similar conflicts of interest, such as Alec Chang of
Skadden Arps.
67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the
various wrong-doers became extremely concerned of the fact that
Plaintiff discovered that Falk represented Girardi & Keese and Walter
Lack, and because of Plaintiff’s whistle-blowing activities and robust
use of his free-speech rights. As such, on December 7, 2011, out of
the blue, Falk – Plaintiff alleges in an attempt to mislead Plaintiff
–- wrote to Plaintiff:
‘I received your November 13 email, sent to me and many others,
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. Do not make them again.’
4.2: FOGEL VS. FARMERS:
68. The day after the Ninth Circuit issued the published decision in
the matter of In Re Girardi, respondents’ counsel (Skadden Arps and
Thomas Nolan) moved to redact their names from the decision. The
court rejected the request, noting that redaction was not merited.
69. The peculiar nature of the motion to redact the names of
respondents’ counsel from the published decision of this court
prompted Plaintiff to look into the matter further. Plaintiff 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.
70. In March, 2011 Plaintiff submitted an ethics complaint to the
State Bar of California against Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese for
various acts of misconduct in connection with Fogel v. Farmers Group,
Inc. and the matter of In Re Girardi.
71. The complaint alleged ethical violations stemming from collusion
between the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps based on
the fact that while the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers Group was pending,
the law offices of Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese entered into a
wholly separate agreement by which Skadden Arps agreed to represent
Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi without informing 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) 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
vs. Farmers matter).
72. Shortly after Plaintiff 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.
73. In or around August of 2011, Plaintiff submitted an informal
objection to the proposed Fogel v. Farmers settlement based on the
reasoning described above and contemplated filing an appeal (if
possible) or informally alerting the Court of Appeal of the collusive
arrangement.
4.3: CALIFORNIAALL / VOICE OF OC / OBAMA FOR AMERICA / QUADRIPLEGIC
UC DAVIS LAW STUDENT SARA GRANDA / SEARCH- SEIZURE BY YOLO COUNTY
DISTRCIT ATTORNEY
CaliforniaALL — Voice of OC:
74. While researching the relationship of Girardi & Keese and Howard
Rice and the appointment of Douglas Winthrop as president of the
California Bar Foundation by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese,
Plaintiff reviewed the California Bar Foundation’s annual reports to
familiarize himself with the names of the Foundation’s board of
directors. Plaintiff stumbled upon the fact that the Foundation ended
2008 close to $500,000 in the negative. Specifically, the Foundation
reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES in 2007 equaled plus
+$373.842.00. However, in 2008, the Foundation reported to the IRS
that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES equaled minus -$537,712.
75. Plaintiff discovered that the money had been transferred to a
newly-created Section 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (headed by Ruthe
Catolico Ashley — close friend and confidant of Chief Justice Tani
Cantil-Sakayue) known as CaliforniaALL, which obtained hundreds of
thousands of dollars from utility companies PG&E, SCE, AT&T, and
Verizon.
76. In addition to Ruthe Catolico Ashley, CaliforniaALL was
compromised of the following: Larissa Parecki, Morrison England,
Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield of McGeorge School of Law,
Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach of Martin
Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner of Accenture, Freada Kapor
Klein of Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal of Pacific Gas
& Electric Company, James Lewis of Verizon Communications, Darrell
Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, an James Hsu
of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal-Dentons.
77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
CaliforniaALL funneled some portion of the money to the UCI Foundation
–- where State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn, Judicial
Council member Mark Robinson, and Erwin Chemerinsky served as trustees
for the purpose of launching a new entity known as Saturday Law
Academy at UCI. (‘SALUCI’)
78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
SALUCI was actually already created in 2005 and was fully operational
before CaliforniaALL arrived on the scene.
Plaintiff further alleges that repeated claims by CaliforniaALL,
including the following, were knowingly false, misleading, and
fraudulent: ‘Our first funded pipeline, the Saturday Academy of Law,
graduated its first class on March 7’; ‘An inspirational welcome
given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky as 200 guests gathered at the Delhi
Community Center to recognize the first graduating class of the UC
Irvine Saturday Academy of Law. The six-week program, created by UCI’s
Center for Educational Partnerships was made possible by a grant from
CaliforniaALL.’
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
(Against defendants CaliforniaALL, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Larissa
Parecki, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield,
McGeorge School of Law, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin
Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner, Accenture,
Freada Kapor Klein, Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal,
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, James Lewis, Verizon Communications,
Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, James
Hsu, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal-Dentons and Does 1-100)

79. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 78 as though fully set forth herein.
80. The knowingly false, misleading and fraudulent
claims by which executives and directors of CaliforniaALL took credit
and falsely advertised that CaliforniaALL was instrumental in
launching SALUCI which ‘graduated its first class’ constitutes
unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business &
Professions Code § 17200 since SALUCI already came into existence in
2005.
81. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted,
instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled,
contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or
conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
82. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
trial.
83. On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff informed the State Bar Board of
Governors and officially requested an investigation into alleged
fraudulent transactions, financial irregularities, and unlawful
conduct in connection with circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL.
Later that day, State Bar of California Foundation Director and CPUC
Commissioner Geoffrey Brown sent Plaintiff the following:
‘I am named in the email with the purpose of tying my tenure at the
CPUC and the Foundation to some alleged nefarious activity. The author
of the email is herewith put on notice that I will pursue legal action
if he persists in a claim that I have anything to do with illegal
activity. He is further on notice that I am in no way connected with
the recipient named in the article.’
84. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges
that during his tenure as California Bar Foundation Director, Geoffrey
Brown, as well as Jeff Bleich and Bradley Phillips of Munger Tolles &
Olson, Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice-Arnold Porter, Holly Fujie of
Buchalter Nemer, and Mark Parnes of Wilson Sonsini caused the
following false and misleading advertisement to appear in the annual
report: California Bar Foundation supported the launching of
CaliforniaALL and, as the project filed for incorporation and
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, served as CaliforniaALL’s fiscal
sponsor. A collaboration between the California Public Employment
Retirement System, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
California Department of Insurance, and the State Bar of California,
CaliforniaALL was created in an effort to close the achievement gap
among California students from preschool to the profession and,
specifically, to bolster the pipeline of young people of diverse
backgrounds headed for careers in law, financial services, and
technology. Once CaliforniaALL obtained its tax-exempt status and was
able to function as a fully independent nonprofit organization, the
Foundation granted the balance of funds raised for the project -
totaling $769,247 – to the new entity. We thank the following
corporations for their gifts in support of CaliforniaALL: AT & T
,Edison International ,PG & E Corporation Foundation , and Verizon.
85. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges
that the California Bar Foundation never served as the ‘fiscal
sponsor’ of CaliforniaALL. Plaintiff is further informed and believes
and therefore alleges that that AT&T, Edison International, PG & E
Corporation Foundation, and Verizon never used the California Bar
Foundation as a ‘fiscal sponsor’, and any and all funds from AT & T,
Edison International, PG & E Corporation Foundation, and Verizon went
directly to CaliforniaALL.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
(Against Defendants Geoffrey Brown, Jeff Bleich , Bradley Phillips,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Arnold Porter,
Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Mark Parnes, Wilson Sonsini and Does
1-100)

86. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 85 as though fully set forth herein.
87. The knowingly false, misleading and fraudulent
claims by which executives and directors of the California Bar
Foundation falsely asserted that $769,247 originated from AT&T, Edison
International, PG & E Corporation Foundation, and Verizon constitute
unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business &
Professions Code § 17200.
88. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated,
advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to,
facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the
commission of the above-described acts.
89. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
trial.

90. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that a
significant portion of the $769,247 from the California Bar Foundation
to CaliforniaALL ended up financing a newly-created online publication
which Joe Dunn had launched with the help of Thomas Girardi, James
Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster (attorney for CaliforniaALL) and
Erwin Chemerinsky — this online publication is known as “Voice of OC.
91. Plaintiff requested that Voice of OC provide him with copies of
its IRS 990 forms. Voice of OC did not comply with applicable IRS
regulations in that it failed to reply to Plaintiff’s request for
copies, whereupon Plaintiff filed a complaint against Voice of OC and
Joe Dunn with the IRS.
92. The IRS promptly sent Plaintiff notice acknowledging the
complaint against Voice of OC.
93. Very shortly after Plaintiff had complained to the IRS, the FBI
arrested Kinde Durkee — CPA for Voice of OC — on unrelated charges.
94. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
CaliforniaALL was also misused to finance the election campaigns of
Kevin Johnson, Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, and Barack Obama,
specifically by the following actors:
Morrison & Foerster: James Brosnahan (self-proclaimed ‘mastermind’
behind the Democratic Party; member of OBAMA FOR America’s California
Finance Committee; Legal Counsel for CaliforniaALL ); Tony West (OBAMA
FOR America’s Chair of California’s Finance Committee); Chris Young —
later of Keker & Van Nest (OBAMA FOR America’s Northern California
Deputy Finance Director); Annette Carnegie (former director of the
California Bar Foundation during the transfer of the approximately
$780,000 to CaliforniaALL).
Munger Tolles & Olson: Jeffrey Bleich (president of the State Bar of
California, director of the California Bar Foundation, and founding
member and Chair of OBAMA FOR America’s National Finance Committee);
Brad Phillips (2007- 2008 Director of the California Bar Foundation
which served as a ‘financial sponsor’ to CaliforniaALL on behalf of
Verizon Wireless and Southern California Edison, both clients of
Munger Tolles & Olson); Ron Olson (member of OBAMA FOR AMERICA;
Berkshire Hathaway and Edison Director).
Wilson Sonsini: Mark Parnes (2007-2008 director and Secretary of the
California Bar Foundation); John Roos (former CEO of Wilson Sonsini
and member of OBAMA FOR America’s National Finance Committee).
DLA Piper: Steven Churchwell of DLA Piper in Sacramento (Treasurer,
draft committee of OBAMA FOR AMERICA; firm where CaliforniaALL
resided free of charge); Gilles Attia.
Laura Chick (member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors
and OBAMA FOR AMERICA).
Kamala Harris (Co-Chair, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and member of
CaliforniaALL Advisory Council).
Freada Klein Kapor (member of CaliforniaALL board of directors; OBAMA
FOR America’s phone bank located at The Kapor Center).
Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Properties, and business
partner Marshall McKay of Cache Creek Casino on behalf of Barack
Obama.
Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Properties on behalf of Kevin Johnson.
ETHICS COMPLAINT IN RE UC DAVIS LAW STUDENT SARA GRANDA:
95. In May 2009, U.C. Davis School of Law quadriplegic law student
Sara Granda graduated from and hoped to sit for the July 2009 bar
exam.
96. The California’s Department of Rehabilitation paid the exam fee
for Granda with a check, and Granda was assured that she was properly
registered. However, the State Bar of California never processed
Granda’s application because the Department of Rehabilitation paid the
fee with a check, rather than a credit card.
97. Granda filed a suit in federal court seeking an injunction
directing the State Bar of California to allow her to sit for the bar
exam. The action was titled Sara Granda v. the State Bar of
California (Case Number 2:09-cv-02015-MCE). The State Bar of
California was represented by Mark Torres Gil, Rachel Grunberg, and
Lawrence Yee. The matter was adjudicated by Judge England of the
Eastern District of California, who promptly dismissed it.
98. During the course of presiding over the Granda case, Judge
England never disclosed to Granda that he and his wife (Torie
Flournoy-England) are part and parcel of an entity known as
CaliforniaALL — which had just obtained close to $800,000 from the
State Bar of California — headed by executive-director Judy Johnson,
who is also part of CaliforniaALL. Similarly neither did the State
Bar of California, Judy Johnson, Mark Torres Gil, Rachel Grunberg, or
Lawrence Yee provide this information to Granda.
99. On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff advanced an ethics complaint against
State Bar of California attorneys Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil,
Rachel Grunberg, Judy Johnson, and Holly Fujie.
100. The complaint alleged misconduct due to the failure of the
above-named attorneys to disclose to Plaintiff Granda the nature of
the close personal relationship between the State Bar of California,
CaliforniaALL, Judy Johnson, Judge England and his spouse — Terrie
Flournoy-England.
101. Plaintiff alleges the entire complaint filed by him was
factually accurate, truthful, and was brought in good faith.
Accompanying the complaint dated May 31 2011 were 11 exhibits in
support.
102. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
the State Bar of California received said complaint and rather than
assign an outside investigator due to the fact it was against their
own attorneys, summarily dismissed it.
103. On July 28, 2011, State Bar employee Jill Sperber wrote to
Plaintiff informing him that:
‘I have determined that your complaint fails to present stuffiest
facts to substantiate an investigation.’
“The State Bar had no involvement with CaliforniaALL once it was
incorporated and operating.”
‘Several of the informational items that you list are not factually
accurate a) CaliforniaALL and State Bar are partners and B) a sub-rosa
transfer of funds from State Bar to CaliforniaALL took place.’
104. Sperber never alleged that the complaint filed by Plaintiff was
frivolous or ‘without merit.’
105. Plaintiff submits that the 11 exhibits accompanying his
complaint showed beyond any doubts that the California Bar and
CaliforniaALL were partners, and that State Bar executive directors
(Judy Johnson) and employee Patricia Lee were part of CaliforniaALL.
As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
the claim by Ms. Sperber that ‘The State Bar had no involvement with
CaliforniaALL once it was incorporated and operating’ is false, that
the State Bar Board of Governors continued to appoint directors to
CaliforniaALL, and that CaliforniaALL never acknowledged the
approximate $780,000 it obtained from the California Bar Foundation,
demonstrating that the transfer was sub-rosa.
Search-Seizure of CaliforniaALL Evidence By Investigators From Yolo
County District Attorney
106. On February 23, 2012, eight armed investigators from the Yolo
County District Attorney’s office arrived at Plaintiff’s place of
residence, searched the premises, and confiscated two computers, flash
drives, and documents pursuant to an invalid search warrant issued by
Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall.
107. The invalid search warrant listed the names of Joe Dunn (of
Voice of OC) ,Thomas Girardi (of Voice of OC, In Re Girardi) , Judy
Johnson, Holly Fujie, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, James Towery,
Howard Dickstein, Jeannine English, and State Bar attorneys Mark
Torres Gil, Lawrence Yee, and Rachel Grunberg.
108. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that
accompanying the DA officers was a private citizen named Tom Layton.
109. Plaintiff was told that by the investigators and Michael Cabral
that the State Bar Board of Governors was pressing criminal charges
against Plaintiff for, among other things, violations of B & P
Section 6043.5 (filing false and malicious ethics complaints) because
of the ethics complaint Plaintiff submitted in connection with U.C.
Davis School of Law quadriplegic law student Sara Granda.
110. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that,
in approximately early 2011, once Plaintiff unearthed the various acts
of misconduct described above — such as In Re Girardi, Fogel v.
Farmers, Voice of OC, and especially fraud dealing with CaliforniaALL
(an entity Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
was launched, represented, directed, or benefited by extremely
powerful politicians such as California Attorney General Kamala
Harris, Jerry Brown, Darrel Steinberg, Kevin Johnson, Joe Dunn, and
Obama for America; governmental officials such as CPUC’s Michael
Peevey, Geoffrey Brown; powerful law firms such as DLA Piper, Morrison
& Foerster, Munger Tolles, Dentons, and Girardi & Keese; major utility
companies such as PG&E, Verizon, and Southern California Edison; major
corporations such as Accenture, Fulcrum Property/Mark Friedman, Cache
Creek Casino/Marshall McKay, LPFI/ Freada Kapor; and members of the
California Judicial Council (such as Mark Robinson, Tani Cantil), an
understanding was reached to silence Plaintiff at any cost, to
retaliate against him because of his speech-related activates, to try
to intimidate him, and to confiscate all the incriminating evidence he
had gathered.
111. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest — a ‘bundler’ for Barack Obama
who served as president of the State Bar of California and was aware
of Plaintiff’s discovery of CaliforniaALL due to the fact that
Plaintiff requested documents and sought an investigation —
immediately informed Keker & Van Nest, John Keker and associate Chris
Young of Plaintiff’s discoveries.
112. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Keker & Van Nest associate Chris Young — who caused the launching of
CaliforniaALL two years prior while serving as Obama for America
California Deputy Finance Director, and who later worked with Jeffrey
Bleich as White House Adviser, and who later worked with Mark
Friedman on the election campaign of Kevin Johnson — panicked. As
such, Chris Young’s attorney profile was quickly removed from the
KVN.COM web-site. This fraud was only discovered by Plaintiff months
later.
Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that State Actor Streeter, who also served as a Director of the
California Bar Foundation, conspired with nongovernmental agents of
CaliforniaALL, original actors Freada Kapor and Mary Ann Todd of
Munger Tolles (on behalf of Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway), Douglas Winthrop of Howard
Rice, Holly Fujie of Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee of Morrison &
Foerster, and Richard Tom of Southern California Edison to injure
Plaintiff, to retaliate against him because of his speech-related
activates, and to confiscate all the incriminating evidence he had
gathered.
113. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Streeter — who served as a ‘bundler’ for Barack Obama’s campaign —
was also motivated to silence Plaintiff lest information he possessed
would cause President Obama to lose his re-election bid.
114. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Joe Dunn reached an understanding with Erwin Chemerinsky of
Voice of OC, as well as original Voice of OC directors Thomas Girardi
and James Brosnahan of Morrison & Forester, to misuse his authority as
a state actor to silence and retaliate against Plaintiff.
115. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
that James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster and Jon Streeter of Keker
& Van Nest met with Judicial Council members Tani Cantil, David
Rosenberg, Angela Davis, and Mark Robinson to discuss potential
courses of action. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
therefore alleges that, during said meeting, an agreement was reached
by which David Rosenberg — who also serves as a judge with the Yolo
County Superior Court — would ‘clear the way’ for the issuance of a
search warrant of Plaintiff’s home lacking in probable cause.
Moreover, Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore
alleges that due to concerns of leaks by disc rental Judicial Council
employees expressed by Tani Cantil, Rosenberg agreed to unlawfully
arrange for the search warrant to also include the names of Joseph
Dunn and Starr Babcock in order to ascertain Plaintiff’s sources of
information, if any.
116. As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that, acting to serve their own financial interest and on
behalf of CaliforniaALL actors named above and pursuant to a
widespread conspiracy between private citizens and state actors, and
while acting under color of state law, the entire State Bar of
California Board of Governors (including Jon Streeter of Keker & Van
Nest — acting also pursuant to a separate conspiracy with KVN, John
Keker, Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property), and California
Bar Foundation directors Mary Ann Todd , Holly Fujie, Douglas
Winthrop; Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Jeannine English and George Davis
of AARP, Laura Chick of Obama for America, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps
–- acting on behalf client Tom Girardi, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler &
Kreindler) chose to adopt a plan by which they would unlawfully use
the fact that they are also clothed with the authority of state law to
knowingly and maliciously press false criminal charges against
Plaintiff for the alleged violation of California Business &
Professions 6043.5 which reads:
(a)Every person who reports to the State Bar or causes a complaint to
be filed with the State Bar that an attorney has engaged in
professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false
and malicious, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b)The State Bar may, in its discretion, notify the appropriate
district attorney or city attorney that a person has filed what the
State Bar believes to be a false and malicious report or complaint
against an attorney and recommend prosecution of the person under
subdivision (a).
117. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
the objective of the conspiracy was to knowingly and maliciously
submit a false criminal complaint to the Yolo County District Attorney
against Plaintiff, and for a search/seizure to be executed on
Plaintiff’s home to confiscate all evidence he had gathered in regard
to the above-described matters, and in order to retaliate and
intimidate him into silence, especially in matters dealing with In Re
Girardi, Fogel v. Farmers, Voice of OC, and CaliforniaALL.
118. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
around February of 2012, as an overt act in furtherance of said
conspiracy, representatives of the State Bar of California knowingly,
maliciously, and without probable cause pressed false criminal charges
against Plaintiff alleging, inter alia, violation of California
Business & Professions 6043.5
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
Predicated on California Penal Codes 148.5 and 182
(Against Defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
Todd, Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison
International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice,
Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster,
James Brosnahan, Richard Tom, Southern California Edison, Wilson
Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties, Mark Robinson, and Does 1
– 100)

119. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 118
as though fully set forth herein.
120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed
among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to violate
Plaintiff’s legal rights in violations of California Penal Codes 148.5
and 182. This constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to
California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200.
121. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
above-described acts.
122. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts
of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
__________________________________

123. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that on
February 21, 2012 Chief Investigator of Yolo County District Attorney
Bruce Naliboff presented to Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy
Fall an invalid and meaningless ‘Statement of Probable Cause’ in
support of a search warrant stating, inter alia, that a search of
Plaintiff’s residence and vehicle may reveal both written and
electronically recorded information of criminal conduct because
Plaintiff’s ethics complaint dealing with Sara Granda constituted a
misdemeanor in violation of B & P Section 6043.5, filing false and
malicious ethics complaints.
124. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that in
seeking to obtain a search warrant in connection with the ethics
complaint, Naliboff was acting pursuant to false advice and
information he obtained from Assistant District Attorney Michael
Cabral, who knew no probable cause existed in support of this claim.
125. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Cabral knew that no probable cause existed to seek a search warrant in
connection with the ethics complaint filed by Plaintiff and, further,
that he knew that the ethics complaint submitted by Plaintiff were (a)
valid, truthful, and meritorious; (b) protected by the First
Amendment; (c) did not constitute a crime warranting the search and
seizure of Plaintiff’s property; and (d) did not contain any facts
whatsoever to suggest that they were ‘false and malicious’.
126. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Cabral intentionally misled Naliboff, who in turn, misled Judge Falk
into believing there had been a WRITTEN criminal complaint originating
from the State Bar of California against Plaintiff when no such
WRITTEN complaint existed.
127. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that,
nevertheless, Cabral deliberately and maliciously instructed Naliboff
to seek a search warrant while misleading Naliboff and by giving him
false legal advice that probable cause existed to support the warrant,
despite the fact that there was absolutely no corroborating evidence
in support of probable cause.
128. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Cabral allowed investigators to bring along a private citizen (Tom
Layton) during the execution of the warrant on February 23, 2012.
129. During the search, which lasted approximately three hours,
Cabral constantly called the deputies executing the warrant with
questions and instructions. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Cabral also directed, participated, and
controlled the actual search and seizure.
130. During the search of Plaintiff’s home, investigator Peter Martin
stated to Plaintiff that all documents referring to the State Bar of
California will be confiscated. Despite protests from Plaintiff,
Martin confiscated documents sent to Plaintiff by the IRS in
connection with a complaint he had made against Voice of OC and
CaliforniaALL.
131. Plaintiff asked Martin why he was taking all those documents,
and Martin stated that any and all documents referencing or relating
to the State Bar of California are being confiscated. When Plaintiff
pointed out to him that the document issued by the IRS mentions
neither the State Bar of California nor any person listed on the
warrant, Martin stated that the document would be confiscated
nevertheless.
132. During the interaction with Martin, Plaintiff felt intimidated
and threatened, and retaliated against because Plaintiff exercised his
First Amendment right to complain against Voice of OC to the IRS.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BANE ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1
(Against defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
Todd , Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard
Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison &
Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern
California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties,
Mark Robinson, and Does 1 – 100 )

133. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate here the allegations in
Paragraphs 1-132 above, as
though fully set forth.

134. Defendants’ above-described conduct constitute interference, by
threats, intimidation, and coercion, with Plaintiffs’ exercise and
enjoyment of his freedom of expression rights secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States and California, in
violation of California Civil Code § 52.1. Specifically, defendants
set in motion a course of action with the intent to retaliate,
intimidate, and suppress Plaintiff exercise of those rights.

135. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
above-described acts.

136. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of
Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David
Rosenberg conspired with Michael Cabral to add the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn to the search warrant in order to also
intimidate and silencePlaintiff. Plaintiff had never committed any
alleged crimes against Joseph Dunn or Starr Babcock, and there was no
probable cause to include the names of Starr Babcock and Joseph Dunn
in the search warrant.

137. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, if
Judge Falk had not been misled and had been presented with the
complete truth when the DA’s office was seeking the search warrant for
Plaintiff’s home, Judge Falk would not have signed the search warrant
in connection with the ethics complaint or with the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of First Amendment/Free Speech Rights
(Against Defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
Todd , Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard
Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison &
Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern
California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties,
Mark Robinson, and Does 1 – 100 )

138 Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 -
137 as though fully set forth herein.

139. Defendants’ above-described conspiracies between state and
private actors, as well as the misuse of state power, and the attempt
to silence Plaintiffs constitute interference with his freedom of
expression rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States and California, in violation of 42 USC 1983. .

140. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
above-described acts.

141. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of
Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David
Rosenberg conspired with Michael Cabral to add the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn to the search warrant. Plaintiff had never
committed any alleged crimes against Joseph Dunn or Starr Babcock, and
there was no probable cause to include the names of Starr Babcock and
Joseph Dunn in the search warrant.

142. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, if
Judge Falk had not been misled and had been presented with the
complete truth when the DA’s office was seeking the search warrant for
Plaintiff’s home, Judge Falk would not have signed the search warrant
in connection with the ethics complaint or with the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Predicated on Fourth Amendment Rights/Unreasonable
Search and Seizure
(Against Defendants Michael Cabral, Peter Martin, David Rosenberg,
and Does 1-100)

143 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate here the allegations in
Paragraphs 1-142 above, as
though fully set forth.

144. Defendants’ above-described conduct has violated and continues
to violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures under the fourth amendment to the US Constitution..
As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been injured in an
amount to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment
against Defendants as follows:
1. For general and special damages under all causes of action where
available by law;
2. For costs of suit;
3. For prejudgment interest;
4. For an injunction directing Defendants to comply with 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d); and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff also demands a jury trial in this matter.
DATED: February 24, 2014

TIMOTHY FRAWLEY — SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUGDE — SUGGESTS HE WILL KEEP SACRAMENTO KINGS ARENA MEASURE OFF SACRAMENTO BALLOT [ TLR EDITORIAL NOTES: 1- As reminder -- Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property, Jeannine English, and Chris Young of Keker & Van Nest misused CaliforniaALL ( stage 3) to position Kevin Johnson as mayor of Sacramento. 2- Stages 1 and 2, Chris Young , Jeff Bleich, Tony West, Jeannine English, Laura Chick , Freada and Mitchell Kapor, Kamala Harris, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property, Morrison England, Vance Raye, and others misused CaliforniaALL on behalf of OBAMA FOR AMERICA . 3- Once YR unearthed CaliforniaALL, Keker & Van Nest removed Chris Young's profile from web-site to conceal his involvement with OBAMA FOR AMERICA, Kevin Johnson 4- Subsequent to election of Kevin Johnson, efforts made by English/Friedman to pass "strong mayor" measure.]

A judge all but slammed the door Friday on the efforts of two taxpayer groups to mount a ballot-box challenge to the public subsidy for the new Sacramento Kings arena, saying the groups made significant errors in the initiative petitions they circulated among the city’s voters.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley stopped short of ruling on the taxpayers’ lawsuit against the city, but his comments from the bench suggested he is strongly leaning toward keeping the arena subsidy off the ballot……..

…….

Lawyer Brad Hertz, representing Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal, argued that the flaws were “extremely minor” and don’t justify tossing out petitions signed by 22,938 voters, more than enough to qualify the issue for the June ballot.

After the hearing, Hertz acknowledged that his chances of winning the lawsuit appear to have diminished.

“It’s never over till it’s over, but we were disappointed with some of the preliminary findings,” Hertz told reporters. “Certainly there were no conclusive rulings. There were preliminary adverse rulings on some of the mistakes.” He said it’s likely the two taxpayer groups would appeal if Frawley rules against them. The appeals court would need to issue a ruling by March 3 for the City Council to have enough time to place the measure on the ballot for June.

The city’s lawyers weren’t ready to declare victory Friday. “We appreciated (Frawley’s) thoughtfulness and that gives us a measure of confidence,” said City Attorney James Sanchez.

…….

STOP and the Fair Arena group sued after City Clerk Shirley Concolino rejected their petitions because of various wording problems. The judge said he was tilting toward the city’s arguments because of two flaws in particular. First, the campaign’s leaders left their names off a required legal notice, published last summer in the Sacramento Observer newspaper, declaring that petitions were about to be circulated. Second, the petitions omitted a so-called “enacting clause” making clear that the initiative would become law if approved by voters.

Hertz said those flaws didn’t mislead any voters or hinder their ability to make an informed choice on signing the petitions.

STOP’s leaders “got it pretty close to being right,” the lawyer argued. “The integrity of the process was not so negatively affected. … You err on the side of democracy.”

Hertz added that STOP co-founder James Cathcart, a retired legislative employee who oversaw the signature-gathering effort, made a “good faith effort” to get the wording right. “Democracy is sometimes a little messy and a little imperfect,” he said. “We can only apologize so many times.”

But a lawyer for The4000, a political action committee funded by the Kings, said the errors were “glaring” and not deserving of any wiggle room.

“There’s no ‘oops’ exception to the legal code,” attorney Sean Welch told the judge. “It’s not rocket science to put these petitions together.”

The Kings’ political group was allowed to intervene in the case after pointing out the team had spent $36 million buying the arena site at Downtown Plaza and millions more in development costs. If the arena doesn’t open by 2017, the NBA has the right to buy the Kings and move them out of town.

Complete article, please see @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/21/6179124/judge-appears-unsympathetic-to.html#storylink=omni_popular

Sac Bee’s Dan Morain Assails Sacramento Lobbyist Kevin Sloat

Lobbyist Kevin Sloat, the latest Capitol insider to be outed by his own hubris, apparently thought he needed an edge, whether he did or not.

The Fair Political Practices Commission will vote this week whether to fine Sloat $133,500 for violating the Political Reform Act of 1974 by exceeding limits on the value of gifts lobbyists are permitted to give to legislators, and failing to disclose non-monetary campaign contributions in the form of providing the venue for lawmakers’ fundraisers.

He and his firm will survive, alter their practices, probably, and pay the penalty, a cost of doing business.

But there is a troubling context for this case, coming as it does when one senator is under FBI scrutiny and another remains in office despite having been convicted of felony charges of lying about where he resided.

…He made sure that Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg could get his hands on hard-to-get tickets for the 49ers playoff game against the New York Giants in 2012, plus field passes. The 49ers, one of Sloat’s clients then, made the tickets available. It was perfectly legal because Steinberg paid for them….

 

Sloat’s clients donated another $64,350 to Sen. Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles. Wright is carrying one of the main Internet gambling bills, and chaired the Senate Governmental Organization Committee, until he gave up the assignment after he was convicted of perjury conviction for lying about where he lived. Hall is running to replace Wright.

The Yocha Dehe, like Sloat’s other clients, violated no laws by donating to Hall, Wright or anyone else in the Legislature. As the law required, they all reported.

Complete story @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/16/6159741/wayward-lobbyist-is-part-of-the.html

Cache Creek invites you to laugh at a former Raiders cheerleader [ TLR Editorial Notes: Inappropriate ... Bad taste... Anything to lure gamblers...]

In what’s become her breakout comedy routine, comedian Anjelah Johnson impersonates a Vietnamese manicurist – an edgy caricature complete with phony praise and oblique criticism served with a smile and foreign-language asides.

Also in Johnson’s onstage repertoire? Bon Qui Qui, a fast-food employee who works at “King Burger” and refuses to take complicated orders, often calling security.

Please continue @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/30/6111880/cache-creek-invites-you-to-laugh.html

Sonya Molodetskaya — Willie Brown’s Girlfriend — to San Francisco Magazine : “I can’t live this life sober” ; Addendum to Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Reed — Odd Odd Fellow, Spouse of Sheryl Cambron — Caught Misstating Facts Under Penalty of Perjury [ TLR Editorial Notes: 1- notice new Santa image as applied to alleged perjury by David Reed 2. notice admission by Willie Brown no love for Sonya Molodetskaya. Clearly, Predator Willie Brown dates white women to seek revenge and enjoy the once forbidden... Prey Molodetskaya was an easy target ]

David Reed of Yolo County Superior Court / Davis Odd Fellows
Yolo County Superior Court Judge and Davis Odd Fellows President / Director David Reed. Subsequent to allegation made by Yolo County-based Rabbi that David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and David Reed may have misused Davis Odd Fellows (and related charities) to launder money in order to bribe Barbara Sommer of Progress Ranch on behalf of Cache Creek Casino, in pleadings dated June 21, 2013 David Reed falsely declared under penalty of perjury that “DAVIS ODD FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING FOR PROGRESS RANCH“. (image: courtesy photo)

David Reed Dec In Re Progress Ranch Reed Dec Under Penalty of Perjury

On December 29, 2010, The Davis Enterprise reported:

“The Davis Odd Fellows Lodge has announced it is contributing $6,500 to eight local charities and community groups as beneficiaries from the annual Breakfast with Santa held December 11, 2010

“In addition to providing a fun experience with Santa for 360 children and families, we are pleased to be able to help others during this holiday season,” said Lea Rosenberg, an Odd Fellow who co-chaired the breakfast.

Recipients of the donations are: $1,500 to Progress Ranch, which provides a home to foster children.

“Because of donations of food and other items for the breakfast, as well as financial donations from sponsors, the Odd Fellows are able to keep the cost of Breakfast with Santa at a really low level, and also have funds remaining to benefit these important community groups,” said Dave Reed, noble grand of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge. (emphasis added)

Barbara Sommer
Barbara Sommer (who currently serves as the president of Progress Ranch; President of California Grand Jurors’ Association – Yolo County Chapter) is being looked into for indications of whether she may have been the recipient of questionable gifts during a time period when she served concurrently as Treasurer of Progress Ranch and Foreperson of Yolo County’s Grand Jury in order to influence the outcome of various legal proceedings, and especially a Grand Jury investigation of Cache Creek Casino located in Yolo County. (image: courtesy photo)

PROGRESS RANCH SAYS THANKS ALSO IN 2011

On November 9, 2011 The Davis Enterprise published the following:

Davis Odd Fellows' Dave Reed Progress Ranch

“The event is presented by the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge and Davis Rebekah Lodge, with food donations from the Davis Food Co-op, Woodstock’s Pizza, Kona Coast Food Products and Puroast Low Acid Coffee.

“The 175 members of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge look forward to Breakfast with Santa every year because it brings so much joy and pleasure to the children and families who participate,” said Dave Reed, Noble Grand of the lodge.

Proceeds from the event will support emancipated foster youths as they transition to adulthood and Progress Ranch, a group home for foster boys in Davis.”

Separately, on March 9, 2012 The Davis Enterprise reported the following:

“I received an email from Lea Rosenberg of the Davis Odd Fellows saying that we were going to be the recipients of their “Breakfast with Santa” fundraiser during the 2011 holiday season. When I arrived at the Odd Fellows Hall on Feb. 22, Lea graciously provided an introduction of Progress Ranch to the membership, and a check was presented to me.

The board and staff of Progress Ranch applaud the Odd Fellows and the Davis community for collaborating and partnering with our agency since its inception and in the successful fundraiser, the 2011 holiday appeal letter.” (emphasis added)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sonya Molodetskaya

Sonya Molodetskaya—Russian refugee, aspiring boutique owner, mostly absentee immigrant rights commissioner, and decade-long lady friend of ex-mayor Willie Brown—has a zebra pelt on her living room floor. She ordered it on eBay for $1,500; she thinks it came from Zimbabwe. In her closet hang enough chinchilla, sable, and silver fox coats to inspire a PETA protest. The collection includes the tan mink parka that she was wearing when she stepped off the plane at SFO at age 24, back in 1996, after her parents forced her to leave her social life (and boyfriend) in Moscow and reinvent herself as a Russian Jewish émigré in the Outer Sunset.

But hers is no typical immigrant tale, as evidenced by the tower of orange Hermès boxes in the closet, the shelves of stilettos, the 2011 Jaguar convertible in the garage across the street, and the giant black-and-white painting on the living room wall: Molodetskaya wearing a lacy bra and—what else?—a fur, mob-wife style. Across the room is a baby grand piano. She learned to play after her father greased the palm of a Muscovite schoolmaster, but she’s reneging on her promise to serenade me: She has an earache that kept her cooped up at home yesterday, as well as a gash on her hand incurred while slicing Spanish chorizo for a snack.

We’re sitting on Molodetskaya’s couch on a Tuesday afternoon, her earache beginning to subside thanks to a liberal infusion of red wine—each of us is on our second glass. “I can’t live this life sober,” she says in a rich accent that rolls out like a blend of Moscow and Queens. She’s joking—sort of. Having spent several afternoons and evenings in her company, I have learned her terms: There is no interview with Sonya unless you drink with Sonya. She calls this Russian hospitality, and I’ve been subject to it at the Four Seasons Hotel, at a Marina hair salon before a symphony gala, and at Jardinière after a marathon Immigrant Rights Commission meeting—from which she stepped out and asked me, “Where’s the drink?”

Please continue @:

http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/who-needs-love-when-youve-got-willie-brown

The end of the Corcoran Gallery of Art

If the Corcoran Gallery of Art had to be swallowed up by a larger and healthier institution to survive, we might celebrate Wednesday’s announcement that its collection will be devoured by the National Gallery of Art. The National Gallery is hands down the most prestigious and respected steward of fine art in Washington, and its reputation is international. But this is not a swallowing of the Corcoran — this is the end of the Corcoran and its final dismemberment.
Please continue @:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/the-end-of-the-corcoran-gallery-of-art/

Critics blast Venezuelan classical maestro Dudamel

Classical music wunderkind Gustavo Dudamel is facing the heat in his native Venezuela for not speaking out against embattled President Nicolas Maduro while holding a series of high-profile concerts here this week.

Please continue @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/14/6158668/critics-blast-venezuelan-classical.html

David Greenwald of Davis Vanguard Hereby Asked to Opine on Alleged Perjury by David Reed In Connection with Barbara Sommer of Yolo Grand Jury / Progress Ranch

David Reed of Yolo County Superior Court / Davis Odd Fellows
Yolo County Superior Court Judge and Davis Odd Fellows President / Director David Reed. Subsequent to allegation made by Yolo County-based Rabbi that David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and David Reed may have misused Davis Odd Fellows (and related charities) to launder money in order to bribe Barbara Sommer of Progress Ranch on behalf of Cache Creek Casino, in pleadings dated June 21, 2013 David Reed falsely declared under penalty of perjury that “DAVIS ODD FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING FOR PROGRESS RANCH“. (image: courtesy photo)

David Reed Dec In Re Progress Ranch Reed Dec Under Penalty of Perjury

On December 29, 2010, The Davis Enterprise reported:

“The Davis Odd Fellows Lodge has announced it is contributing $6,500 to eight local charities and community groups as beneficiaries from the annual Breakfast with Santa held December 11, 2010

“In addition to providing a fun experience with Santa for 360 children and families, we are pleased to be able to help others during this holiday season,” said Lea Rosenberg, an Odd Fellow who co-chaired the breakfast.

Recipients of the donations are: $1,500 to Progress Ranch, which provides a home to foster children.

“Because of donations of food and other items for the breakfast, as well as financial donations from sponsors, the Odd Fellows are able to keep the cost of Breakfast with Santa at a really low level, and also have funds remaining to benefit these important community groups,” said Dave Reed, noble grand of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge. (emphasis added)

Barbara Sommer
Barbara Sommer (who currently serves as the president of Progress Ranch; President of California Grand Jurors’ Association – Yolo County Chapter) is being looked into for indications of whether she may have been the recipient of questionable gifts during a time period when she served concurrently as Treasurer of Progress Ranch and Foreperson of Yolo County’s Grand Jury in order to influence the outcome of various legal proceedings, and especially a Grand Jury investigation of Cache Creek Casino located in Yolo County. (image: courtesy photo)

PROGRESS RANCH SAYS THANKS ALSO IN 2011

On November 9, 2011 The Davis Enterprise published the following:

Davis Odd Fellows' Dave Reed Progress Ranch

“The event is presented by the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge and Davis Rebekah Lodge, with food donations from the Davis Food Co-op, Woodstock’s Pizza, Kona Coast Food Products and Puroast Low Acid Coffee.

“The 175 members of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge look forward to Breakfast with Santa every year because it brings so much joy and pleasure to the children and families who participate,” said Dave Reed, Noble Grand of the lodge.

Proceeds from the event will support emancipated foster youths as they transition to adulthood and Progress Ranch, a group home for foster boys in Davis.”

Separately, on March 9, 2012 The Davis Enterprise reported the following:

“I received an email from Lea Rosenberg of the Davis Odd Fellows saying that we were going to be the recipients of their “Breakfast with Santa” fundraiser during the 2011 holiday season. When I arrived at the Odd Fellows Hall on Feb. 22, Lea graciously provided an introduction of Progress Ranch to the membership, and a check was presented to me.

The board and staff of Progress Ranch applaud the Odd Fellows and the Davis community for collaborating and partnering with our agency since its inception and in the successful fundraiser, the 2011 holiday appeal letter.” (emphasis added)

Carnegie Hall to lead citywide festival exploring Vienna’s rich musical history

If any single place on the globe can be described as the historical center of classical music, it is Vienna. The Western classical tradition is dominated by music that came out of and through Vienna. Its musicians, impresarios and composers are bookended by the giants Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert—and the composers who ushered out romanticism and opened the door to the modern era: Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. In between, the city hosted the works of Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler.

Please continue @ source :

http://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2014/02/carnegie-hall-to-lead-citywide-festival-exploring-viennas-rich-musical-history/

 

Haitink, BSO more stolid than stirring in Brahms and Schumann

Bernard Haitink conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra Tuesday night at Carnegie Hall

Bernard Haitink conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra Tuesday night at Carnegie Hall

The Boston Symphony Orchestra will have to wait another year before appearing in New York with their new, young music director Andris Nelsons.  In the meantime, they opened their 2014 Carnegie Hall stand on Tuesday under the baton of their old friend Bernard Haitink, and while they have rarely sounded more polished, youthful vigor seemed to be exactly what was missing.

Please see complete story @:

http://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2014/02/haitink-bso-more-stolid-than-stirring-in-brahms-and-schumann/

 

 

Rick Boyles – Grand Master of Grand Lodge of California — Asked to Comment on Alleged Perjury by David Reed (husband of Sheryl Cambron) Concerning Financial Contributions from Davis Odd Fellows to Progress Ranch / Barbara Sommer

Hello Mr. Boyles:

I hope you are well, and thanks for replying to my email the other day.

Do you by any chance know why Dave Reed stated — falsely — under penalty of perjury that “DAVIS ODD FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING FOR PROGRESS RANCH.”

As you know, Reed is a judge of the Yolo County Superior Court and Progress Ranch is an entity controlled by Barbara Sommer — foreman of Yolo County Grand Jury.

As you also know, because of the almost exclusive financial contributions to “emancipated foster youth,” I suspected that Lea and David Rosenberg misused Davis Odd Fellows to launder money to Barbara Sommer on behalf of Cache Creek Casino — an entity which Sommer was investigating in her capacity as foreman of the Yolo County Grand Jury.

Recently, much to my chagrin, I came across various articles which clearly state that Davis Odd Fellows — during the time period Dave Reed serve as president — repeatedly made financial contributions to Progress Ranch.

If you know why Dave Reed chose to defraud the court and myself, please let me know.

You can obtain more information about this topic by clicking on following link:

bit.ly/1d7r58B

Thank you

Source @:

http://seenthis.net/messages/230266

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RELATED STORY:

David Reed of Yolo County Superior Court / Davis Odd Fellows
Yolo County Superior Court Judge and Davis Odd Fellows President / Director David Reed. Subsequent to allegation made by Yolo County-based Rabbi that David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and David Reed may have misused Davis Odd Fellows (and related charities) to launder money in order to bribe Barbara Sommer of Progress Ranch on behalf of Cache Creek Casino, in pleadings dated June 21, 2013 David Reed falsely declared under penalty of perjury that “DAVIS ODD FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING FOR PROGRESS RANCH“. (image: courtesy photo)

David Reed Dec In Re Progress Ranch Reed Dec Under Penalty of Perjury

On December 29, 2010, The Davis Enterprise reported:

“The Davis Odd Fellows Lodge has announced it is contributing $6,500 to eight local charities and community groups as beneficiaries from the annual Breakfast with Santa held December 11, 2010

“In addition to providing a fun experience with Santa for 360 children and families, we are pleased to be able to help others during this holiday season,” said Lea Rosenberg, an Odd Fellow who co-chaired the breakfast.

Recipients of the donations are: $1,500 to Progress Ranch, which provides a home to foster children.

“Because of donations of food and other items for the breakfast, as well as financial donations from sponsors, the Odd Fellows are able to keep the cost of Breakfast with Santa at a really low level, and also have funds remaining to benefit these important community groups,” said Dave Reed, noble grand of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge. (emphasis added)

Barbara Sommer
Barbara Sommer (who currently serves as the president of Progress Ranch; President of California Grand Jurors’ Association – Yolo County Chapter) is being looked into for indications of whether she may have been the recipient of questionable gifts during a time period when she served concurrently as Treasurer of Progress Ranch and Foreperson of Yolo County’s Grand Jury in order to influence the outcome of various legal proceedings, and especially a Grand Jury investigation of Cache Creek Casino located in Yolo County. (image: courtesy photo)

PROGRESS RANCH SAYS THANKS ALSO IN 2011

On November 9, 2011 The Davis Enterprise published the following:

Davis Odd Fellows' Dave Reed Progress Ranch

“The event is presented by the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge and Davis Rebekah Lodge, with food donations from the Davis Food Co-op, Woodstock’s Pizza, Kona Coast Food Products and Puroast Low Acid Coffee.

“The 175 members of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge look forward to Breakfast with Santa every year because it brings so much joy and pleasure to the children and families who participate,” said Dave Reed, Noble Grand of the lodge.

Proceeds from the event will support emancipated foster youths as they transition to adulthood and Progress Ranch, a group home for foster boys in Davis.”

Separately, on March 9, 2012 The Davis Enterprise reported the following:

“I received an email from Lea Rosenberg of the Davis Odd Fellows saying that we were going to be the recipients of their “Breakfast with Santa” fundraiser during the 2011 holiday season. When I arrived at the Odd Fellows Hall on Feb. 22, Lea graciously provided an introduction of Progress Ranch to the membership, and a check was presented to me.

The board and staff of Progress Ranch applaud the Odd Fellows and the Davis community for collaborating and partnering with our agency since its inception and in the successful fundraiser, the 2011 holiday appeal letter.” (emphasis added)

Berkeley Symphony premieres Samuel Adams’ violin concerto

On Thursday, the Berkeley Symphony presents the world premiere of Adams’ first Violin Concerto, a four-movement response to the tradition of violin concertos by J. S. Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky and Ligeti — a clear omission of the popular romantic warhorses of violin literature.

Complete article, please visit@:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/berkeley-symphony-premieres-samuel-adams-violin-concerto

Saxophonist Matthew Ennis will solo with San Bernardino Symphony

The San Bernardino Symphony will present “Sax and Strings,” a concert featuring saxophonist Matthew Ennis, at 7:30 p.m. March 1 at the California Theatre, 562 W. Fourth St., San Bernardino.

The concert will include Johann Sebastian Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G major, Samuel Barber’s “Adagio for Strings,” Alexander Glazunov’s Concerto in E flat major for saxophone and string orchestra and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s “Eine kleine Nachtmusik.”

 

Please see full story @:

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140220/saxophonist-matthew-ennis-will-solo-with-san-bernardino-symphony

BINGO….. TIMELINE — December 29, 2010 : Davis Odd Fellows Directors Lea Rosenberg and David Reed Support “Progress Ranch” [TLR Note: 1- HUGE…. Per YR, on June 21, 2013 Judge David Reed stated the following under penalty of perjury “He (referring to YR) asserts that Ms. Sommers is the head of Progress Ranch. I do not know Barbara Sommers….” Judge David Reed further stated under penalty of perjury “DAVIS ODD FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING FOR PROGRESS RANCH”

The Davis Odd Fellows Lodge has announced it is contributing $6,500 to eight local charities and community groups as beneficiaries from the annual Breakfast with Santa held Dec. 11.

\n

“In addition to providing a fun experience with Santa for 360 children and families, we are pleased to be able to help others during this holiday season,” said Lea Rosenberg, an Odd Fellow who co-chaired the breakfast.

\n

Recipients of the donations are:

\n

* $1,500 to Progress Ranch, which provides a home to foster children;

\n

* $1,000 to the UC Regents/Guardian Scholars program, which assists emancipated foster youth;

\n

* $1,000 to young people served by Homeless and Foster Youth Services of the Yolo County Office of Education, which assists emancipated foster youths;

\n

* $1,000 to youths served by the Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services, which helps emancipated foster youths find housing;

\n

* $500 to Suicide Prevention and Crisis Services of Yolo County;

\n

* $500 to Yolo Hospice;

\n

* $500 to Davis Community Meals; and

\n

* $500 to the Food Bank of Yolo County.

\n

“Because of donations of food and other items for the breakfast, as well as financial donations from sponsors, the Odd Fellows are able to keep the cost of Breakfast with Santa at a really low level, and also have funds remaining to benefit these important community groups,” said Dave Reed, noble grand of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge.

Source @:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/Archived-Stories-0/odd-fellows-support-eight-local-charities/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UPDATE:

David Reed of Yolo County Superior Court / Davis Odd Fellows
Yolo County Superior Court Judge and Davis Odd Fellows President / Director David Reed. Subsequent to allegation made by Yolo County-based Rabbi that David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and David Reed may have misused Davis Odd Fellows (and related charities) to launder money in order to bribe Barbara Sommer of Progress Ranch on behalf of Cache Creek Casino, in pleadings dated June 21, 2013 David Reed falsely declared under penalty of perjury that “DAVIS ODD FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING FOR PROGRESS RANCH“. (image: courtesy photo)

David Reed Dec In Re Progress Ranch Reed Dec Under Penalty of Perjury

On December 29, 2010, The Davis Enterprise reported:

“The Davis Odd Fellows Lodge has announced it is contributing $6,500 to eight local charities and community groups as beneficiaries from the annual Breakfast with Santa held December 11, 2010

“In addition to providing a fun experience with Santa for 360 children and families, we are pleased to be able to help others during this holiday season,” said Lea Rosenberg, an Odd Fellow who co-chaired the breakfast.

Recipients of the donations are: $1,500 to Progress Ranch, which provides a home to foster children.

“Because of donations of food and other items for the breakfast, as well as financial donations from sponsors, the Odd Fellows are able to keep the cost of Breakfast with Santa at a really low level, and also have funds remaining to benefit these important community groups,” said Dave Reed, noble grand of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge. (emphasis added)

Barbara Sommer
Barbara Sommer (who currently serves as the president of Progress Ranch; President of California Grand Jurors’ Association – Yolo County Chapter) is being looked into for indications of whether she may have been the recipient of questionable gifts during a time period when she served concurrently as Treasurer of Progress Ranch and Foreperson of Yolo County’s Grand Jury in order to influence the outcome of various legal proceedings, and especially a Grand Jury investigation of Cache Creek Casino located in Yolo County. (image: courtesy photo)

PROGRESS RANCH SAYS THANKS ALSO IN 2011

On November 9, 2011 The Davis Enterprise published the following:

Davis Odd Fellows' Dave Reed Progress Ranch

“The event is presented by the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge and Davis Rebekah Lodge, with food donations from the Davis Food Co-op, Woodstock’s Pizza, Kona Coast Food Products and Puroast Low Acid Coffee.

“The 175 members of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge look forward to Breakfast with Santa every year because it brings so much joy and pleasure to the children and families who participate,” said Dave Reed, Noble Grand of the lodge.

Proceeds from the event will support emancipated foster youths as they transition to adulthood and Progress Ranch, a group home for foster boys in Davis.”

Separately, on March 9, 2012 The Davis Enterprise reported the following:

“I received an email from Lea Rosenberg of the Davis Odd Fellows saying that we were going to be the recipients of their “Breakfast with Santa” fundraiser during the 2011 holiday season. When I arrived at the Odd Fellows Hall on Feb. 22, Lea graciously provided an introduction of Progress Ranch to the membership, and a check was presented to me.

The board and staff of Progress Ranch applaud the Odd Fellows and the Davis community for collaborating and partnering with our agency since its inception and in the successful fundraiser, the 2011 holiday appeal letter.” (emphasis added)

TIMELINE March 09, 2012 — Progress Ranch says thanks to Lea Rosenberg [ TLR Notes: 1- Progress Ranch's president -- Barbara Sommer - former chair of Yolo County Grand Jury ]

I received an email from Lea Rosenberg of the Davis Odd Fellows saying that we were going to be the recipients of their “Breakfast with Santa” fundraiser during the 2011 holiday season. When I arrived at the Odd Fellows Hall on Feb. 22, Lea graciously provided an introduction of Progress Ranch to the membership, and a check was presented to me.

Progress Ranch provides group home care to boys under 12 years of age who have been unable to make it in foster family care. We have moved from the Binning Tract to Oak Avenue in 1976 to the Fifth Street location and the Loyola Drive house in 1981. Now, Progress Ranch will finally acquire the Loyola site and achieve the permanency that the agency has been seeking for its six young clients.

The board and staff of Progress Ranch applaud the Odd Fellows and the Davis community for collaborating and partnering with our agency since its inception and in the successful fundraiser, the 2011 holiday appeal letter.

Russell K. Kusama

Executive director, Progress Ranch

 

Source @:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/letters/progress-ranch-says-thanks/

Davis Odd Fellows Breakfast With Santa Revisited [ TLR Editorial Notes: Purpose of post to alert YR / Public "Davis Waste Removal" operated by John Geisler -- spouse of defendant Barbara Geisler ]

Breakfast With Santa Delivers Lots Of Fun

Today the Davis Odd Fellows completed our seventh annual Breakfast with Santa in downtown Davis. It was a great success. We heard nothing but compliments and saw nothing but smiles from the 350 children and families who enjoyed the morning. Folks in Davis, CA really look forward to Breakfast with Santa – tickets all sell out in two weeks or less.

We have so many people to thank, but especially the world’s best Santa, our own Doug Hatton. Thank you also to his wife and Santa Manager Margee, and the 8 young ladies who were the elves. The kitchen and cooking crew headed by John Geisler and Barb Geisler were just great – hard-working from 6 a.m. and constantly cranking out the pancakes, sausages and other goodies. Thank you to our excellent photographer, Ernesto Sandoval, and Dee Clark from Woodstock’s who served her famous Cinna-Bread. We had some 50 volunteers from our Lodges who worked in shifts from 7 this morning till about 1 p.m. this afternoon. Thank you to Sharla Cheney who, once again, was our volunteer coordinator, and Dave Rosenberg, once again our volunteer wrangler and PR guy. Everyone pitched in filling goodie bags, decorating the tables, serving, cleaning, and doing all the tasks that need to be done to pull off this event. This year we tried something different and had three volunteer shifts, rather than two – thus involving even more members of our Lodges. We also had a special clean-up crew of volunteers to handle the kitchen. It takes MANY hands to put on this big show. Thank you, thank you, thank you to all the volunteers:

Doug Hatton
Dave Reed
Sheryl Cambron
Jonathan Raven
Vita Salmieri
Lewis Kimble
David Hafter
Gina Daleiden
Arun Sen
Debbie Friend
Kathy White
Kati Cole-Leathers
Hannah Cole-Leathers
Marc Langlais
JuDee Archuleta
Tim Ainsworth
Joyce Trujillo
Shyamli Sah
Bill Grabert
Matt DeMoura
Alekka Fullerton
Michael Fullerton
Mike Cabral
Margie Cabral
Duff Devine
Irene Fecht
Penny Smith
Jean-Paul Montreuil
John Geisler
Peter Pascoe
Brodie Hamilton
Sharon Schauer
Joyce Puntillo
Mark Spencer
Dennis Corcoran
Vickie Kretsinger
David Cougevan
Tim Carroll
Ann Carroll
Ernesto Sandoval
Dee Clark
Dave Rosenberg
Sharla Cheney
Barb Geisler
Lea Rosenberg

And, once again, we received applications from folks who attended Breakfast with Santa, and now want to join the Odd Fellows and Rebekah Lodges. They want to join because they see the great community spirit of our Lodges and members.

We also appreciate the merchants, like the Davis Coop, Woodstock’s Pizza, Mezzeta Foods and Puroast Coffee, who donated all the food supplies. And thank you to the many donors who contributed over $3,000 to help our efforts – donors like Edward Jones Inc. and David Cougevan, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, the Wochok Group, the Law Offices of Raquel Silva, the Law Offices of Roberta Savage, Supervisor Don Saylor, Retired Supervisor Helen Thomson, Davis Ace Hardware, Davis Waste Removal, First Northern Bank, Tandem Properties, Hanlees Nissan of Davis, and others. We also thank Avid Reader and Common Grounds who have sold tickets for us for many years.

The proceeds from Breakfast with Santa are used to benefit foster children in our community, and young adults who have recently left the foster system.

We look forward to the eighth annual Breakfast with Santa in 2013. (Once we rest up.)

F – L – T

Lea Rosenberg and Barb Geisler, Co-Chairs
Breakfast with Santa Committee

Source @:

http://davislodge.org/breakfast-with-santa-delivers-lots-of-fun/

BREAKING NEWS: Robyn Drivon — Yolo County Chief Legal Counsel — Abruptly Resigns

Drivon RobynWRobyn Drivon. Courtesy photo

The Davis Enterprise reports “Yolo County is searching for a new county counsel, though the reason why remains unclear.

The Board of Supervisors emerged from closed session last week with a two-sentence statement announcing that recruitment would be getting underway for a replacement for current County Counsel Robyn Drivon, but no additional information or explanation was provided.”

Complete story, please visit:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/county-government/yolo-county-seeking-new-county-counsel/

 

 

 

 

Prakashpalan v. Engstrom Lipscomb and Lack : Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Decision Reversing in Favor of Plaintiffs who Sued Engstrom Lipscomb and Lack for Alleged Embezzlement [ TLR Editorial Note: 1 - Notice, again, name of Lawyers' Lawyer Peter Dion-Kindem 2- Reminder, Walter Lack part of Girardi Syndicate ]

MURUGANANDAN PRAKASHPALAN et al.,Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB AND LACK et al.,Defendants and Respondents.

No. B244236

In The Court of Appeal of the State of California

Second Appellate District

Division One

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC112882)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John H. Reid, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Filed February 11, 2014

counsel

Dion-Kindem & Crockett and Peter R. Dion-Kindem for Plaintiffs and Appellants Muruganandan Prakashpalan and Navamalar Prakashpalan.

Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Robert T. Bryson and Edward P. Wolfe for Defendants and Respondents Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Jerry Ramsey, Walter Lack and Robert Wolfe.

opinion

Plaintiffs Muruganandan Prakashpalan and Navamalar Prakashpalan were clients of defendant law firm Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack and the individual defendants Walter Lack, Jerry Ramsey, and Robert Wolfe, who are attorneys with the firm (collectively Engstrom). Plaintiffs appeal judgment entered after the trial court sustained Engstrom’s demurrer to their complaint based on Engstrom’s representation of plaintiffs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1.Factual Allegations of the Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of three separate representations undertaken by Engstrom: the Allegro Matter, the Malibu Construction Matter, and the Perlmutter Matter. The second amended complaint (SAC) alleged 13 causes of action: (1) professional negligence/legal malpractice/conflict of interest; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraudulent concealment of conflict of interest; (4) fraudulent concealment of embezzlement; (5) intentional fraud; (6) constructive fraud; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) unfair business practices (Allegro Matter); (9) unfair business practices (Perlmutter Matter); (10) conversion; (11) civil conspiracy to commit intentional fraud; (12) civil conspiracy to commit conversion; and (13) accounting. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged the following:

(a) The Allegro Matter

Plaintiffs’ home was severely damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. From January 1995 to January 30, 1998, Engstrom and two other law firms represented plaintiffs and other property owners in a bad faith and property damage claim against their insurer, State Farm. The action was not a class action, and plaintiffs were specifically assigned to Engstrom. In or around November 1997, Engstrom entered into a settlement with State Farm and obtained over $100 million for 93 insured families. Plaintiffs allege that Engstrom received $245,000, about one-third of plaintiffs’ settlement share, and distributed the remaining $500,000 to plaintiffs. In February 2012, plaintiffs were able to randomly contact 17 of the plaintiffs in the Allegro Matter. Based on their discussions with the Allegro plaintiffs, it was clear to plaintiffs that Engstrom had instructed all plaintiffs in the Allegro Matter not to discuss the settlement funds with anyone. However, plaintiffs concluded, after conducting a mathematical analysis of the settlement and of the overall litigation, that there was over $22 million of settlement funds unaccounted for. Based upon this discrepancy, plaintiffs calculated that Engstrom had withheld funds from plaintiffs’ share of the settlement funds.

(b) The Malibu Construction Matter

From January 1995 through January 30, 1998, Engstrom represented plaintiffs in connection with the Malibu Construction Matter. In late 1994, plaintiffs purchased land in Malibu, California, a fact which Engstrom knew. In early 1995, due to a contractor’s negligence, the Malibu property sustained “hill cut failure.” Engstrom provided representation to plaintiffs in connection with the contractor’s negligence, plaintiffs’ insurance claim against its insurer, State Farm, and other construction matters. State Farm provided a defense to plaintiffs in connection with the hill cut failure; this defense was provided at the same time as the Allegro Matter was being litigated. As a result, Engstrom requested that plaintiffs permit Engstrom to review all of plaintiffs’ documents and discovery responses prior to submission to State Farm.

Engstrom requested that plaintiffs estimate the cost to repair the hill cut failure, including the cost of importing dirt. Plaintiffs had learned they could obtain free dirt from the Los Angeles County Public Works Department (Public Works), and Engstrom knew of plaintiffs’ plans to import dirt to repair the hill cut failure. Plaintiffs requested that Engstrom keep this information confidential.

During the Malibu Construction Matter, Engstrom provided legal advice regarding plaintiffs’ neighbors the Perlmutters in connection with a nuisance, and also assisted in getting a restraining order against Jacob Perlmutter, who allegedly hired thugs to harass plaintiff Navamalar Prakashpalan.

(c) The Perlmutter Matter

In January 2005, plaintiffs’ Malibu property sustained damages due to a landslide originating on the Perlmutters’ property. In 2006, plaintiffs learned the Perlmutters were involved in unpermitted construction activity and illegal construction that caused the landslide, including abandonment of their 25 feet deep septic pits. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Perlmutters for negligence arising from the landslide, and the Perlmutters filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs alleging that plaintiffs’ Malibu construction was the cause of the landslide. The Perlmutters’ insurer hired the Law Office of Paul Wright to represent them in this matter.

In early 2009, allegedly after discovering their case had no merit, the Perlmutters retained Engstrom on a contingency basis as their additional attorneys. Although they knew the Perlmutter Matter was substantially related to the Malibu Construction Matter, Engstrom did not notify plaintiffs of the representation or obtain their consent, and Engstrom knew that the Perlmutters were claiming that plaintiffs’ slope repair was the cause of the landslide. Yet Engstrom failed to disclose the conflict of interest and during the litigation, Engstrom and their expert claimed that the 3,800 cubic yards of dirt plaintiffs imported caused the landslide. Engstrom used attorneys who did not have direct communication with plaintiffs in the Malibu Construction Matter and Allegro Matter, all of which was a clever plan to conceal the conflict of interest from plaintiffs.

Sometime after the Perlmutters retained Engstrom, the Perlmutters’ insurance company hired the law firm of Gibbs, Giden, Locher, Turner & Senet (Gibbs) to join as additional attorneys to represent the Perlmutters in settling the Perlmutter Matter. During the Perlmutter Matter, the Perlmutters revealed that their unpermitted construction activities were performed by entities collectively known as “the McDermott contractors.” Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the McDermott contractors as defendants, including McDermott Plumbing (represented by Skapik Law Group) and McDermott Pumping (represented by Walters, McClusky & Boehle).

After pretrial discovery, Gibbs wanted to settle the matter on behalf of the Perlmutters with plaintiffs, and the Perlmutters made a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer. Plaintiffs declined the offer. Gibbs requested continuance of the trial to settle with plaintiffs, and the court granted a continuance to permit mediation. At a mediation held December 3, 2010, defendant Wolfe revealed the damaging information that plaintiffs intended to import dirt from Public Works. The next day, plaintiffs realized the significance of Wolfe’s revelation to their case. Plaintiffs “caved in” and accepted the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer, although plaintiffs’ loss was over $4 million and the offer was $500,000. When the McDermott contractor entities—who were motivated to settle because their negligence caused the landslide—learned of the settlement, plaintiffs were likewise forced to settle with the McDermott parties for $500,000.

Plaintiffs allege they did not discover the conflict of interest until April 2011 while in court on the Perlmutter Matter. At that time, plaintiffs observed a familiar face in the courtroom gallery among the spectators, and recognized the individual as defendant attorney Ramsey. In early May, plaintiffs wrote to Engstrom regarding the conflict of interest, and on May 3, 2011, received a letter in response from Engstrom in which Engstrom denied any conflict of interest, stated that plaintiffs waived the conflict, any contact with plaintiffs’ adversaries was insignificant and minimal, and the two matters were not substantially related. Plaintiffs further allege that “[o]n May 16, 2011, [Engstrom] emailed [their] attorney threatening [them] with a debtor examination to effectuate a lien on PLAINTIFFS’ property and thereby [Engstrom] collected over $1.3 million.” Elsewhere in the SAC, plaintiffs allege the $1.3 million constituted the judgment against them in the Perlmutter Matter.

2. Procedural Background

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit, alleging six causes of action for professional negligence and malpractice; breach of fiduciary duty and conflict of interest; fraudulent concealment; constructive fraud, fiduciary fraud, intentional fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; unjust enrichment; and unfair business practices under Business & Professions Code section 17500 (UCL). Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on January 17, 2012, alleging eight causes of action (the same six as the original complaint plus claims for conversion and civil conspiracy).

On April 12, 2012, the trial court overruled defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action and sustained the demurrer as to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action of the first amended complaint, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their SAC on April 30, 2012.

Engstrom demurred to the SAC, arguing the alleged confidential information about the source of the dirt used in the Malibu Construction Matter was a matter of public record and therefore not confidential; Engstrom was entitled to dismissal of the Allegro Matter claims because it could not mount an adequate defense without breaching the attorney-client privilege with respect to the other Allegro Matter plaintiffs under Solin v. O’Melveny & Myers (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 451 (Solin); plaintiffs did not plead fraud with sufficient particularity; plaintiffs could not seek restitution because their claims were made under an enforceable contract; plaintiffs failed to allege recoverable damages under the UCL; plaintiffs’ conversion claim failed to allege an identifiable sum of money; plaintiffs failed to allege all elements of a civil conspiracy; plaintiffs failed to state facts sufficient to state a claim for accounting; and certain of plaintiffs’ claims relating to the Allegro Matter (the second, fourth, seventh, eighth, tenth causes of action) were time-barred. Engstrom requested judicial notice of the grading permit plaintiffs obtained from the City of Malibu in 1998 connection with installation of a “manufactured fill slope” and the Permit issued to the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of entering the plaintiffs’ property to deposit fill material.

Engstrom also moved to strike certain portions of plaintiffs’ SAC that requested punitive damages and attorney fees and costs on the grounds that the SAC failed to allege malice, fraud or oppression and the cause of action for accounting did not permit the recovery of damages, and the UCL did not provide for attorney fees.

In opposition,FN:1 plaintiffs generally contended the Public Works documents were expired permits and had been obtained as a result of a privileged communication with plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs argued the documents were not public records because Public Works does not provide information over the phone or over the counter unless a party is aware of the information and makes a request in writing. Plaintiffs further distinguished the case from Solin, supra,89 Cal.App.4th 451, in which the clients intervened in a case to prevent disclosure of confidential information; here, the other parties in the Allegro Matter were coming forward and volunteering information, and thus the evidence was available. Further, the statute of limitations was not a bar to plaintiffs’ claims because Engstrom’s actions were committed in secret.

Plaintiffs also opposed the motion to strike, contending the fraud alleged was sufficient under Civil Code section 3294, pointing to Engstrom’s alleged conduct in representing adverse interests without disclosing same to plaintiffs and in disclosing confidential information, and by taking settlement funds to which they were not entitled.

In reply, Engstrom asserted that plaintiffs’ failure to plead facts sufficient to entitle them to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations under the discovery rule in the Allegro Matter because there was nothing preventing plaintiffs from discovering any alleged misconduct in the 15 years since the settlement of the Allegro Matter. Further, unless all the Allegro plaintiffs waived the attorney-client privilege, plaintiffs would not be able to demonstrate how the settlement monies were disbursed. With respect to the Public Works document, Engstrom contended plaintiffs shared this allegedly confidential information with a public entity long before Engstrom allegedly improperly informed their adversaries.

The court granted Engstrom’s request for judicial notice and granted plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice only as to the final approved plan from the City of Malibu.

The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court found that with respect to those claims based on the Allegro Matter (second, fourth, seventh, eighth, tenth, twelfth and thirteenth causes of action), the statute of limitations did not bar those claims even under the delayed discovery rule because plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show they did not discover their claim until November 2011.FN:2 However, plaintiffs’ claims based on the Allegro Matter settlement were barred under Solin, supra,89 Cal.App.4th 451, which held that where a lawsuit is incapable of complete resolution without breaching the attorney-client privilege, the suit may not proceed, if a balancing of certain factors set forth in Solin and explained in Dietz v. Meisenheimer Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771 is satisfied. Here, the trial court found the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy those factors because although some of the Allegro plaintiffs had come forward, Engstrom would be forced to reveal confidential information relating to the other Allegro plaintiffs in order to defend the action, and thus demurrer was sustained as to those claims on that basis. Further, plaintiffs’ claims that a portion of the Allegro Matter settlement proceeds were unaccounted for was entirely based on speculation.

With respect to claims based on the Perlmutter Matter (first, third, fifth, sixth, ninth, and eleventh causes of action), the trial court found that although Engstrom’s judicially noticed documents did not establish plaintiffs’ importation of fill dirt was a matter of public record, plaintiffs nonetheless failed to explain how they were damaged by this disclosure.

The court also addressed the specific merits of certain of plaintiffs’ claims, as more fully discussed below.

The trial court denied leave to amend because plaintiffs failed to show how they could correct the deficiencies in their complaint. In addition, because plaintiffs failed to plead any viable causes of action to support punitive damages, the trial court granted the motion to strike.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading as a matter of law, [and] we apply the de novo standard of review in an appeal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247; Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420.) A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts,” but the plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of his or her case “‘”‘with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source, and extent'”‘” of the plaintiff’s claim. Legal conclusions are insufficient. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550 & 551, fn. 5.) “We assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law.” The trial court errs in sustaining a demurrer “if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory, and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff has shown there is a reasonable possibility a defect can be cured by amendment.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 247.)

A complaint must contain a “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(1).)FN:3 The facts to be pleaded are those upon which liability depends—facts constituting the cause of action, or “ultimate facts.” (Doe v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 550.) Such facts must be plausible. (See Id. at p. 551.) “A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable claim. It is both improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate facts.” (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390.) In negligence cases, although negligence may be pleaded in general terms, if the pleaded facts of negligence and injury do not naturally give rise to an inference of causation, plaintiff must plead specific facts explaining how the conduct caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injury. (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 78.)

II. Engstrom’s Demurrer

A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Based on the Allegro Action—Statute of Limitations

Notwithstanding the trial court’s ruling that plaintiffs’ claims based on the Allegro Matter were not barred by the statute of limitations, Engstrom’s brief argues that the statute of limitations bars such claims. As a general rule, respondents who fail to file a cross-appeal cannot claim error in connection with the opposing party’s appeal. (Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439.) A limited exception to this rule is provided by section 906, which states in pertinent part: “The respondent … may, without appealing from [the] judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review any of the foregoing [described orders or rulings] for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he relies for reversal or modification of the judgment from which the appeal is taken.” “‘The purpose of the statutory exception is to allow a respondent to assert a legal theory which may result in affirmance of the judgment.’ [Citation.]” (Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 791, 798.) We therefore consider the statute of limitations issue.

1. Malpractice Claim

“An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first.” (§ 340.6, subd. (a).) Section 340.6 states two distinct and alternative limitation periods: One year after actual or constructive discovery, or four years after occurrence (the date of the wrongful act or omission), whichever occurs first. The statute applies to an action for malpractice as well as breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the performance of an attorney’s professional duties, but it does not apply to actions for fraud. (Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 223.) Further, the statute applies to actions for any act or omission arising out of the performance of an attorney’s professional duties. (Ibid.)

The statute is tolled only during the time the plaintiff has not sustained actual injury. (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(1).) Actual injury occurs where the plaintiff suffers any loss or injury legally cognizable as damages based on the asserted errors or omissions of an attorney. (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 743.) The fact of injury or damage need not be recognized or noticed by the plaintiff. Nor does the fact that damage may be difficult to calculate or prove prevent the legal malpractice statute of limitations from running. (Croucier v. Chavos (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1148.)

Here, plaintiffs’ injury occurred in 1997 when Engstrom allegedly wrongfully withheld the settlement funds, more than four years before the filing of the plaintiffs’ SAC in April 2012. Thus, plaintiffs’ malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims based on the Allegro Matter settlement funds distribution are barred by section 340.6.

2. Fraud-Based Claims

We requested the parties to brief separately the issue of the applicability of the statute of limitations in Probate Code section 16460 to client trust accounts and the disbursement of settlement funds from such accounts. Plaintiffs contend that Engstrom had a duty as holder of their client funds in trust, to account for and maintain records of such funds under Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100, and that Probate Code section 16460 governs the limitations period, as well as lessens their duty of inquiry into Engstrom’s handling of such funds as a fiduciary; furthermore, the holding of client trust funds is arguably not the rendering of professional services to which Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 would apply. Engstrom counters that Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 controls any claims for breach of trust such as alleged here and Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d) controls any fraud claims, and also that Probate Code section 16460 by its express terms states that it applies unless the potential breach of trust is covered by another statute. Furthermore, Engstrom argues that both Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d) and Probate Code section 16460 supply the same time period and delayed discovery rule and plaintiffs are not under any lessened duty of discovery; as a result, plaintiffs have failed to establish that any new facts not available to them in 1997 came to light in 2012 to justify their late amendment of their pleading.

By its own terms, section 340.6 does not govern claims for fraud.FN:4 Generally, courts have applied section 338, subdivision (d) to actions for fraud against attorneys. This statute of limitations for fraud is three years. (§ 338, subd. (d).) This section also codifies the delayed discovery rule, providing that a cause of action for fraud “‘is not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.'” (Brandon G. v. Gray (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 29, 35; § 338, subd. (d).) The date a complaining party learns, or at least is put on notice, that a representation was false is the date the statute starts running. (§ 338, subd. (d).) The fraudulent concealment doctrine will also toll the statute of limitations under section 338, subdivision (d). “[T]he ground of relief is that the defendant, having by fraud or deceit concealed material facts and by misrepresentations hindered the plaintiff from bringing an action within the statutory period, is estopped from taking advantage of his own wrong.” (Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 226, 231.) To take advantage of this doctrine “‘the plaintiff must show … the substantive elements of fraud[] and … an excuse for late discovery of the facts.'” (Snapp & Associates Ins. Services, Inc. v. Robertson (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 884, 890.)

With respect to trust accounts, Probate Code section 16460 applies to a fiduciary’s duty to provide an accounting to a beneficiary and provides a three-year limitations period that is triggered by the trustee’s accounting duty. A beneficiary of a trust who receives an accounting that would put him or her on notice of a claim against the trustee has three years from the date of receipt of the accounting to file an action; if no accounting is provided, any action must be filed within three years of the discovery of the claim. Under Probate Code section 16460, the duty of inquiry is triggered where there is sufficient information (either through an accounting or otherwise) to put the beneficiary on notice to take action. (Prob. Code, § 16460, subd. (a); Noggle v. Bank of America (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 853, 861, fn. 5 [a duty of inquiry exists even where the alleged wrongdoer is a fiduciary].)FN:5

An express trust is defined as a fiduciary relationship whereby a trustee holds property for another’s benefit. (Placerville Fruit Growers’ Assn. v. Irving (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 731, 736.) There can be no reasonable dispute that an attorney’s client trust account is an express trust: Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100 provides: “(A) All funds received or held for the benefit of clients by a member or law firm, including advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts labeled ‘Trust Account,’ ‘Client’s Funds Account’ or words of similar import, maintained in the State of California … .” Further, an attorney owes the client a duty to account for funds held in the client trust account. Rule 4-100 also provides: “(B) A member shall: [¶] … [¶] (3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the member or law firm and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding them; preserve such records for a period of no less than five years after final appropriate distribution of such funds or properties; and comply with any order for an audit of such records issued pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. [¶] (4) Promptly pay or deliver, as requested by the client, any funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the member which the client is entitled to receive.”

In addition, California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(D), which was in effect at the time of the settlement of the Allegro Matter, provided that “[a] member who represents two or more clients shall not enter into an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients without the informed written consent of each client.” Although the California Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically address what must be disclosed to a client to obtain the client’s “informed consent,” the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct impose additional demands, and require the lawyer to disclose the total amount of the aggregate settlement, the details of that lawyer’s other clients’ participation in the settlement. (ABA Model Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.8(g).)

As pointed out in Vafi v. McCloskey (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 874, where there are two statutes governing the same subject, the question of which statute governs is subject to de novo review. (Id. at p. 880.) Vafi further explained that “‘when a general and [a] particular [statutory] provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it.’ [Citation.] Thus, a specific statute of limitations takes precedence over a general one, even though the latter ‘”would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.” [Citation.]‘” (Ibid.)

Although California has declined to adopt American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.8(g), which precisely defines the scope of disclosure in an aggregate settlement, an attorney’s duty accurately to account for client trust funds in the context of an aggregate settlement is nonetheless governed by Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B). Under rule 4-100(B) in the context of an aggregate settlement, the attorney must disclose sufficient information to enable the client to evaluate whether the settlement proceeds have been properly distributed. That rule imposes a more particularized duty than the general duty imposed under Civil Code section 1710 not to omit or misrepresent facts, which duty is the basis for a generic claim of fraud.FN:6

Thus, under the rule of statutory construction that we apply a more specific statute, given the accounting duty applicable to the express trust that is a client trust account, we apply Probate Code section 16460 to plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims that Engstrom did not properly distribute the aggregate settlement proceeds in the Allegro Matter. As alleged, the only information plaintiffs received from Engstrom was the amount of their share of the Allegro Settlement, Engstrom’s attorney fees, and that the 93 families received a total of $100 million. Even without applying the more detailed standard of American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.8(g), Engstrom’s accounting was incomplete because it did not provide plaintiffs with sufficient information to evaluate whether all monies were distributed, and whether they received the sums they were entitled to receive.

As a result, plaintiffs asserted they did discover the claim in February 2012 (after they filed their original complaint) when they conducted a survey of some of the other settling plaintiffs in the Allegro Matter, making plaintiffs’ complaint timely under the principles of Probate Code section 16460. Thus, plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint to set forth delayed discovery entitling them to a tolling of the statute of limitations on the Allegro Matter under Probate Code section 16460 based upon an assertion that Engstrom failed to provide an accounting sufficient for them to determine whether their portion of the settlement proceeds was fairly and accurately distributed to them.FN:7 As a result of this insufficient accounting which plaintiffs have alleged was the result of concealment, plaintiffs, who had no other sources of information, were not put on notice of any wrongdoing until they later conducted an investigation by surveying other settling plaintiffs in the Allegro Matter. We note that substantively, the trial court found plaintiffs’ claims based on the Allegro Matter failed because they were based upon speculation. However, based upon the accounting duty Engstrom owed to plaintiffs under the Professional Rules of Conduct, and the fact plaintiffs’ allegations indicate they received an insufficient amount of information concerning the disposition of the aggregate settlement, this ground for sustaining Engstrom’s demurrer is without merit because the plaintiffs’ lack of information resulted from Engstrom’s alleged failure to adequately account. “‘Where no duty is imposed by law upon a person to make inquiry, and where under the circumstances ‘a prudent man’ would not be put upon inquiry, the mere fact that means of knowledge are open to a plaintiff, and he has not availed himself of them, does not debar him from relief when thereafter he shall make actual discovery.’ [Citation.]” (Vai v. Bank of America (1961) 56 Cal.2d 329, 342, 353 [failure of fiduciary to fully and fairly disclose material facts constituted breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud].)

Although no other cases have so applied Probate Code section 16460, we do not see this as a reason for not doing so here. The statutory limitations period of Probate Code section 16460 (which we only apply to plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims due to the exception of Code Civ. Proc, § 340.6) is identical to that of the three-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d), and there is a similar, if not identical, delayed discovery rule. The difference is that discovery is triggered under Probate Code section 16460 by the receipt of an accounting, or if no accounting is supplied, by facts sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of any wrongdoing. Given that accounting duties for an attorney vis-à-vis a client trust account were already in place under the Rules of Professional Conduct at the time of the Allegro Settlement, applying Probate Code section 16460 here does not work an injustice.FN:8 Instead, we clarify and reinforce an attorney’s duty in the context of an aggregate settlement where the settling plaintiffs will have limited information about the other settling plaintiffs’ receipts and the device of the aggregate settlement could provide a shield for an attorney to misappropriate or improperly distribute funds, as plaintiffs have alleged here.

Finally, with respect to an attorney’s duties of confidentiality owed to multiple clients in an aggregate settlement, to the extent that other clients’ settlement information is confidential, that does not preclude disclosure of some information regarding the settlement sufficient to permit the aggregate settlement plaintiffs to determine whether the settlement funds have been properly distributed. In that manner, the rule of Solin, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 467—that where confidential information is vital to an attorney’s defense and the suit could not proceed without disclosure of such confidential information, the suit must be dismissed—will not be implicated because we do not advocate a disclosure of confidential information. We require that the information disclosed regarding an aggregate settlement must be sufficient to put the plaintiffs’ on notice of any potential claim and must comport with an attorney’s duties under Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A) and (B).

B. First Cause of Action (Professional Negligence); Second Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for professional malpractice based upon conflict of interest (breach of duty of confidentiality and breach of duty of loyalty) alleged that Engstrom’s representation of the Perlmutters was undertaken without plaintiffs’ informed written consent in breach of rule 3-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Engstrom performed below the standard of care when it disclosed to plaintiffs’ adversaries plaintiffs’ plan to import free fill dirt from Public Works. Plaintiffs alleged that they suffered damages in the form of a settlement for substantially less than they were actually damaged in the Perlmutter Matter, as well as “threatening [them] with a debtor examination to effectuate a lien on plaintiffs’ property and thereby [Engstrom] collected over $1.3 million.” Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is based upon the alleged insufficient distribution of settlement funds in the Allegro Matter and the conflict of interest and disclosure of confidential information in the Perlmutter Matter.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in concluding that they failed to allege how Engstrom’s disclosure of their plan to import dirt caused them damage because they alleged they would not have settled for $500,000 if the disclosure had not been made, which they assert is a sufficiently detailed allegation to withstand demurrer. Further, even if their dirt importation plan was a public record, defendants were barred from disclosing information obtained during the course of their representation of plaintiffs under Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821. Further, plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to establish breach of fiduciary duty in their allegations of defendants’ embezzlement of the settlement funds, and the trial court erred in applying Solin, supra,89 Cal.App.4th 451because the balancing determination necessary under Solin is fact intensive and cannot be made at the demurrer stage.FN:9

Rule 3-310(C) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that: “A member shall not, without the informed written consent of each client: [¶] (1) Accept representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict; or [¶] (2) Accept or continue representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflict . . . .” (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310(C).) Rule 3-310(E) provides that an attorney shall not, without the informed written consent of the current or former client, “accept employment adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the member has obtained confidential information material to the employment.” (See also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (e).) However, a “violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct does not, in and of itself, render an attorney liable for damages. [Citations.]” (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1097.) In a tort action for breach of fiduciary duty or professional negligence, however, the rules may inform the scope of an attorney’s duty. (Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1534–1535.)

“‘”The elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are: (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional negligence.”‘” (Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1509.) The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages. (Ibid.)

“Where the potential conflict is one that arises from the successive representation of clients with potentially adverse interests, the courts have recognized that the chief fiduciary value jeopardized is that of client confidentiality” but that “the primary value at stake in cases of simultaneous or dual representation is the attorney’s duty—and the client’s legitimate expectation—of loyalty, rather than confidentiality.” (Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 283, 284.) “‘[A]n attorney is forbidden to do either of two things after severing [his] relationship with a former client. [He] may not do anything which will injuriously affect [his] former client in any manner in which [he] formerly represented [the client] nor may [he] at any time use against [his] former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship.'” (Oasis West Realty, Inc. v. Goldman, supra,51 Cal.4th at p. 821.)

Here, with respect to the Perlmutter Matter, plaintiffs’ claims for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty fail because they allege no causation, a required element of these claims. Plaintiffs assert that attorney Wolfe divulged their plan to import free dirt obtained from Public Works, but do not explain how the Perlmutters’ knowledge of their plan caused plaintiffs’ damage claim against the Perlmutters to collapse. Plaintiffs have not alleged the basis for their valuation of their case, why their use of fill dirt, or free fill dirt, harmed their position, or why their use of fill dirt was a matter that could be kept confidential in a lawsuit involving damage to their property based upon the fill dirt.

With respect to the Allegro Matter, as discussed above, claims based on professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty are barred by the statute of limitations in section 340.6.

C. Fraudulent Concealment of Conflict of Interest (Third Cause of Action) and Fraudulent Concealment of Embezzlement (Fourth Cause of Action)

Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment causes of action allege that Engstrom failed to disclose that it was representing the Perlmutters in the Perlmutter Action, although attorneys Lack and Ramsey avoided direct contact with the Perlmutters, they were involved in behind-the-scenes legal work, while Wolfe, who had not worked on the Malibu Construction Matter, had contact with the Perlmutters. As a result, plaintiffs allege they would not have settled the Allegro Matter and would not have settled the Perlmutter Matter for the sums they did. The court found on the third cause of action for fraudulent concealment of conflict of interest in the Perlmutter Matter that although a disclosable conflict of interest existed, plaintiffs failed to allege how they were damaged by Wolfe’s disclosure of their plans regarding the fill dirt. On the fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment of funds not distributed in the Allegro Matter settlement, the court found plaintiffs’ damage claims speculative and plaintiffs failed to show how the alleged concealment caused damages because the alleged concealment came after the plaintiffs had agreed to settle the matter. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in concluding they did not sufficiently allege causation on the Allegro Matter or Perlmutter Matter.

Civil Code section 1710, paragraph (3) provides that deceit includes “[t]he suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it.” In general, to prove a fraud based on concealment, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) the defendant … concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant [had] a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant … intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff [was] unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he [or she] did if he [or she] had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damage. (Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 131.)

With respect to the Perlmutter Matter, the mere disclosure of plaintiffs’ fill dirt plan does not establish why such disclosure was the cause of plaintiffs’ lowered settlement figure, and the trial court properly sustained to demurrer to plaintiffs’ third cause of action. However, with respect to the Allegro Matter, as set forth above plaintiffs’ claims set forth in their fourth cause of action are not time barred, nor are they speculative and plaintiffs are permitted to amend such claims to set forth a basis for their delayed discovery of the facts.

D. Fifth Cause of Action (Intentional Fraud)

Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action alleges that Engstrom failed to disclose its conflict of interest in the Perlmutter Matter to plaintiffs, and in communication with plaintiffs by letter dated May 3, 2011, falsely maintained that the matters were not substantially related, plaintiffs had waived the conflict, and Engstrom’s contact with the Perlmutters was insignificant and minimal. As a result of these misrepresentations, Engstrom defrauded plaintiffs of $1.3 million.

The trial court found plaintiffs’ theory of liability unclear because plaintiffs did not allege why $1.3 million was paid based on defendants’ misrepresentations about the conflict of interest. Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred because if plaintiffs had known of the conflict, they would have taken steps to vacate the judgment improperly obtained against them.

The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment require the plaintiff to show that: “(1) the defendant … concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant [was] under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant… intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damage. (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612–613.) There must also be a duty to disclose. Such a duty may be established where there is a confidential relationship between the parties, defendant has made a representation which was likely to mislead due to the nondisclosure, there is active concealment of undisclosed matters, or one party has sole knowledge of or access to material facts and knows such facts are not known to or discoverable by the other party. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 346–347.)

Here, plaintiffs’ claims fail because they allege no causation. Plaintiffs assert that attorney Wolfe divulged their plan to import free dirt obtained from Public Works, but do not explain how the Perlmutters’ knowledge of their plan plausibly caused their damage claim against the Perlmutters to collapse. Plaintiffs have not alleged the basis for their valuation of their case, why their use of fill dirt, or free fill dirt, harmed their position, or why their use of fill dirt was a matter that could be kept confidential in a lawsuit involving damage to their property based upon the fill dirt.

E. Sixth Cause of Action (Constructive Fraud)

Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action for constructive fraud was based on Engstrom’s disclosure in the Perlmutter Matter of plaintiffs’ plan to import free fill dirt obtained from Public Works, and as a result, plaintiffs settled the Perlmutter Matter for less than the amount of their damages. The trial court found plaintiffs failed to allege how Engstrom’s revelation of plaintiffs’ confidential plan to import dirt from Public Works caused their damages. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred because they adequately pleaded that Engstrom’s failure to maintain their confidences and its conflict of interest caused them damages.

Constructive fraud “‘”‘is a unique species of fraud applicable only to a fiduciary or confidential relationship.'”‘” (Michel v. Moore & Associates, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 756, 763.) “Constructive fraud ‘arises on a breach of duty by one in a confidential or fiduciary relationship to another which induces justifiable reliance by the latter to his prejudice.’ [Citations.] Actual reliance and causation of injury must be shown. [Citations.]” (Tyler v. Children’s Home Society (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 548, italics omitted; see also Younan v. Equifax Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 498, 516, fn. 14 [elements of constructive fraud cause of action are "(1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) nondisclosure; (3) intent to deceive, and (4) reliance and resulting injury (causation)"].) “‘”In its generic sense, constructive fraud comprises all acts, omissions and concealments involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence, and resulting in damages to another. [Citations.] Constructive fraud exists in cases in which conduct, although not actually fraudulent, ought to be so treated—that is, in which such conduct is a constructive or quasi fraud, having all the actual consequences and all the legal effects of actual fraud.” [Citation.]‘” (Estate of Gump (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 582, 601; see also Civ. Code, § 1573; Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 981–982, fn. 13.) “[W]hether a fiduciary duty has been breached, and whether conduct constitutes constructive … fraud, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 399, 415.)

Here, plaintiffs’ inability to plead how Engstrom’s concealment of its conflict of interest, or its revelation of plaintiffs’ confidential plan to import fill dirt caused plaintiffs to settle the case for less than their valuation is fatal to their claim. Plaintiffs have not alleged the basis for their valuation of their case, why their use of fill dirt harmed their position, why their use of fill dirt was a matter that could be kept confidential in a lawsuit involving damage to their property, or why the use of fill dirt as opposed to free dirt affected the outcome of their case.

F. Seventh Cause of Action (Unjust Enrichment)

Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment was based upon the alleged $22 million in unaccounted funds remaining from the Allegro Matter settlement and Engstrom’s wrongful retention of a portion of that sum. Plaintiffs sought restitution of such wrongfully obtained sums due them. The trial court found plaintiffs failed to allege that Engstrom retained a larger portion of the settlement funds than it was entitled to retain. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred because they specifically alleged that Engstrom “‘embezzled, misused and stole settlement funds from PLAINTIFFS for their own use'” and at the pleading stage, plaintiffs need only allege ultimate facts.

The elements for a claim of unjust enrichment are “receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another.” (Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 723, 726.) “The theory of unjust enrichment requires one who acquires a benefit which may not justly be retained, to return either the thing or its equivalent to the aggrieved party so as not to be unjustly enriched.” (Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 460.) It is not, strictly speaking, a theory of recovery, “‘but an effect: the result of a failure to make restitution under circumstances where it is equitable to do so.’ [Citation.] … It is synonymous with restitution.” (Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 793.) Ordinarily, restitution is required only if “‘the benefits were conferred by mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.'” (Nibbi Brothers, Inc. v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1415, 1422, italics omitted.)

With respect to the Allegro Matter, as set forth above plaintiffs’ claims set forth in their seventh cause of action are not time barred, nor are they speculative and plaintiffs are permitted to amend such claims to set forth a basis for their delayed discovery of the facts.

G. Eighth Cause of Action (Unfair Business Practices, Allegro Matter)

Plaintiffs alleged that Engstrom violated the UCL by embezzling funds from the Allegro settlement and by violating the confidentiality provisions of the Business and Professions Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with the Perlmutter Matter, and sought restitution of such funds. The trial court found plaintiffs failed to support their claim for damages because they failed to allege that Engstrom retained a larger portion of the settlement funds than it was entitled to. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred because they recognize damages are not available under the UCL, but seek restitution of the funds allegedly misappropriated by Engstrom.

“Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive [and] establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” (Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 632, 647.) The three prongs of the law have different thresholds. Under its “unlawful” prong, “the UCL borrows violations of other laws . . . and makes those unlawful practices actionable under the UCL.” (Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1505.) Thus, a violation of another law is a predicate for stating a cause of action under the UCL’s unlawful prong. In a consumer case, determining whether a business practice is “unfair” involves “balancing the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.” (Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 718.) Traditional fraud requirements, such as intent or actual reliance, are inapplicable to the UCL. (Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1288.)

A distinguishing feature of the UCL is that it does not provide a private action for damages or other legal remedies. Instead, the UCL provides an equitable means to prevent unfair practices in the future and restore money or property to victims of those practices. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 179.) Thus, remedies are limited to injunctive relief and restitution. Unlawful practices are practices “forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.” (Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 838–839.) To state a cause of action based on an unlawful business act or practice under the UCL, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show a violation of some underlying law.

A business act or practice is unfair when the conduct “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 187.) To establish an unfair business act or practice, a plaintiff must establish the unfair nature of the conduct and that the harm caused by the conduct outweighs any benefits that the conduct may have. (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1473.)

Finally, a fraudulent business act or practice is one in which members of the public are likely to be deceived. (Olson v. Breeze, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 618 ["'"Fraudulent," as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public "'are likely to be deceived''"].) Thus, in order to state a cause of action based on a fraudulent business act or practice, the plaintiff must allege that consumers are likely to be deceived by the defendant’s conduct. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211.)

With respect to the Allegro Matter, as set forth above plaintiffs’ claims set forth in their eighth cause of action are not time barred, nor are they speculative and plaintiffs are permitted to amend such claims to set forth a basis for their delayed discovery of the facts.

H. Ninth Cause of Action (Unfair Business Practices, Perlmutter Matter)

Plaintiffs alleged that Engstrom owed it a full disclosure of the conflict of interest that existed in connection with Engstrom’s representation of the Perlmutters, and that Engstrom’s disclosure of plaintiffs’ plan to import dirt from Public Works violated rule 3-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct requiring that Engstrom maintain plaintiffs’ confidence. Plaintiffs sought disgorgement of all revenue Engstrom received from plaintiffs in the Perlmutter Matter. The trial court found plaintiffs failed to allege how they were damaged by Engstrom’s conduct, and did not allege that defendants obtained any money or property that could be disgorged to them under the UCL. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred because they did allege that Engstrom obtained $1.3 million from them as a result of Engstrom’s fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful acts.

Here, plaintiffs’ claims fail because they allege no causation. Plaintiffs assert that attorney Wolfe divulged their plan to import free dirt obtained from Public Works, but do not explain how the Perlmutters’ knowledge of their plan caused their damage claim against the Perlmutters to collapse. Plaintiffs have not alleged the basis for their valuation of their case, why their use of fill dirt, or free fill dirt, harmed their position, or why their use of fill dirt was a matter that could be kept confidential in a lawsuit involving damage to their property based upon the fill dirt. Nor can plaintiffs explain or clarify the inconsistency between their assertions that Engstrom received $1.3 million from them while at the same time they assert that the $1.3 million figure constituted the judgment in the Perlmutter Matter.

I. Tenth Cause of Action (Conversion)

Plaintiffs alleged that Engstrom instructed the plaintiffs in the Allegro Matter not to discuss the settlement with anyone, yet based upon plaintiff’s mathematical analysis of a sampling of some of plaintiffs in the Allegro Matter, Engstrom converted a portion of the Allegro Matter settlement funds to their own use, an assertion that Engstrom refused to respond to under oath. The trial court found plaintiffs’ calculation of the sums owed from the Allegro Matter were unsupported. Plaintiffs contend that they alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for conversion based upon their calculations of the missing settlement funds.

“‘Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.'” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451.) The elements of a claim for conversion are (1) “the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion,” (2) “the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights,” and (3) damages. (Ibid.) “It is not necessary that there be a manual taking of the property,” only “an assumption of control or ownership over the property, or that the alleged converter has applied the property to his [or her] own use.” (Id. at pp. 451–452.)

With respect to the Allegro Matter, as set forth above plaintiffs’ claims set forth in their tenth cause of action are not time barred, nor are they speculative and plaintiffs are permitted to amend such claims to set forth a basis for their delayed discovery of the facts.

J. Eleventh Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy to Commit Intentional Fraud) and Twelfth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy to Commit Conversion)

Plaintiffs’ eleventh cause of action alleged that to induce plaintiffs to pay over $1.3 million to settle the Perlmutter Matter, Engstrom formed a conspiracy to make a number of material representations to plaintiffs, including concealing the conflict of interest in the Perlmutter Matter and using confidential information in the Perlmutter Matter, threatening plaintiffs with a judgment debtor examination and obtaining $1.3 million. Plaintiffs’ twelfth cause of action alleged that Engstrom requested that plaintiffs not discuss the settlement with anyone, misrepresented that they only retained one-third of plaintiffs’ settlement share, there was $22 million in settlement funds unaccounted for, and Engstrom conspired to commit these wrongful acts. The trial court found these claims failed because plaintiffs failed to allege any underlying torts to support the conspiracy claim.

There is no separate tort of civil conspiracy and no action for conspiracy to commit a tort unless the underlying tort is committed and damage results therefrom. (Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972) 7 Cal.3d 616, 631.) The significance of a conspiracy theory of liability is that each member may be held jointly liable as a tortfeasor, even though he or she may not have participated directly in the underlying tort. (Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 566, 574.) “The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy and (2) damage resulting to the plaintiff (3) from a wrongful act done in furtherance of the common design.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062.) Where fraud is alleged to be the object of the conspiracy, the claim must be pleaded with particularity. (Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 211.)

Here, plaintiffs have failed to establish how Engstrom’s conduct in the Perlmutter Matter caused them damages, and the trial court properly sustained Engstrom’s demurrer to the eleventh cause of action. With respect to plaintiffs’ twelfth cause of action based on the torts alleged in the Allegro Matter, plaintiffs’ claims are not time barred, nor are they speculative and plaintiffs are permitted to amend such claims to set forth a basis for their delayed discovery of the facts.

K. Thirteenth Cause of Action (Accounting)

Plaintiffs alleged that Engstrom was in the best position to know the disposition of the Allegro Matter settlement funds, and that the settlement funds received from Engstrom were inaccurate and not based upon the applicable retainer agreement; based on the fiduciary relationship of the parties, plaintiffs were entitled to an accounting. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that plaintiffs paid approximately $300,000 as expert fees in the Perlmutter Matter based on Engstrom’s invoices, and that Engstrom misused these funds. The trial court found plaintiffs’ accounting claim failed because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show they were entitled to an accounting. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred, pointing to the fact that they alleged defendants were their attorneys, owed them a fiduciary duty, obtained settlement proceeds in which plaintiff had an interest, and had a duty to account for the distribution of such settlement proceedings.

An accounting is an equitable proceeding which is proper where there is an unliquidated and unascertained amount owing that cannot be determined without an examination of the debits and credits on the books to determine what is due and owing. (St. James Church v. Superior Court (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 352, 359; Peoples Finance etc. Co. v. Bowman (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 729, 734.) Equitable principles govern, and the plaintiff must show the legal remedy is inadequate. Thus, where the books and records are so complicated that an action demanding a fixed sum is impracticable, an accounting is appropriate. (Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 14.) If an ascertainable sum is owed, an action for an accounting is not proper. (St. James Church, at p. 359.) Generally, an underlying fiduciary relationship, such as a partnership will support an accounting, but the action does not lie merely because the books and records are complex. (San Pedro Lumber Co. v. Reynolds (1896) 111 Cal. 588, 596–597; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 594.) Some underlying misconduct on the part of the defendant must be shown to invoke the right to this equitable remedy. (Union Bank,at pp. 593–594.)

With respect to the Allegro Matter, as set forth above plaintiffs’ claims set forth in their thirteenth cause of action are not time barred, nor are they speculative and plaintiffs are permitted to amend such claims to set forth a basis for their delayed discovery of the facts. With respect to claims based on the defendants’ failure in the Perlmutter Matter to account for $300,000 in expert witness fees plaintiffs paid to Engstrom after plaintiffs rejected defendants’ section 998 offer, plaintiffs have alleged they received an insufficient accounting of how such funds were disbursed and allege some of the funds may have been misused. The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to this claim on the ground that there was no fiduciary duty owed because Engstrom were plaintiffs’ attorneys and owed a duty to account with respect to the expert witness fees paid. To the extent plaintiffs contend defendants fraudulently misappropriated any of such expert witness fees, plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint to set forth facts supporting such an additional claim.

L. Punitive Damages

Civil Code section 3294 authorizes an award of punitive damages where the defendant has acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice.” “Malice” is described as “conduct that is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) A punitive damage claim depends upon a viable claim for compensatory damages for its vitality. (See McLaughlin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1164.) Here, because plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint to state claims for intentional torts upon which a claim for punitive damages may be based, the trial court erred in striking plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed with respect to Muruganandan Prakashpalan and Navamalar Prakashpalans’ first cause of action (professional negligence), second cause of action (breach of fiduciary duty), third cause of action (fraudulent concealment of conflict of interest), fifth cause of action (intentional fraud, Perlmutter Matter), sixth cause of action (constructive fraud, Perlmutter Matter), ninth cause of action (unfair business practices, Perlmutter Matter), and eleventh causes of action (conspiracy, Perlmutter Matter), and reversed with respect to Muruganandan Prakashpalan and Navamalar Prakashpalans’ fourth cause of action (fraudulent concealment of embezzlement), seventh cause of action (unjust enrichment), eighth cause of action (unfair business practices, Allegro Matter), tenth cause of action (conversion), twelfth cause of action (civil conspiracy, Allegro Matter) and thirteenth cause of action (accounting, Allegro Matter, and expert witness fees, Perlmutter Matter). The motion to strike is reversed on those claims related to the Allegro Matter and the expert witness fees in the Perlmutter Matter. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

JOHNSON, J.

I concur: MALLANO, P. J.

Rothschild, J., concurring and dissenting:

I agree that plaintiffs have not adequately alleged how they were harmed by defendants’ disclosures about the fill dirt, so I agree that the demurrer was properly sustained as to all claims arising from that conduct. I disagree about the timeliness of the remaining claims, all of which relate to the settlement of the Northridge earthquake litigation (the “Allegro Matter”) in 1997. I would affirm the judgment in its entirety, and I therefore respectfully dissent in part.

Defendants were plaintiffs’ lawyers, and all of plaintiffs’ claims concerning the settlement of the Allegro Matter arise from defendants’ performance of professional services for plaintiffs. Those claims are consequently subject to the statute of limitations defined by subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, which provides that, apart from cases of “actual fraud,” the action must “be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission, or four years from the date of the wrongful act or omission, whichever occurs first.” Plaintiffs filed suit more than fourteen years after the (alleged) wrongful act of omission, so their claims are untimely unless they are based on “actual fraud.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, subd. (a).)

In my view, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged actual fraud. They claim that defendants did not give them their full share of the settlement proceeds in the Allegro Matter, but plaintiffs admit that their sole basis for that claim is the following: (1) defendants settled the Allegro Matter for “over $100 [m]illion for about 93 families”; (2) in or about November 1997, defendants distributed $500,000 to plaintiffs, and defendants informed plaintiffs that they (defendants) retained one-third of the proceeds of the settlement of plaintiffs’ claims as their fee, pursuant to the contingent fee agreement between plaintiffs and defendants; (3) in or about March 2012, plaintiffs learned that 17 of the plaintiff families in the Allegro Matter received, on average, $467,441 from the settlement, which would yield a total of $43,472,029 for 93 families; (4) plaintiffs calculated that, assuming a one-third contingent fee for all 93 families and a total settlement of $100 million, payment of $43,472,029 in settlement proceeds to the 93 families would leave over $22 million of the settlement proceeds “unaccounted.” Plaintiffs infer from these calculations that defendants defrauded them by withholding settlement funds to which plaintiffs were entitled.

Plaintiffs’ theory is entirely speculative. Plaintiffs do not allege, and I do not discern, any basis for believing that the 17 families included in their calculations are representative of the 93 families included in the settlement. Rather, plaintiffs allege only that it is “fair to assume the variation in the distribution among all plaintiffs should be within [a] few thousands per family” and “it is fair to assume that most properties [included in the settlement] are in similar category and condition in many aspects.” Plaintiffs’ groundless assumptions do not constitute sufficient allegations of fraud. Further, plaintiffs do not even allege the amount of damages that they sought to recover in the Allegro Matter. Thus they have not sufficiently alleged damages either.

Given that plaintiffs admit that they have no basis for their fraud claim other than what is alleged in their pleadings, and given that an inference of fraud based on plaintiffs’ allegations would be pure speculation, I conclude that plaintiffs have not adequately alleged fraud. Their claims are therefore untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Anti-Defamation League of San Francisco honored Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest with the “Distinguished Jurisprudence Award ” [ TLR Notes 1) Per YR, award part of "grooming" Streeter to Federal Bench 2) Irrespective of light animosity between TLR/YR -- Streeter/Keker, community and justice would not benefit from Streeter as federal judge. Per YR, since power structure in search of African - American federal judicial aspirant, much better choice would be Hon. Brenda Harbin-Forte ]

The Anti-Defamation League honored Jon Streeter with the Distinguished Jurisprudence Award and Judge Vaughn Walker (ret) with the Civil Rights Award at the annual Gala Dinner in San Francisco.  The Awards were presented in recognition of their longstanding commitment to justice, civil rights and the rule of law.  NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous offered a stirring keynote address at the Gala in celebration of the advances in civil rights in our country, while reminding attendees of the many challenges that lay ahead.  Distinguished guests in attendance included members of the consular corps from France, Israel, and Mexico, Judge Thelton Henderson (award presenter and past ADL honoree).

Please continue @:

http://sanfrancisco.adl.org/2014/01/24/adl-honors-jon-streeter-and-judge-vaughn-walker-ret/

Deconstructing Pete McCloskey of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Part 2: The Volokh Conspiracy’s Eugene Volokh on Pete McCloskey [ TLR Editorial Notes: 1- notice McCloskey hate for Jews and Israel ... "so-called Holocaust".... .]


Shown above is California Democratic Party operative, foul-mouthed, heavy drinker, home-nudist Joe Cotchett of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy who represents Diane Feinstein in suit against Kinde Durkee. Cotchett, as well as Nancy Fineman and others, were part of a criminal conspiracy to file false criminal charges against YR in connection with the ethics complaint in re CaliforniaALL / quadriplegic UC Davis  law student Sara Granda.  As a result of said conspiracy,  Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig and Mike Cabral obtained a search warrant which resulted in the confiscation of all data referring or relating to Voice of OC and CaliforniaALL.  (Image: courtesy photo)

===============================================================================

Deconstructing Pete McCloskey of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Part 2: The Volokh Conspiracy’s Eugene Volokh on Pete McCloskey — BELOW:

Why, it “is not in the hands of the Jewish lobby in America.” The Democratic Party, on the other hand, “must look quite often to Jewish money to finance candidates.” And Israel, of course, “has become very much like adolf Hitler’s Germany.” That’s Rep. Pete McCloskey, in an interview with Spotlight magazine

The Republican Party is not in the hands of the Jewish lobby in America as the Democratic Party must look quite often to Jewish money to finance candidates. If you look at “Scoop” Jackson, and Alan Cranston, and Teddy Kennedy — any Democratic candidate for national office has more or less go to look to Jewish money, Republicans don’t — they are more business-oriented….

The battle [over Reagan's peace plan for the Mideast] will be for public opinion in the United States, whether the Congress will be willing to back Reagan and stand up to the Jewish lobby in this country. Congress has invariably knuckled under to the Israeli lobby in the past, and for Reagan’s plan to succeed, Congress is going to have to be willing to cut off aid to the Israelis if they continue the West Bank settlements….

That’s the same man who has referred to the “so-called Holocaust,” in a speech before the Holocaust revisionists at the Institute for Historical Review. That’s the same man who called Yasser Arafat a “man of peace” in the same exchange in which he harshly condemned Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, and Yitzhok Shamir.

It’s also the same man who’s running in the Republican primary for a House of Representatives seat, and who has been endorsed by the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times. The Times tells us he’s “the best thing that could happen for the district, the state, the nation and possibly the Republican Party.”

There’s no doubt that Jews, like others, participate in the political process, and promote causes that they care about — which sometimes include Israel. It’s quite legitimate to discuss that. It’s quite legitimate to criticize Israel; for all I know (not being particularly knowledgeable on the subject), Rep. McCloskey’s substantive criticisms of Israel were quite sound, though the claim that Israel was “very much like Adolf Hitler’s Germany” makes me skeptical of his other views.

But when someone suggests that the Democratic Party is “in the hands of the Jews,” because it is beholden to “Jewish money” (the money of 2% of the U.S. population, a group that’s somewhat but not vastly more prosperous per capita than the average person), that suggests a pretty serious lack of perspective. And when coupled with the more recent talk of the “so-called Holocaust” and the shocking double standard in evaluating Arafat and the Israeli leaders, it makes one wonder whether Mr. McCloskey is indeed quite as good as the Times and the Chronicle suggest.

Source and complete article @:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1149097531.shtml

 

Deconstructing Pete McCloskey of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy Part 1 [TLR Editorial Notes: 1) John Wildermuth of San Francisco Chronicle neglects to mention McCloskey is partner @ Cotchett 2) McCloskey place of abode is Rumsey, Yolo County 3) McCloskey — bona fide antisemite and anti-Israel 4) Founding partner of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

….For former Peninsula Rep. Pete McCloskey, his return to North Korea after more than 60 years was a trip in a time machine.

….The former congressman was in North Korea as part of a delegation from the Pacific Century Institute, an organization that promotes friendship and better commercial ties between the United States and the Pacific countries of Asia, including North Korea.

McCloskey, who now lives on a farm in the tiny Yolo County town of Rumsey, returned to San Francisco on an airplane provided by Burlingame attorney Joseph Cotchett, a longtime friend….

John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For complete article, please see :  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/War-hero-Pete-McCloskey-back-from-reunion-in-5237195.php

 

 

Redacted Text of Lawsuit YR Filed In Yolo County Superior Court Against Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; David Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Barbara Geisler; Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; Jonathan Raven; Allison Zuvela; Michael Cabral; Tracie Olson; Kathleen White

Source @: http://seenthis.net/messages/225095

Plaintiff,

v.

Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; David Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Barbara Geisler; Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; Jonathan Raven; Allison Zuvela; Michael Cabral; Tracie Olson; Kathleen White; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

1. Plaintiff – an individual residing in Yolo County, an investigative reporter and a Rabbi — has been subject to a campaign of systemic harassment ever since he uncovered corruption in various matters dealing with Boyd Gaming Director, owner of various casinos, and class-action attorney Thomas Girardi (“Girardi”) of Girardi & Keese in connection with financial corruption involving California Democratic Party operatives.

2. For example, Plaintiff unearthed the fact that subsequent to being disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stemming from an attempt to defraud the court by resorting to the ‘use of known falsehoods’, the State Bar of California appointed as ‘special prosecutor’ to Girardi’s own private malpractice lawyer (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) to prosecute Girardi on the State Bar’s behalf. (When later questioned about this matter, Falk, seeking to mislead Plaintiff, told Plaintiff that his firm had represented the law firm of Girardi & Keese, but not Girardi himself.)
3. Plaintiff also discovered corruption in a national class-action case (Fogel v. Farmers) whereas Girardi – who represented the class of plaintiffs – never disclosed that the attorney who represented defendant Farmers was concurrently representing Girardi in a separate legal matter. Very shortly after Plaintiff exposed the corruption, attorneys for Farmers approached, sought and obtained from the court a supplemental notice to the class of plaintiffs (consisting of 14 million Americans) indicating that if they cashed their settlement checks, they agreed to not sue Farmers or Girardi because of the undisclosed relationship.

4. Plaintiff also unearthed corruption involving Girardi (who has a reputation of ‘bankrolling’ the California Democratic party) and individuals associated with the California Democratic Party with connections to the California Public Utilities Commission/Energy Commission (Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Geoffrey Brown, Peter Arth, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Darrell Steinberg) and utility lawyers involved in the ‘California Energy Crisis’ (Ron Olson and Jeff Bleich of Munger Tolles; James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster; John Keker of Keker & Van Nest; Jerry Falk and Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice; Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese; Joe Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson, and the law-offices of DLA Piper) to launder money from utility companies (SCE, PG&E, Verizon, AT&T) to various members of California Democratic Party (Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, Kevin Johnson, Darrell Steinberg) and OBAMA FOR AMERICA via various non-profits (CaliforniaALL, Level Playing Field Institute, California Consumer Protection Foundation).

5. Also involved in the various financial schemes were Cache Creek Casino, Sacramento-based developer Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property, his business partner (gambling attorney Howard Dickstein), and Dickstein’s wife, Jeannine English, who was also acting on behalf of AARP to position Barack Obama in the White House and on behalf of Mark Friedman to position Kevin Johnson as the mayor of Sacramento. Additionally involved were Obama for America tech-guru Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor Klein.

6. In connection with the above discoveries, Plaintiff informed various law-enforcement agencies of these facts, as well as filed ethics complaints against some of the above named attorneys with the State Bar of California.

7. Plaintiff has been repeatedly warned that Girardi is ‘well-connected’ and will seek to silence Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff’s discoveries and allegations.

8. Indeed, very shortly after Plaintiff unearthed these events, a posse of eight armed investigators from the Yolo County District Attorney’s office executed an invalid search warrant at Plaintiff’s place of residence in Yolo County and confiscated all documents and computers in his home relating to, inter alia, various ethics complaints filed by Plaintiff on the ground that the ethics complaints were baseless.

9. Plaintiff has been informed by credible sources, and thereon alleges, that David Rosenberg was one of those responsible for pressing criminal charges against him, that he ‘cleared the way’ for the search warrant, and that he is otherwise friendly with Howard Dicsktein, Mark Friedman, Jerry Brown, Mark Robinson, and Chief Marshall McKay of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (all actors in CaliforniaALL — a sham non-profit launched for the purpose of laundering funds to finance the campaigns of various politicians, including President Obama, Kamala Harris, Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, and Governor Jerry Brown.

PART II: BACKGROUND OF FACTS UNDERLYING CLAIMS AGAINST LEA ROSENBERG AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 — PREDICATED ON 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)

10. Following the execution of the invalid search warrant on Plaintiff’s home, described above, Plaintiff began conducting research into David Rosenberg’s background and learned that he is a judge with the Yolo County Superior Court with a reputation of being a ‘political animal’.
11. Plaintiff further learned, and thereupon alleges, that David Rosenberg and his wife (Lea Rosenberg) are deeply involved — as either officers or directors — with a web of non-profit entities worth millions of dollars known as Saratoga Retirement Community, Meadows of Napa Valley, Davis Odd Fellows, Odd Fellows Homes of California, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Soroptimist International of Davis, and others.

12. Plaintiff also discovered that Lea Rosenberg — as the wife of a judge – was energetically raising funds from various businesses. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg is an individual residing in Yolo County.
13. Judge Rosenberg’s judicial campaign treasurer, Victor Bucher, is a nationally renowned expert in the area of accounting and tax fraud, and also serves as the ‘treasurer’ of a separate non-profit entity launched by David Odd Fellows — Davis Odd Fellows Charities, Inc. — where David Rosenberg serve as president and Bucher as Treasurer.
14. On April 4, 2013 — consistent with the statutory framework put into place by 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) — Plaintiff served a request for Davis Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge to make available for inspection their IRS 990 forms, which Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges are tax-exempt organizations.
15. A tax-exempt organization must make available for public inspection its application for tax exemption, three most recent 990 annual information returns, and schedules and attachments available, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d), which reads, in relevant part:
‘Public inspection of certain annual returns, reports, applications for exemption, and notices of status
(1) In general
In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) or an organization exempt from taxation under section 527 (a)—
(A) a copy of—
(i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by exempt organizations) by such organization,
(ii) any annual return which is filed under section 6011 by an organization described in section 501 (c)(3) and which relates to any tax imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax on unrelated business income of charitable, etc., organizations),
(iii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of exemption under section 501 or notice of status under section 527 (i), the exempt status application materials or any notice materials of such organization, and
(iv) the reports filed under section 527 (j) (relating to required disclosure of expenditures and contributions) by such organization, shall be made available by such organization for inspection during regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or more regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each such regional or district office, and
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return, reports, and exempt status application materials or such notice materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within 30 days.
(2) 3-year limitation on inspection of returns
Paragraph (1) shall apply to an annual return filed under section 6011 or 6033 only during the 3-year period beginning on the last day prescribed for filing such return (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing).’

16. Plaintiff delivered the request through Lea Rosenberg because she was the common denominator between the various ‘Odd Fellows’ entities and Soroptimist, in that she served as an officer and/or director of the various ‘Odd Fellows’ entities, and as president of Davis Rebekah Lodge.

17. Specifically, on April 4, 2013 Plaintiff delivered to Lea Rosenberg at learose@jps.net the following email request:
‘Re: Request for Production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A, Form 1023 to entities associated with Lea Rosenberg, to wit: Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows

Dear Mrs. Rosenberg:

Consistent with U.S. Internal Revenue Service Regulations, please consider this communication a formal request to produce their IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A, as well Form 1023. This request is for all documents submitted to the IRS within the past three years, which generally means the three most recent returns.

Said regulations require that these documents be produced within 30 days. Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows are entitled to charge reasonable costs for any copying and mailing costs incurred in relation to this request. Alternatively, you can email the documents to me as PDF attachments. I prefer the latter method. However, if for some reason, you prefer to copy and mail the documents, please send them to the following address:

[—address intentionally omitted—]

I ask that you draw no conclusion or develop any concern from the mere fact that this request is being made about you, Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows or any other individual or entity.

In addition, I ask that you please produce the following:
1. A detailed and complete list of all other non-profit entities you were involved beginning in 2008 to the present.
2. A detailed and complete list of all sums which were transferred amongst any and all organizations you were involved, beginning in 2008 to the present. For example, if in 2009 Soroptimist International of Davis transferred money to Davis Odd Fellows either as donation or rent, I ask that such transaction be disclosed.
3. A detailed and complete list of all direct or indirect transfers of funds from Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows to Progress Ranch and/or any other entity associated with Barbara Sommer from 2007 to the present.

Thank you for your time and anticipated cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.’

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s email dated April 3, 2013.

19. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff delivered to Lea Rosenberg a notice of change of address.

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s requests for the organizations’ IRS 990 forms, and while conspiring with other Defendants, chose to breach the duty to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d).

21. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

22. Due to this failure to comply with Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no avail.

23. Still seeking a complete set of the requested documents, on September 24, 2013 Plaintiff sent Lea Rosenberg the following email:

“RE: Davis Odd Fellow Hall; Davis Odd Fellow – Second Request for Production of IRS Documents

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

The purpose of this communication is to address the following matters:

1. Since you appear to have been involved with Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellow, and Sophomoric, I had previously asked you to produce the IRS tax-returns for those entities.

For reasons which I do not understand, rather than complying with this simple request (as you are required to do by law given the fact that those entities are allowed to operate on a ‘tax-exempt’ status), you have failed to respond. I am therefore reiterating my request that you comply with the request for these tax returns and produce them to me within the next 5 days.

As you know, I am troubled by events surrounding the almost exclusive fundraising to ‘emancipated foster youth’, Barbara Sommer, Davis Odd Fellow members Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral, Cache Creek Casino, Vic Bucher, and Progress Ranch.

I am also troubled by the fact that Judge Rosenberg (and his Judicial Campaign CPA Vic Bucher) lends money to the judicial campaign of other judges (i.e. Tim Fall and Dan Maguire). Hence, I would like to get to the bottom of things, and need the requested tax forms to do so.

2. In the previously submitted request, there was no mention of ‘Davis Odd Fellow Hall.’ My position and understanding is that Davis Odd Fellow Hall is part of Davis Odd Fellow.
Nevertheless, please consider this communication a formal request to also provide copies of the last three tax return forms that ‘Davis Odd Fellow Hall’ had submitted to the IRS.

3. Given that Davis Odd Fellow, David Odd Fellow Hall, and Davis Rebekah Lodge are under the exclusive control of you, your husband David Rosenberg, as well as David Reed and his wife Cheryl Cambron, and given that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the Yolo County Superior Court, I submit that these entities have a duty to operate at an even higher level of transparency than mandated by the IRS, and must comply with the common law duty of disclosure.

Thus, in addition to inspecting and copying the documents authorized by the IRS, I request copies of detailed financial statements (i.e. income, expenditures, names of donors, names of businesses and amount of rent Davis Odd Fellow Hall charges its various tenants, identity of subcontractors, identity of those who have rented the Hall etc.) For example, my understanding is that David Greenwald (publisher of The People’s Vanguard of Davis and Vanguard Court Watch) entered into a contract with Davis Odd Fellow Hall. Given that Mr. Greenwald’s publications purport to report on misconduct and malfeasance in the local area, including the courts, it appears to me that there is a direct conflict between this stated mission and his decision to rent space from an entity whose Board is comprised of you, and two Yolo County Superior Court judges.

I am looking forward to hearing from you and receiving the requested documents.”

 

24. Later that day, Plaintiff received an email response from Lea Rosenberg stating only the following: ‘so he is at it again.’

 
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 Predicated on26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) (Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; and Does 1 – 100)

25. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 24 as though fully set forth herein.

26. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests, Defendants failed to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200.

27. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

28. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se — (Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; Lea Rosenberg; and Does 1 – 100)

29. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 28 as though fully set forth herein.

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Defendants named above were all aware of Plaintiff’s repeated requests for the information described in this Complaint — the entities’ IRS Form 990 forms.

31. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants were under a duty to ensure compliance, yet chose to breach a duty prescribed in 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure to comply with the statutory requirements constitutes negligence per se.

32. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of duty, as alleged above, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no avail. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.

33. Plaintiff further alleges that Davis Odd Fellows owns a Hall (‘Davis Lodge Hall’), on a property adjacent to the two Lodges, and is the owner (and landlord) of rental property currently occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold Real Estate.

34. The ‘Hall Board Association’ is a California corporation, and is the actual owner of the Davis Lodge Hall, the adjacent property of the two Lodges, and the rental property currently occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold Real Estate.

35. The ‘Hall Board Association’ is composed of President David Rosenberg, Vice President David Reed, Secretary Lea Rosenberg, Treasurer Sheryl Cambron, and Barbara Geisler.

36. The Davis Lodge Hall is available to rent by the general public for receptions, fund-raisers, dinners, conferences, trade shows, meetings, and other events.

37. The Davis Lodge Hall is also used by Davis Odd Fellows for its own functions, such as Davis Odd Fellows Bingo and Master Balls.

38. In approximately September 2013, and after the expenditure of considerable time, resources, and efforts, Plaintiff managed to ascertain that the actual legal name of Davis Odd Fellows and David Rebekah Lodge is ‘Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge.’ Plaintiff then managed to obtain partial copies of tax returns that ‘Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge’ had submitted to the IRS.

39. Upon reviewing partial copies of the above-described IRS 990 forms from 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff noted that false information had been submitted to the IRS on two occasions that he was able to identify from the incomplete forms. Specifically, according to those 990 forms, in 2010 David Reed served as the president of Yolo Lodge 169; serving as the Treasurer of Yolo Lodge was Sheryl Cambron. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Reed and Cambron are married to each other.

40. However, this was not the information provided to the IRS. The 2010 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ‘Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge states, ‘NO.’ Since two of the officers (Reed and Cambron) were actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.

41. In 2011, Yolo Lodge officers submitted false information to the IRS again, this time involving a different set of actors — Lea and David Rosenberg, who are married to each other. Specifically, in 2011 David Rosenberg served as President of Yolo Lodge; his wife, Lea Rosenberg, served as ‘Secretary’ of Yolo Lodge, and David Reed served as a board member.

42. The 2011 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ‘Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge states, ‘NO.’ Since two of the officers (David Rosenberg and Lea Rosenberg) were actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.

43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Virgil Smith is a CPA a member of Davis Odd Fellows, and a co-conspirator in the submission of these fraudulent tax-returns. Also responsible for submitting these fraudulent tax-returns were David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, and Robert Bockwinkel.

44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fraudulent tax-returns were submitted because David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith and Robert Bockwinkel did not want the IRS and the public to become aware that Sheryl Cambron is married to David Reed, and because they were concerned that if such relationships (i.e. Lea Rosenberg is married to David Rosenberg) would be disclosed, it may trigger an IRS audit.

45. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy to Violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; and Does 1 – 100)

46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 45 as though fully set forth herein.

47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, Sheryl Cambron, Robert Bockwinkel, David Reed, Barbara Geisler, and Virgil Smith willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to violate Plaintiff’s legal rights by not complying with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) because they were concerned he would discover the tax-fraud perpetrated on the IRS, as described above.

48. Some of the overt acts (both lawful and unlawful) that gave rise to this conspiracy, committed by one or more of the conspirators pursuant to their common design, were: (a) an agreement to intentionally violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d); (b) an agreement to ignore Plaintiff’s repeated requests for information sought pursuant to this statute; and (c) a lawful overt act to belittle Plaintiff by sending him an email which reads, ‘so he is at it again.’

49. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

50. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that David Odd Fellows / Yolo Lodge 169 / Odd Fellows Hall and related entities are and were almost exclusively overseen for years by judges and selected attorneys appearing before the Yolo County Superior Court who misuse Yolo 169 and Odd Fellows Hall as a convenient forum to meet, collude, and engage in ex parte communications in a secluded and non-public setting, as well as to raise funds by lending the prestige of their offices.

51. Said individuals include primarily Judge David Rosenberg, Judge Kathleen White, Judge David Reed, Yolo County Counsel Sheryl Cambron, District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Yolo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven, Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Cabral, Yolo County Public Defender Tracey Olson, attorneys Allison Zuvela, Rodney Beede and wife Christina Zambrano Beede, and Fran McGuire (wife of judge Dan McGuire). A typical event, for example, was described on May 23, 2013 in the Davis Enterprise:

‘This year, the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge took over running the popular ’A Taste of Davis’ and we are delighted to report that the event on April 18 was a great success for all concerned.

We wish to thank the fine restaurants, wineries and breweries that treated our 250 guests to delightful food and drink: Applebee’s, Berryessa Gap Winery, Caffé Italia’s Brick Wall Pizza, California Vintage Specialties, Davis Food Co-op, Davis Farmers Market, Ding How, Dos Coyotes, Maria’s Cantina, Nugget Markets, Osteria Fasulo, Our House, Paesanos, Putah Creek Winery, Renaissance Wines, Route 3 Wines, Seasons, Senders Wines, Seka Hills Wines, Sudwerk, Sundstrom Hill Winery, Woodstock Pizza, Z Specialty Foods and Zindagi Indian Bistro.

We thank our sponsors who helped make this event so successful. First and foremost, we offer a big “thank you” to our major sponsor, Hanlees Toyota-Chevrolet-Nissan of Davis. And we also appreciate our other sponsors: The Davis Enterprise, California Vintage Specialties, Comstock Mortgage, Davis Downtown, Cunningham Engineering, Our House Restaurant and Lounge, the Davis Chamber of Commerce, Abaton Consulting, Law Offices of Poulos and Fullerton, Attorney Raquel Silva, the Law Offices of J.B. Dath, and Cache Creek Resort Casino.

Thank you to many individual sponsors: County Supervisors Jim Provenza and Don Saylor, Mayor Joe Krovoza, and Davis City Council members Dan Wolk, Rochelle Swanson, Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs, as well as Tracie Olson, Dr. Arun Sen and Bob Schelen.

Special thanks to Stewart Savage of Abaton Consulting, who put together a terrific slide show that was shown on a continuous loop at the event.

Finally, we offer a big thank you to the committee that worked with us to plan and execute this successful event: Margie Cabral, Sheryl Cambron, Robin Dewey, Bill Grabert, Nancy Sue Hafer, Lewis Kimble, Steve Lopez, Fran Maguire, Amanda Maples, Joyce Puntillo, Dave Rosenberg, Raquel Silva, Robin Souza and Christopher Young. What a great, hard-working group.’

52. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Davis Odd Fellows’ officers, directors, and members who are otherwise private actors — David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, Kathleen White, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Tracie Olson, Allison Zuvela, Michael Cabral, Rodney Beede and Christina Zambrano Beede — conspired amongst themselves to fraudulently conceal the fact that Sheryl Cambron is married to Judge David Reed and is otherwise an attorney employed by Yolo County Counsel and is in a confidential attorney-client fiduciary relationship with Odd Fellows’ members Jeff Reisig, Michael Cabral, and Jonathan Raven on the account of representing them and/or their office in matters such as Gore v. Reisig, In Re Garcia, and Yilma v. Agonofer.

53. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that as part of a common scheme and conspiracy to defraud in order to advance said conspiracy, in the hundreds of articles written and published by Davis Odd Fellows/Davis Rebekah Lodge (or about the activities of Davis Odd Fellows by outside publications such as the Davis Enterprise or Daily Democrat), the fact that Reed and Cambron are actually married to each other, that Reed is a judge, and Cambron is an attorney with Yolo County Counsel is never mentioned, in order to mislead and defraud the public and litigants by means of a plan they conceived and executed.

54. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a further overt act by which to advance the objective of said conspiracy, Sheryl Cambron conceals from the public her association with Yolo County Counsel by causing numerous legal web-sites to misrepresent her employment status. Most, if not all, of those web-sites state that Sheryl Cambron is in fact in private practice representing litigants in matters dealing with bankruptcies, family law, and criminal law.

55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that private actors Yolo Lodge 169, David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Allison Zuvela, Tracey Olson, Michael Cabral, and Kathleen White and Does 1 – 100 willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to conceal from the public and Plaintiff Cambron’s employment as an attorney with Yolo County Counsel, that she is the spouse of David Reed, as well as the confidential fiduciary relationship between Cambron on one hand and Reisig, Cabral and Raven on the other hand.

56. Plaintiff further alleges that private actors Rosenberg, Reed, Raven, and Zuvela conspired to fraudulently conceal the fact that Zuvela is an Odd Fellow by intentionally removing her name from the web-site davislodge.org — which yields a zero return when a search is performed for her name . Additionally, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David Rosenberg, David Reed, and Allison Zuvela conspired to further delete from the web-site davislodge.org all articles which mentions Zuvela’s name.

57. These conspiratorial acts were substantial factors in causing Plaintiff monetary losses and damages in an amount to be established at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraudulent Concealment
(Against Private Actors Defendants Yolo Lodge 169; David Rosenberg; Lea Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Jonathan Raven; Allison Zuvela; Michael Cabral; Tracie Olson; Kathleen White; and Does 1 – 100 )

58. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 57 as though fully set forth herein.

59. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants committed the above described acts and omissions with intent to defraud the public and Plaintiff and deprive him of other interests he was entitled to. In particular, Defendants affirmatively concealed the existence of a marital relationship between Reed and Cambron, the fact that Cambron is an employee of Yolo County Counsel, and the fact that Allison Zuvela is an Odd Fellow member by affirmatively deleting her name from Odd Fellow web-site.

60. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

61. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the statements, acts, and omissions of Defendants to his detriment.

62. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact in an amount to be proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against State Actors Defendants David Rosenberg, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Allison Zuvela, Tracie Olson, Michael Cabral and Does 1 – 100)

63. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 – 62 as though fully set forth herein.

64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that state actors David Rosenberg, Sheryl Cambron, Jonathan Raven, Tracie Olson, Allison Zuvela and Michael Cabral and Does 1 – 100 willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to conceal from Plaintiff Cambron’s employment as an attorney with Yolo County Counsel, that she is the spouse of David Reed, the confidential fiduciary relationship between Cambron on one hand and Cabral and Raven on the other hand, and that Allison Zuvela is an Odd Fellow member, by among other things, deleting her name from the Odd Fellow web-site.

65. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

66. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the statements, acts, and omissions of Defendants to his detriment.

67. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, Plaintiff’s state and federal civil rights were violated and resulted in legal damages in an amount to be established at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For general and special damages under all causes of action where available by law;
2. For costs of suit;
3. For prejudgment interest;
4. For an injunction directing Defendants to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d); and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Plaintiff also demands a jury trial in this matter.

DATED: February 4, 2014

BREAKING NEWS: Yolo DA’s Jeff Reisig and Jonathan Raven at Closed Door Meeting with Jerry Brown’s Secretary [TLR Editorial Notes: 1 - Suspicion meeting was held for purpose of updating Jerry Brown on matters dealing with Yolo County-based Rabbi who unearth CalALL financial scheme dealing with, among others, alleged bribery of cousin Geoffrey Brown by PG&E and Edison (i.e. Douglas Winthrop on behalf of PG&E and Jeff Bleich on behalf of Edison. Bribery is indirect i.e. money funneled to Cal Democratic Party. Otherwise why closed-door meeting with Jeff Reisig ?????? 2 - Jerry Brown controlled from behind scene by PG&E. Nancy McFadden -- formerly of PG&E -- Brown's executive secretary 3 - According to sources, Odd Fellows Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral were promised judicial appointment for unlawful legal assault on YR by, among others, Tom Layton. 4 - Very shortly, YR to commence hunger strike on steps of Capital due to mistreatment by Jerry Brown and cronys, CPUC and Cal Bar officials-details soon ]

According to the Daily Democrat: “A visit by a top-ranking a state official to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday resulted in words of praise for the county’s Victim Services and Child Advocacy Center.

Marybel Batjer, who is Gov. Jerry Brown’s secretary of government operations, came to downtown Woodland on Tuesday afternoon in order to “tour the DA’s Victim Service’s Division and the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center (MDIC) where children and developmentally delayed adults who are victims of crimes are interviewed,” the county office said in a news release.

Chief Deputy Jonathan Raven described the visit — Batjer was accompanied by Julie Nauman, executive officer of the state’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board — as a great honor for the county.”

Prior to the tour, the state officials had a closed-door meeting with Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Victim Services Program Manager Laura Valdes and Raven. Valdez described the county’s Victim Services Program and introduced Aloha, a dog used by program staff to comfort victims, according to a statement released Wednesday.

For complete story, please see @:

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_24432176/state-official-praises-yolocountys-victim-services-program-childadvocacycenter

Linkedin Profile of James “Jim” Lewis of Verizon / Comcast / CaliforniaALL [TLR Editorial Notes: 1. Lewis -- member of CaliforniaALL Board of Directors 2. Between 2007-2010 -- during lifetime of CaliforniaALL, Lewis is "unemployed" 3. Lewis was operated from behind scene by Ron Olson of Munger Tolles 4. Conspired with Freada and Mitch Kapor (and others) to funnel money from Verizon through Kapor's LPFI and Kapor Enterprises 4. connections to Dennis Mangers via The California Cable & Telecommunications Association (CCTA) 5. Presently, Lewis employee of Comcast 6. See image of Lewis, below. ]

Jim Lewis’s Overview

Current
Past
  • Vice President at Verizon Communications
  • Senior Vice President at MCI
Education
  • Boston College Law School
Connections
232 connections

Jim Lewis’ Experience

VP Govt Affairs

Comcast

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; CMCSA; Media Production industry

2010Present (3 years)

Vice President

Verizon Communications

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; VZ; Information Technology and Services industry

20062007 (1 year)

Senior Vice President

MCI

Telecommunications industry

19952007 (12 years)

Jim Lewis’ Skills & Expertise

  1. Telecommunications
  2. Public Policy
  3. Contract Negotiation
  4. Managed Services
  5. Government
  6. Strategic Partnerships
  7. Broadband
  8. Team Leadership
  9. Wireless
  10. VoIP
  11. Strategy
  12. Program Management
  13. Cross-functional Team Leadership

Jim Lewis’ Education

Boston College Law School

J.D., Law

Source@:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-lewis/36/724/2a7

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CalALL

TIER 1


Morrison & Foerster Team – Attorneys and Legal Counsel of CaliforniaALL: Jim Brosnahan, Tony West, Annette Carnegie, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Eric Tate, and Susan Mac Cormac


Munger Tolles & Olson Team: Southern California Edison/ Berkshire Hathaway Director Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phillips, and Robert Adler (Presently Adler chief legal counsel @ Southern California Edison. ) (all also attorneys for Verizon), Edison’s John Bryson


Wilson Sonsini Team: John Roos, Mark Parnes, Joilene Wood Grove (spouse of California Bar Foundation Treasurer David Grove of Vaquero Capital)


DLA Piper Team — “Pro Bono” Home of CaliforniaALL, Home to OBAMA FOR AMERICA Draft Committee : Steve Churchwell, Gilles Attia, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah Attia

OBAMA FOR AMERICA TEAM # 1 : Jim Brosnahan, Tony West, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, John Roos, Steven Churchwell, Laura Chick, CaliforniaALL’s Kamala Harris, Mitch Kapor (Obama for America’s Tech Guru and Husband of CaliforniaALL’s Freada Kapor Klein, OBAMA FOR AMERICA’S Phone-Bank Located at “The Kapor Center”)


CPUC Team: Mike Peevey, Pete Arth (who met/co-conspired with Ruthe Ashley and Sarah Redfield), Tim Simon, Geoff Brown, and Dian Grueneich (later of Morrison & Foerster)


State Bar of California Board of Governors / Executives Team: Jeff Bleich, Ruthe Ashley, Laura Chick, CaliforniaALL’s Patricia Lee, CaliforniaALL’s Judy Johnson – Executive Director of State Bar of California, Gwen Moore, Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, AARP’s Jeannine English Dickstein — spouse of Howard Dickstein ( business partner of Mark Friedman), AARP’s George Davis, Craig Holden (of Lewis Brisbois / MGA / Council on Access and Fairness)


California Bar Foundation Team During Alleged Planning/ Embezzlement of $780,000 from California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL: Annette Carnegie, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phillips, Mark Parnes, Geoff Brown, and Joilene Wood Grove (spouse of California Bar Foundation Treasurer David Grove of Vaquero Capital), Thomas Silk (CPA of Mitch and Freada Kapor), Doug Winthrop of Howard Rice (attorney for PG&E, Steve Poizner, suspect in alleged bribery of Joseph Grodin and Geoffrey Brown, co-conspirator alongside Jerry Falk in matter of In Re Girardi)

CalPers Team: Ruthe Catolico Ashley ( “Utility APA” ; State Bar of California BOG Member ; friend of than Judicial Council Member Tani Cantil ; Later, CEO of CaliforniaALL)


California Department of Insurance Team: CaliforniaALL’ Steve Poizner (2010 candidate for the California gubernatorial election ; ties to Howard Rice, Wilson Sonsini, Mitch and Freada Kapor)



“Energy Team”: CaliforniaALL’s Darrell Steinberg, Kip Lipper (brother of neferious Donna Lucas) and State Bar of California BOG Member — Gay Godfather Dennis Mangers


TIER 2

Funds from CaliforniaALL to UC Irvine Foundation and suspicious circumstances surrounding sham launch of SALUCI – Saturday Academy of Law, fraud by Allen Matkins, Robert and Karina Hamilton, sham blog enteries by Adam Stock of Allen Matkins, fraud by UNH’s Sarah Redfield, Voice of OC Directors: Joe Dunn / Thomas Girardi / Erwin Chemerinsky / Jim Brosnahan and CPA Kinde Durkee


UC Irvine Foundation Team: UC Irvine Foundation Team : Joe Dunn, Mark Robinson, and Erwin Chemerinsky


UC Irvine and UC Irvine Law School Team: Joe Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Henry Weinstein, Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain, and Karina Hamilton


VOICE OF OC TEAM: Joe Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Jim Brosnahan, Tom Girardi, Henry Weinstein, Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain, and CPA Kinde Durkee (presently, under the care of Uncle Sam)


Judicial Council Team: Joe Dunn, Thomas Girardi, and Tani Cantil


Allen Matkins “Subterfuge Team”: Robert Hamilton, Karina Hamilton, and Adam Stock

TIER 3

McGeorge School of Law / Sacramento / Kevin Johnson-Mark Friedman- Chris Young


McGeorge Team: CaliforniaALL’s Morrison England and spouse – CaliforniaALL’s Torie Flournoy England, Gilles Attia, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah Redfield, CaliforniaALL’s Larissa Parecki, State Bar of California Deputy-Executive-Director RAH, and McGeorge Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker (confederate of Sarah Redfield re various conventions and trips i.e. Hawaii- Manoa, Monterey, etc. ; responsible for “shiduch” between Judge England and Torie Flournoy)


KEVIN JOHNSON MAYORAL CAMPAIGN / SACRAMENTO FOR OBAMA:Kevin Johnson, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Mark Friedman, and Friedman/CaliforniaALL’s CPA — Alison Turner of Alison Turner & Associates

For more about Kevin Johnson, McGeorge School of Law, and Sarah Redfiled See CaliforniaALL Part 8: University of New Hampshire School of Law Professor Sarah Redfield in The Make Believe Launching of SAL

TIER 4

CaliforniaALL Executives, Board and Advisory Council


CaliforniaALL’s Executive Directors: Interim Director Sarah Redfield, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, and Larissa Parecki


DIRECTORS: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal ‘s James Hsu — “Utility APA” and Attorney for Cache Creek Casino, Utility APA Pat Fong-Kushida, Torie Flournoy England, CityView’s Victor Miramontes, Gibor Basri, Freada Kapor Klein, Cary Martin Zellerbach, Douglas Scrivner of Accenture, Ophelia Basgal of Pacific Gas & Electric, Frank Quevedo of Verizon, Jay Ferguson, Maria Del Pilar Avila, Federico (“Fred”) Buenrostro of CalPERS (recently indicted) , Winston Doby, James Lewis of Verizon


ADVISORY COUNCIL:Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Kamala Harris, Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, Hon. Morrison England, Steve Poizner, Darrell Steinberg, Peter Reinke, Curren Price

BREAKING NEWS: Fed Charged Federico “Fred” Buenrostro of CalPERS with Fraud, Bribery [ TLR Note: 1- Buenrostro – part of CaliforniaALL financial scheme, see attached document 2- Part of conspiracy between Ruthe Catolico Ashley and Freada Kapor Klein to appoint Kapor-Klein as “consensus candidate” for purpose of later laundering money through Kapor Enterprises, allegedly)

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal officials on Monday charged the former head of the nation’s largest pension fund and one of his business associates with falsifying documents and other charges in a long-running influence peddling and bribery investigation.

A grand jury in San Francisco charged Federico Buenrostro Jr. and Alfred Villalobos, and they were booked and released on bond Monday after briefly appearing in court.

Buenrostro, 64, served as CEO of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System from late 2002 until June 2008. Villalobos, 69, served on the CalPERS board and is a former vice mayor of Los Angeles.

The indictment alleges the two conspired to fabricate documents that certified to federal regulators that Villalobos’ firm had obtained required “investor disclosure letters” from CalPERS to serve as a “transfer agent.” The indictment charges that the falsified documents allowed Villalobos to reap $14 million in fees for serving as a middleman between CalPERS and a prominent investment firm handling $3 billion in CalPERS’ money.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/fred-buenrostro-ex-calper_n_2902958.html

AND @:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2012/04/23/calpers-ceo-charged-with-20m-scheme.html?page=all

AND @:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/03/18/former-pension-fund-exec-charged/1997747/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ATTACHED DOCUMENT, BELOW:

CalALL_Mar2009Newsletter by CaliforniaALLExposed

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CaliforniaALL actors, below:

CalALL

TIER 1


Morrison & Foerster Team – Attorneys and Legal Counsel of CaliforniaALL: Jim Brosnahan, Tony West, Annette Carnegie, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Eric Tate, and Susan Mac Cormac


Munger Tolles & Olson Team: Southern California Edison/ Berkshire Hathaway Director Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phillips, and Robert Adler (Presently Adler chief legal counsel @ Southern California Edison. ) (all also attorneys for Verizon), Edison’s John Bryson


Wilson Sonsini Team: John Roos, Mark Parnes, Joilene Wood Grove (spouse of California Bar Foundation Treasurer David Grove of Vaquero Capital)


DLA Piper Team — “Pro Bono” Home of CaliforniaALL, Home to OBAMA FOR AMERICA Draft Committee : Steve Churchwell, Gilles Attia, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah Attia

OBAMA FOR AMERICA TEAM # 1 : Jim Brosnahan, Tony West, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, John Roos, Steven Churchwell, Laura Chick, CaliforniaALL’s Kamala Harris, Mitch Kapor (Obama for America’s Tech Guru and Husband of CaliforniaALL’s Freada Kapor Klein, OBAMA FOR AMERICA’S Phone-Bank Located at “The Kapor Center”)


CPUC Team: Mike Peevey, Pete Arth (who met/co-conspired with Ruthe Ashley and Sarah Redfield), Tim Simon, Geoff Brown, and Dian Grueneich (later of Morrison & Foerster)


State Bar of California Board of Governors / Executives Team: Jeff Bleich, Ruthe Ashley, Laura Chick, CaliforniaALL’s Patricia Lee, CaliforniaALL’s Judy Johnson – Executive Director of State Bar of California, Gwen Moore, Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, AARP’s Jeannine English Dickstein — spouse of Howard Dickstein ( business partner of Mark Friedman), AARP’s George Davis, Craig Holden (of Lewis Brisbois / MGA / Council on Access and Fairness)


California Bar Foundation Team During Alleged Planning/ Embezzlement of $780,000 from California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL: Annette Carnegie, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phillips, Mark Parnes, Geoff Brown, and Joilene Wood Grove (spouse of California Bar Foundation Treasurer David Grove of Vaquero Capital), Thomas Silk (CPA of Mitch and Freada Kapor), Doug Winthrop of Howard Rice (attorney for PG&E, Steve Poizner, suspect in alleged bribery of Joseph Grodin and Geoffrey Brown, co-conspirator alongside Jerry Falk in matter of In Re Girardi)

CalPers Team: Ruthe Catolico Ashley ( “Utility APA” ; State Bar of California BOG Member ; friend of than Judicial Council Member Tani Cantil ; Later, CEO of CaliforniaALL)


California Department of Insurance Team: CaliforniaALL’ Steve Poizner (2010 candidate for the California gubernatorial election ; ties to Howard Rice, Wilson Sonsini, Mitch and Freada Kapor)



“Energy Team”: CaliforniaALL’s Darrell Steinberg, Kip Lipper (brother of neferious Donna Lucas) and State Bar of California BOG Member — Gay Godfather Dennis Mangers


TIER 2

Funds from CaliforniaALL to UC Irvine Foundation and suspicious circumstances surrounding sham launch of SALUCI – Saturday Academy of Law, fraud by Allen Matkins, Robert and Karina Hamilton, sham blog enteries by Adam Stock of Allen Matkins, fraud by UNH’s Sarah Redfield, Voice of OC Directors: Joe Dunn / Thomas Girardi / Erwin Chemerinsky / Jim Brosnahan and CPA Kinde Durkee


UC Irvine Foundation Team: UC Irvine Foundation Team : Joe Dunn, Mark Robinson, and Erwin Chemerinsky


UC Irvine and UC Irvine Law School Team: Joe Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Henry Weinstein, Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain, and Karina Hamilton


VOICE OF OC TEAM: Joe Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Jim Brosnahan, Tom Girardi, Henry Weinstein, Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain, and CPA Kinde Durkee (presently, under the care of Uncle Sam)


Judicial Council Team: Joe Dunn, Thomas Girardi, and Tani Cantil


Allen Matkins “Subterfuge Team”: Robert Hamilton, Karina Hamilton, and Adam Stock

TIER 3

McGeorge School of Law / Sacramento / Kevin Johnson-Mark Friedman- Chris Young


McGeorge Team: CaliforniaALL’s Morrison England and spouse – CaliforniaALL’s Torie Flournoy England, Gilles Attia, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah Redfield, CaliforniaALL’s Larissa Parecki, State Bar of California Deputy-Executive-Director RAH, and McGeorge Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker (confederate of Sarah Redfield re various conventions and trips i.e. Hawaii- Manoa, Monterey, etc. ; responsible for “shiduch” between Judge England and Torie Flournoy)


KEVIN JOHNSON MAYORAL CAMPAIGN / SACRAMENTO FOR OBAMA:Kevin Johnson, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Mark Friedman, and Friedman/CaliforniaALL’s CPA — Alison Turner of Alison Turner & Associates

For more about Kevin Johnson, McGeorge School of Law, and Sarah Redfiled See CaliforniaALL Part 8: University of New Hampshire School of Law Professor Sarah Redfield in The Make Believe Launching of SAL

TIER 4

CaliforniaALL Executives, Board and Advisory Council


CaliforniaALL’s Executive Directors: Interim Director Sarah Redfield, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, and Larissa Parecki


DIRECTORS: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal ‘s James Hsu — “Utility APA” and Attorney for Cache Creek Casino, Utility APA Pat Fong-Kushida, Torie Flournoy England, CityView’s Victor Miramontes, Gibor Basri, Freada Kapor Klein, Cary Martin Zellerbach, Douglas Scrivner of Accenture, Ophelia Basgal of Pacific Gas & Electric, Frank Quevedo of Verizon, Jay Ferguson, Maria Del Pilar Avila, Federico (“Fred”) Buenrostro of CalPERS (recently indicted) , Winston Doby


ADVISORY COUNCIL:Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Kamala Harris, Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, Hon. Morrison England, Steve Poizner, Darrell Steinberg, Peter Reinke, Curren Price

California Bar Attorney Record of Sheryl Cambron [TLR Editorial Notes: 1) Sheryl Cambron is a) married to Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Reed b) an in-house attorney for the County of Yolo c) Part of Davis Odd Fellows d) recently caught (together with Odd Fellow odd husband Dave Reed, as well as David and Lea Rosenberg in massive scheme to defraud IRS 2) Sheryl Cambron part of a separate scheme involving “fixing” of cases (or potential cases against County of Yolo). As part of scheme, Judge Reed does not disclose to litigants wife Sheryl Cambron represents County of Yolo. TLR is massively concerned Judge Dave Reed would deny any attempt to quash sham search warrant obtained by Yolo DA’s Michael Cabral, Jonathan Raven, and Bruce Naliboff against YR)

Sheryl Cambron – #202741

Current Status:  Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Bar Number: 202741
Address: Yolo County Counsel
625 Court St Ste 201
Woodland, CA 95695
Map it
Phone Number: (530) 666-8280
Fax Number: (530) 666-8279
e-mail: sheryl.cambron@yolocounty.org
County: Yolo Undergraduate School: Univ of Illinois; Urbana Champaign IL
District: District 3
Sections: None Law School: Lincoln Law School; Sacramento CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
11/23/1999 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

TIMELINE July 25, 2013: Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg Announces Davis Odd Fellows Vote to Initiate Yolo County Assistant District Attorney Michael Cabral as Member [ TLR Editorial Notes: 1. Obviously, Rosenberg lacks the judgement to understand inappropriateness of his actions i.e. ex-parte communications between judges and DA personnel 2. TLR predicts YR soon advances suit naming, among others, 1) Rosenbergs, Reed-Cambron, Cabral, Raven, etc in connection with events surrounding Davis Odd Fellows Lodge (including tax-fraud by Rosenbergs, Reed-Cambron, CPA Virgil Smith) 2) RICO activities at Davis Odd Fellow 3) Davis Odd Fellow Lodge violation of Unruh Act 4) events surrounding search and seizure of CaliforniaALL materials ( fruit of conspiracy between Judicial Council members Tani Cantil , Mark Robinson, David Rosenberg, as well as Cal Bar’s Tom Layton, Dunn, Streeter, Naliboff, Martin, Cabral, etc. 5) Keker’s Three-Card Monte

Davis Odd Fellows Vote to Initiate Eighteen New Members

The Davis Odd Fellows Lodge #169 is delighted to report that last evening, July 24, 2013, our membership voted to initiate the following eighteen (18) new members into our Lodge:

Heather Barnes
David Boyer
Davis Campbell
Margie Cabral
Mike Cabral
Nicole Chafee
Val Dolcini
Melinda Hillis
Brett Lemke
Amanda Maples
Rene Martucci
Findlay McIntosh
Solveig Monson
Cesar Morales
Dean Ranns
Valerie Ranns
Amanda Schwabe
Richard Urbino

These new members will be initiated at the Lodge meeting of August 28, 2013, during the regular Lodge meeting.

Congratulations to our new Odd Fellows!

F – L – T

Dave Rosenberg
Chair, Membership & Initiation Committee
Davis Odd Fellows Lodge # 169

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tax Fraud by Davis Odd Fellows, Virgil Smith, Lea and David Rosenberg, Dave Reed and Sheryl Cambron, below:
Dave Reed Sheryl Cambron
David Reed and wife Sheryl Cambron (image:courtesy photo)

Dave Rosenberg Lea Rosenberg
David and Lea Rosenberg (image: courtesy photos)

The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) is carefully following a major developing story out of Yolo County relating to Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Reed, wife Sheryl Cambron, Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg, wife Lea Rosenberg, and CPA Virgil Smith in connection with major fraud allegedly perpetrated upon the IRS.

We will provide around-the-clock coverage and post updates as they become available.

Update #1:

Fraud in connection with “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge.” EIN # 23-7417292.

2010:

Dave Reed – President; Sheryl Cambron (wife of Dave Reed) – Treasurer ; CPA – Virgil Smith

2010 Tax-Return, Section VI, Question # 2:  Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee? Answer: NO

2011:

Dave Reed- Board Member ; Dave Rosenberg – President ; Lea Rosenberg (wife od Dave Rosenberg)- Secretary

2011 Tax-Return, Section VI, Question # 2:  Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee? Answer: NO

Update #2 — Text  of Complaint YR Submitted to IRS:

September 29, 2013

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

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail

Re: A referral against exempt organization YOLO LODGE 169 INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS AND DAVIS REBEKAH LODGE (EIN Number 23-7417292) and officers David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and Virgil Smith

To whom it may concern:

In lieu of using the IRS’s Tax Exempt Organization Referral Form 13909, please consider this communication a formal complaint (‘referral’) against YOLO LODGE 169 INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS AND DAVIS REBEKAH LODGE (‘Yolo Lodge’) for fraud and deceit. Specifically, officers and directors of Yolo Lodge repeatedly misrepresented to the IRS (and the public) the nature of their familial relationship.

FRAUD BY YOLO LODGE PRESIDENT DAVE REED AND HIS TREASURER WIFE SHERYL CAMBRON

In 2010, serving as the president of Yolo Lodge was David Reed; serving as the Treasurer of Yolo Lodge was Sheryl Cambron.

David Reed and Sheryl Cambron are married to each other. However, Reed and Cambron chose to mislead the IRS and the public as to the true nature of their relationship. More specifically, Reed and Cambron failed to disclose, as they were required to do, to the IRS that they were married to each other while serving as officer of Yolo Lodge.

For example, the 2010 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ‘Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge states, ‘NO.’ Since two of the officers (Reed and Cambron) were actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.

FRAUD BY YOLO LODGE PRESIDENT DAVID ROSENBERG AND HIS SECRETARY WIFE LEA ROSENBERG

In 2011, Yolo Lodge officers perpetrated the same lie with a different set of actors, namely Lea and David Rosenberg, who are married to each other.

Specifically, In 2011, serving as President of ‘Yolo Lodge’ was David Rosenberg; his wife, Lea Rosenberg, served as ‘Secretary’ of Yolo Lodge, and Dave Reed served as a board member.

The 2011 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ‘Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge states, ‘NO.’ Since two of the officers (David Rosenberg and Lea Rosenberg) were actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.

It is important to note that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the Yolo County Superior Court, and such misrepresentations are extremely serious. This is especially true when viewed in conjunction with the circumstances described in a prior complaint the undersigned submitted to the IRS dated May 23, 2013 (see exhibit A), which is incorporated herein by reference.

ADDITIONAL MISCONDUCT BY LEA ROSENBERG, DAVID ROSENBERG, AND DAVID REED.

On September 24, 2013, the undersigned sent Lea Rosenberg an email which read as follows:

“Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

The purpose of this communication is to address the following matters:

1. Since you appear to have been involved with Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellow, and Sophomoric, I had previously asked you to produce the IRS tax-returns for those entities.

For reasons which I do not understand, rather than complying with this simple request (as you are required to do by law given the fact that those entities are allowed to operate on a ‘tax-exempt’ status), you have failed to respond. I am therefore reiterating my request that you comply with the request for these tax returns and produce them to me within the next 5 days.

As you know, I am troubled by events surrounding the almost exclusive fundraising to ‘emancipated foster youth’, Barbara Sommer, Davis Odd Fellow members Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral, Cache Creek Casino, Vic Bucher, and Progress Ranch.

I am also troubled by the fact that Judge Rosenberg (and his Judicial Campaign CPA Vic Bucher) lends money to the judicial campaign of other judges (i.e. Tim Fall and Dan Maguire). Hence, I would like to get to the bottom of things, and need the requested tax forms to do so.

2. In the previously submitted request, there was no mention of ‘Davis Odd Fellow Hall.’ My position and understanding is that Davis Odd Fellow Hall is part of Davis Odd Fellow.

Nevertheless, please consider this communication a formal request to also provide copies of the last three tax return forms that ‘Davis Odd Fellow Hall’ had submitted to the IRS.

3. Given that Davis Odd Fellow, David Odd Fellow Hall, and Davis Rebekah Lodge are under the exclusive control of you, your husband David Rosenberg, as well as David Reed and his wife Cheryl Camberon, and given that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the Yolo County Superior Court, I submit that these entities have a duty to operate at an even higher level of transparency than mandated by the IRS, and must comply with the common law duty of disclosure.

Thus, in addition to inspecting and copying the documents authorized by the IRS, I request copies of detailed financial statements (i.e. income, expenditures, names of donors, names of businesses and amount of rent Davis Odd Fellow Hall charges its various tenants, identity of subcontractors, identity of those who have rented the Hall etc.) For example, my understanding is that David Greenwald (publisher of The People’s Vanguard of Davis and Vanguard Court Watch) entered into a contract with Davis Odd Fellow Hall. Given that Mr. Greenwald’s publications purport to report on misconduct and malfeasance in the local area, including the courts, it appears to me that there is a direct conflict between this stated mission and his decision to rent space from an entity whose Board is comprised of you, and two Yolo County Superior Court judges.

I am looking forward to hearing from you and receiving the requested documents.”

Rather than complying with my request to produce the relevant 990 Form, as she was required to do, Ms. Rosenberg sent me an email which reads, in its entirety, ‘so he is at it again.’

As such, the undersigned requests that the IRS also investigate and impose appropriate sanctions on ‘Davis Odd Fellows Hall’ officers David Rosenberg, David Reed, and Lea Rosenberg as it is clear from Ms. Rosenberg’s latest communication to me, cited above, that she ( David Rosenberg and David Reed) do not plan to comply with the request to produce the requested 990 form. In fact, if anything, Ms. Rosenberg’s email response makes clear that she views my legitimate requests as nothing more than a nuisance, rather than a legitimate request authorized by the IRS Code.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Source @: http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2013/09/29/breaking-huge-yolo-county-judge-david-reed-and-wife-sheryl-cambron-defrauded-internal-revenue-service-virgil-smith-yr-in-process-of-examining-990-16473700/

Record of additional shenanigans involving Davis Odd Fellows and Yolo County Superior Court judges David Rosenberg, David Reed and spouses Lea Rosenberg and Sheryl Cambron: Davis Odd Fellows Lodge Discrimination Based on Religion, Race (TLR Editorial Notes: 1) Notice David Rosenberg chairs Membership & Initiation Committee. 2) Prerequisite for membership is for applicant to believe in God or Supreme Being. 3) Such requirement places David Rosenberg and David Reed in a collusion course with California Cannon of Judicial Ethics 4) Additionally, notice very little, if any, African-American members. Safe to assume David and Lea Rosenberg keep Davis Odd Fellows relatively “Schwartza Frei” — free of Blacks

How to Join

Requirements for Membership

A man or woman of good character, who is loyal to his or her country and believes in a Supreme Being, the creator and preserver of the Universe, is eligible for membership.

Odd Fellowship strictly forbids any interference with one’s religious beliefs or political opinions.

To be eligible for membership you must be sponsored by a current member.

Joining Odd Fellows

Davis Lodge #169 is now over 190 members and it is the fastest growing Odd Fellows Lodge in the United States of America.

If you are interested in joining Odd Fellows, please e-mail the membership committee chairman at daverose@jps.net and we will help.

Source @:

http://davislodge.org/how-to-join/

*********************************************************************

Odd Fellows Valediction

I AM AN ODD FELLOW:

I believe in the Fatherhood of God, and the Brotherhood of Man;

I believe in Friendship, Love and Truth as basic guides to the ultimate destiny of all mankind.

I believe my home, my church or temple, my lodge, and my community deserve my best work, my modest pride, my earnest faith, and my deepest loyalty, as I perform my duty “to visit the sick, relieve the distressed, bury the dead, and educate the orphan” and as I work with others to build a better world because in spirit and in truth, I am, and must always be, grateful to my Creator, faithful to my Country, and fraternal to my fellow man;

I AM AN ODD FELLOW!

Source @:

http://davislodge.org/odd-fellows-valediction/

**********************************************************************

Schwartza Frei

Davis Odd Fellows Volunteers At Taste Of Davis 2013

Source @:  http://davislodge.org/davis-odd-fellows-raise-10000-at-taste-of-davis/

Source @: http://davislodge.org/davis-rebekah-lodge-253/

Source @:  http://davislodge.org/wp-content/uploads/TasteOfDavisAnnouncement.jpg

Source @:  http://davislodge.org/

Davis Encampment Continues To Grow

Davis Encampment Photo

The Davis Encampment #21 now has 36 members and is the largest Encampment in California, and perhaps the USA.  This is a photo of 20 members of the Davis Encampment (plus Chuck White who is the photographer) in January at the installation of officers.  Grand Patriarch Jesse Dalton conducted the installation, and he is seen, center, with Davis Encampment Chief Patriarch Dave Rosenberg.

Source @:  http://davislodge.org/davis-encampment-continues-to-grow/

99 CENTS

Source @: http://www.davisenterprise.com/media-post/odd-fellow-lodge-mural-dedication-photo/attachment/muralw-5/

Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois / MGA-Bratz / CalALL scheme (MGA’s Craig Holden involved in litigation against Mattel, federal judge Stephen Larson presiding) – Part 1.3: “Fermare il Sacrificio di Isacco” Republished [ TLR Editorial Notes: a) Fermare il Sacrificio di Isacco — in Italian, stop the slaughtering of Isaac i.e. stop draconian litigation against Isaac Larian of MGA/Bratz b) article outlines behind scene involvement of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese in Mattel/Bratz litigation, as well as involvement of Skadden’s Gretsky — controller of stooge Alec Chang who filed false charges against YR with Yolo DA b) as reminder, Thomas Girardi/Howard Miller part of CalALL scheme – fraudulent laundering of money to UC Irvine where, very unfortunately, Stephen Larson is present.

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, meaning that to date MGA has paid $200 million to various law firms to defend the action advanced by Mattel for copyright infringement.

Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois / MGA
Craig Holden (image:courtesy photo)

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, in 2007 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 2008 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.

Specifically, according to an article published in The Recorder, in October 2007 MGA and Isaac Larian asked Girardi to look into the fees it had paid to O’Melveny.

According to the article, 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.

As reported in The Recorder, “We decided to put it all under one roof,” stated Mr. Larian, “and we decided to go with Skadden and Tom Nolan.”

Thomas Nolan, who served as Girardi’s counsel (along with Diane Karpman) in the matter of In Re Girardi, 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.”

A six-week trial was conducted in the courtroom of federal judge Stephen Larson. On July 17, 2008 , the jury returned a verdict for Mattel. More specifically, the jury found that both MGA and Isaac Larian had interfered with Mattel’s contractual relationship with Bryant, who had been under the control of Mattel during the time he designed the Bratz Dolls.

Following the verdict, 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 Larson issued a draconian injunction against MGA, ipso facto dissolving it.

Following the trial, Thomas Nolan 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.

The Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the entire judgment and sent the matter back to District Court where it was assigned to a different judge.

Judge Larson – the initial trial judge who had taken a harsh view of GMA and Mr. Larian had left the bench to commence his employment with Girardi & Keese.

Wayne Gretsky is a master strategist and always a gentleman.
Wayne Gretzky is a former professional ice hockey player.

Source @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/01/01/fermare-il-sacrificio-di-isacco-10287764/

Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois / MGA-Bratz / CalALL scheme (MGA’s Craig Holden involved in litigation against Mattel, federal judge Stephen Larson presiding) – Part 1.2: back and forth communications between YR and Erwin Chemerinsky republished.

Voice of OC’s Erwin Chemerinsky — Dean of UCI School of Law — Asked to Disengage From State Bar of California’s Joe Dunn, Update Outdated Information Re Former Article III Judge Arent & Fox’s Stephen Larson and Joe Dunn of Voice of OC

by lesliebrodie Pro @ 11/10/2011 – 23.30:40

As part of the inquiry into sham charity CaliforniaALL, Dean of UCI School of Law — Voice of OC’s Erwin Chemerinsky — has been asked to sever his relationship with State Bar of California Executive Director — Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.

As a service to the community, we shall publish the communication, below:

Dear Dean Chemerinsky:

At your earliest convenience, I would appreciate if you would correct inaccurate information listed on UCI School of Law’s website. In addition, I ask that you and the law school reconsider having Senator Joe Dunn serve on your “Advisory Council.”

Specifically, the information that needs to be corrected is located on the school’s website http://www.law.uci.edu/development/deans_advisory_council.html , and is inaccurate, misleading, and outdated:

1. Stephen G. Larson—judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside, Calif.

2. Joe Dunn—chief executive officer, California Medical Association, Sacramento, Calif.

In addition, with respect to Senator Dunn, I believe it is improper for him to serve on UCI’s “Advisory Council” in a formal fashion because this creates the impression that the State Bar of California favors your law school, as opposed to other law schools, and especially due to your own position with Senator Dunn’s publication — Voice of OC.

Given Senator Dunn’s reputation as a gentleman, I am sure that, should the need arise, he would be willing to offer his input on an informal basis.

Senator Dunn’s continuing involvement with the UCI Foundation, on the other hand, is extremely troubling given his position with the State Bar, and I urge you to discuss this matter with him.

Thank you for your time.

Source @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/10/11/erwin-chemerinsky-asked-to-disengage-from-joe-dunn-dear-dean-12001279/

 

Erwin Chemerinsky — Dean of UCI School of Law/Member of Voice of OC’s BOD — Concedes Information Relating to Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn Outdated. Declines Advice Re State Bar’s Joe Dunn, Offers No Comment on UCI Foundation’s Joe Dunn

by lesliebrodie Pro @ 13/10/2011 – 21.32:29

As part of the inquiry into sham charity CaliforniaALL, Dean of UCI School of Law — Voice of OC’s Erwin Chemerinsky — has been asked to sever his relationship with State Bar of California Executive Director — Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn.  See story @ http://tinyurl.com/6h98wlq

As a service to the community, we shall publish Dean Chemerinsky’s reply, below:

“You are right, of course, that we need to update the information on the website concerning the current positions of Stephen Larson and Joe Dunn. More generally, we need to update the listing of the members of our Advisory Council.

However, I do not believe that there is anything inappropriate with Mr. Dunn being a member of this body which has no decision-making role and exists, as its title says, to offer advice.

Thanks for writing.

Erwin”

Source @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/10/13/erwin-chemerinsky-dean-of-uci-school-of-law-and-member-of-voice-of-oc-s-bod-concedes-information-relating-to-voice-of-oc-s-joe-dunn-stephen-larso-12011390/

Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois / MGA-Bratz / CalALL scehme (MGA’s Holden involved in litigation against Mattel, federal judge Stephen Larson presiding) – Part 1.1 : Partial Profile of Judge Stephen Larson

Judge Larson is the Distinguished Jurist in Residence and a member of the Board of Visitors at the University of La Verne College of Law, where he has taught classes on federal courts, conflicts of law, civil rights, international law, criminal procedure, and professional responsibility since 2002. Judge Larson was appointed by founding Dean Erwin Chemerinsky to serve on the Dean’s Advisory Council for the newly chartered law school at the University of California at Irvine.

Source @:

http://law.laverne.edu/about-the-college/board-of-visitors/honorable-stephen-g-larson/

Craig Holden of Lewis Brisbois — Part 1: Vice President of State Bar of California — But Is He Really? [ TLR Notes: 1. Potential answer to query — under new system, position of Vice-President eliminated 2- Craig Holden — lackey/stooge of Laura Chick, Sheldon Sloan, and John Keker 2. As reminder, Laura Chick escaped her BOG position 3. Holden — employee of MGA Entertainment during Mattel / Bratz litigation involving Skadden’s Gretszky, Howard Rice, and Keker. 3. Holden- part of California Bar Council on Access and Fairness — where he met and conspired with Sarah Redfield / Ruthe Ashley / Jeff Bleich / others in re CaliforniaALL / OBAMA FOR AMERICA 4. In part 2, Holden will be added to list of potential CaliforniaALL suspect.

On Monday, July 22, 2013 MetNews published the following article:

Craig Holden Elected Vice President of State Bar

By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer

The State Bar Board of Trustees Friday elected Los Angeles attorney Craig E. Holden as State Bar vice president for 2013-2014.

Craig Holden

Holden, a partner with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP, defeated two other candidates in voting at the board’s meeting in Los Angeles.

His election gives Los Angeles the top two positions in the group’s hierarchy. Luis J. Rodriguez, 46, a deputy public defender, was elected president without opposition.

San Diego attorney Heather Rosing, 41, defeated two opponents, including Los Angeles attorney David Pasternak, for the office of treasurer, denying the local delegation a clean sweep of the offices.  The new officers will be sworn in—the state’s chief justice traditionally does the honors—at the State Bar’s annual meeting in October.

Holden, 43, outpolled Nancy L. Fineman, a principal of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP in Burlingame, and Pearl G. Mann, a Fullerton sole practitioner, to win the vice presidency. He will succeed Rodriguez in that office.

Access Council

Holden has been a member of the group’s governing body, formerly known as the Board of Governors, for the past two years, representing Los Angeles County lawyers.

He is a former chair of the State Bar’s Council on Access and Fairness—a 25-member advisory committee formed to recommend ways to increase diversity in the legal profession—and co-chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Committee for the Intellectual Property Section.  He is also a founder and past chair of the State Bar’s Diversity Coalition and a former member of the executive committee of its Law Practice Management & Technology Section.

From 2002 to 2005 he served as a judge pro tempore for the Los Angeles Superior Court, and in 2007 he was honored as Advocate of the Year by Public Counsel, in recognition of his pro bono work recovering millions of dollars for elderly and disadvantaged victims of fraud.

Holden graduated from UCLA in 1991 and from Hastings College of the Law in 1994, the year he gained admission to the State Bar. His practice at Lewis Brisbois focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation, and he also has served as outside counsel to companies in the high-technology, engineering/manufacturing, entertainment, professional services and retail industries.

SB 163

He becomes the second vice president elected under SB 163, the State Bar restructuring legislation approved two years ago. Under that measure, the Board of Trustees is transitioning from a 23-member body primarily elected by lawyers to a smaller board with a primarily unelected membership.

When the transition period ends in October of next year, the board will consist of 19 members, five of whom will be attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court.

Please continue @:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/sbar072213.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Current 2012-13 Roster of State Bar of California Board of Trustees

Officers

 

President

Patrick M. Kelly (formerly District 7)Patrick Kelly
Wilson Elser et al LLP
555 South Flower St., #2900
Los Angeles, CA  90071
Phone: 213-443-5100

 

Vice President

Luis J. Rodriguez  (formerly District 7 )Luis Rodriguez
Division Chief
Office of the Public Defender
320 West Temple St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 415-538-2276
Fax: 415-538-2305

Treasurer

Gretchen M. Nelson (formerly District 7)Gretchen Nelson
Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd. #4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-622-6469
Fax: 213-622-6019

 

Members

Alec Y. Chang (formerly District 3)
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
525 University Ave., Suite 1100
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: 650-470-4684
Fax: 650-798-6500
Michael G. Colantuono (Assembly Appt.)
Colantuono & Levin, PC
11364 Pleasant Valley Road
Penn Valley, CA 95946
Phone: 530-432-7357
Fax: 530-432-7356
Nancy Fineman (formerly District 4)
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
840 Malcolm Road #200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 650-697-6000
Fax: 650-697-0577
Karen M. Goodman (formerly District 2)Craig Holden
Goodman & Associates
3840 Watt Ave., Building A
Sacramento, CA 95821
Phone: 916-643-0600
Fax: 916-643-0605
Craig Holden (formerly District 7) Craig Holden
The State Bar of California
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-538-2170
Loren Kieve (formerly District 4)
Kieve Law Offices
The Presidio of San Francisco
5A Funston Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94129
Phone: 415-364-0060
Dennis Mangers (Public Member)Dennis Mangers
The State Bar of California
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 916-425-8167
Pearl Mann (formerly District 8)Pearl Mann
Law Office of Pearl Gondrella Mann
2501 E. Chapman Ave. #225
Fullerton, CA 92831
Phone: 714-992-4045
Gwen Moore (Public Member)Gwen Moore
4201 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 615
Los Angeles, CA  90010
Phone: 323-954-3777
David J. Pasternak (Supreme Court Appt.) David Pasternak
Pasternak Pasternak et al
1875 Century Park E #2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523
Phone: 310-553-1500
Fax: 310-553-1540
Heather Linn Rosing (formerly District 9)
Klinedinst PC
501 W. Broadway #600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-239-8131
Mark ShemMark Shem (District 6)
Borton Petrini LLP
95 S. Market St. #400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408-535-0870
Christopher W. Todd (District 4)Christopher Todd
Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP
600 W. Broadway 7th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 232-8151
Fax: 619-232-4665
David A. Torres (District 5)
Attorney-at-Law
1318 K St.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: 661-326-0857
Fax: 661-

Modoc County joins Siskiyou in state of Jefferson bid for secession

The Modoc County Board of Supervisors today voted to join neighboring Siskiyou County in its bid to secede from the State of California.

Board Chairman Geri Byrne said a measure to join the push to form a State of Jefferson was approved by a vote of 4-0, with one supervisor absent.

“I put the measure on the agenda because I heard from a number of people in my district that wanted to do such,” Byrne said. “We’re not saying we’re seceding today, we’re saying let’s look into it.”

Roughly 40 people turned out for the board meeting, Byrne said a standing-room only crowd in the Modoc County chambers. About a dozen spoke in favor of the measure with only two raising objections.

“This is going to have to be something the people bring forward,” Byrne said. “It’s going to have to be from the bottom up, not from the top down.”

The move makes Modoc the second county to join in the fight to form the State of Jefferson in less than a month. Siskiyou County passed a measure to start the secession process at the supervisor’s Sept. 3 meeting.

Mark Baird, a spokesperson for the Jefferson Declaration Committee, said the group hopes to have a dozen counties commit their support before asking California legislators to allow the formation of the new state.

“California is essentially ungovernable in its present size,” Baird said. “We lack the representation to address the problems that affect the North State.”

Please continue @:

http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep/24/modoc-county-joins-siskiyou-bid-secession/

USA Today: ‘Straight-only’ sorority proposal stirs up Smith College

Delta Gamma officials don’t know who wrote the now-viral e-mail proposing an all-straight “sorority” at Smith College in Northampton, Mass., but they say it’s certainly not happening.

In the e-mail — which was originally posted and later removed on Tumblr by another Smith student known as “aQuieterRioter” — the unidentified author invited her classmates to help her create an “exclusive” chapter of Delta Gamma for “straight girls” with planned activities such as “sorority mixers with Amherst men, weekly dinner dates, weekly photo shoots where we would dress up nice [and] baking nights.”

The self-identifying heterosexual student wrote in the e-mail that she felt “marginalized” at the women’s college of 2,600 and that the straight-only sorority could be a “really great way to socialize with people we identify more with at Smith.”

Please continue @:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/25/smith-delta-gamma-straight-proposal-shot-down/2864697/

 

Addendum #1 to “William Hauck of Goddard Claussen / Blue Cross / California Forward / Golden Pacific Bank” : California State University Trustee (TLR Editorial Notes: 1-TLR thanks anon reader for reminder 2- Jeffrey Bleich — also California State University Trustee 3- Hauck one who arranged for bizarre “amicus curie” brief California State University submitted to California Supreme Court re pending case dealing with personal residence of Mitchell and Freada Kapor 4. Most of Golden Pacific Bank directors — Fishy i.e. William Hauck, Pat-Fong Kushida, Donna Lucas, Cassandra Walker Pye, and several others. May relate to allegation of financial crimes described in Dydzak v. Schwarzenegger as many with strong connections to Schwarzenegger ]

Please see original story @:

http://tinyurl.com/qhwfplg

 

The Alliance of California Judges celebrates fourth anniversary [ TLR Editorial Notes: In essence, good v. evil battle is between Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steve White and the perverted cajoler -- Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg ]

Last week the Alliance of California Judges celebrated its fourth anniversary.

The Alliance was formed by 28 judges from around the state on September 11, 2009, after a handpicked Judicial Council had unanimously voted for the first time in history to close the state’s trial courts one day each month. That vote masked the real reason behind closing courtrooms. While the state budget was imploding due to the recession, those same Council members were diverting millions of dollars from our local courts to fund the most expensive computer debacle in California history, CCMS, a project designed to put the trial courts more and more under the control of the Administrative Office of the Courts and a few select judges. This move was accompanied by a secretly drafted trailer bill at the close of that year’s budget designed to completely undo the priority of local court administration. The Alliance brought these efforts into the arena of public scrutiny.

The Alliance is now a group of 500 judges of this state. The Alliance continues to grow because we are dedicated to being a voice for the independent judges of this state in ensuring responsible local management of our courts by elected judges. We are committed to making open courts, meaningful access and the fair adjudication of disputes the first priorities of the Judicial Branch. In leading the way for reform, we have demonstrated the need for a group of judges who think independently and who recognize that the idea of “speaking with one voice” is too often a mantra for stifling dissent and covering up incompetence.

Please continue @:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/09/18/the-alliance-of-california-judges-celebrates-fourth-anniversary/

Addendum #2 to “CaliforniaALL — Final Tally of Alleged Actors / Teams”: 1. Dan Morain and Henry Weinstein — both of UC Irvine School of Law AND Voice of OC (as is Erwin Chemerinsky) . Voice of OC Actors: Dan Morain, Henry Weinstein, Erwin Chemerinsky, Joe Dunn, Tom Girardi, and Jim Brosnahan, also part of scheme dubbed “make believe launching of SAL.” . 2. Also added to California Bar Foundation Team was CPA Thomas Silk — who is, coincidently, also the CPA of Mitch and Freada Kapor]

CalALL

TIER 1


Morrison & Foerster Team – Attorneys and Legal Counsel of CaliforniaALL: Jim Brosnahan, Tony West, Annette Carnegie, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Eric Tate, and Susan Mac Cormac


Munger Tolles & Olson Team: Southern California Edison/ Berkshire Hathaway Director Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phillips, and Robert Adler (Presently Adler chief legal counsel @ Southern California Edison. ) (all also attorneys for Verizon), Edison’s John Bryson


Wilson Sonsini Team: John Roos, Mark Parnes, Joilene Wood Grove (spouse of California Bar Foundation Treasurer David Grove of Vaquero Capital)


DLA Piper Team — “Pro Bono” Home of CaliforniaALL, Home to OBAMA FOR AMERICA Draft Committee : Steve Churchwell, Gilles Attia, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah Attia

OBAMA FOR AMERICA TEAM # 1 : Jim Brosnahan, Tony West, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, John Roos, Steven Churchwell, Laura Chick, CaliforniaALL’s Kamala Harris, Mitch Kapor (Obama for America’s Tech Guru and Husband of CaliforniaALL’s Freada Kapor Klein, OBAMA FOR AMERICA’S Phone-Bank Located at “The Kapor Center”)


CPUC Team: Mike Peevey, Pete Arth (who met/co-conspired with Ruthe Ashley and Sarah Redfield), Tim Simon, Geoff Brown, and Dian Grueneich (later of Morrison & Foerster)


State Bar of California Board of Governors / Executives Team: Jeff Bleich, Ruthe Ashley, Laura Chick, CaliforniaALL’s Patricia Lee, CaliforniaALL’s Judy Johnson – Executive Director of State Bar of California, Gwen Moore, Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, AARP’s Jeannine English Dickstein — spouse of Howard Dickstein ( business partner of Mark Friedman), AARP’s George Davis


California Bar Foundation Team During Alleged Planning/ Embezzlement of $780,000 from California Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL: Annette Carnegie, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phillips, Mark Parnes, Geoff Brown, and Joilene Wood Grove (spouse of California Bar Foundation Treasurer David Grove of Vaquero Capital), Thomas Silk (CPA of Mitch and Freada Kapor), Doug Winthrop of Howard Rice (attorney for PG&E, Steve Poizner, suspect in alleged bribery of Joseph Grodin and Geoffrey Brown, co-conspirator alongside Jerry Falk in matter of In Re Girardi)

CalPers Team: Ruthe Catolico Ashley ( “Utility APA” ; State Bar of California BOG Member ; friend of than Judicial Council Member Tani Cantil ; Later, CEO of CaliforniaALL)


California Department of Insurance Team: CaliforniaALL’ Steve Poizner (2010 candidate for the California gubernatorial election ; ties to Howard Rice, Wilson Sonsini, Mitch and Freada Kapor)



“Energy Team”: CaliforniaALL’s Darrell Steinberg, Kip Lipper (brother of neferious Donna Lucas) and State Bar of California BOG Member — Gay Godfather Dennis Mangers


TIER 2

Funds from CaliforniaALL to UC Irvine Foundation and suspicious circumstances surrounding sham launch of SALUCI – Saturday Academy of Law, fraud by Allen Matkins, Robert and Karina Hamilton, sham blog enteries by Adam Stock of Allen Matkins, fraud by UNH’s Sarah Redfield, Voice of OC Directors: Joe Dunn / Thomas Girardi / Erwin Chemerinsky / Jim Brosnahan and CPA Kinde Durkee


UC Irvine Foundation Team: UC Irvine Foundation Team : Joe Dunn, Mark Robinson, and Erwin Chemerinsky


UC Irvine and UC Irvine Law School Team: Joe Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Henry Weinstein, Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain, and Karina Hamilton


VOICE OF OC TEAM: Joe Dunn, Erwin Chemerinsky, Jim Brosnahan, Tom Girardi, Henry Weinstein, Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain, and CPA Kinde Durkee (presently, under the care of Uncle Sam)


Judicial Council Team: Joe Dunn, Thomas Girardi, and Tani Cantil


Allen Matkins “Subterfuge Team”: Robert Hamilton, Karina Hamilton, and Adam Stock

TIER 3

McGeorge School of Law / Sacramento / Kevin Johnson-Mark Friedman- Chris Young


McGeorge Team: CaliforniaALL’s Morrison England and spouse – CaliforniaALL’s Torie Flournoy England, Gilles Attia, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah Redfield, CaliforniaALL’s Larissa Parecki, State Bar of California Deputy-Executive-Director RAH, and McGeorge Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker (confederate of Sarah Redfield re various conventions and trips i.e. Hawaii- Manoa, Monterey, etc. ; responsible for “shiduch” between Judge England and Torie Flournoy)


KEVIN JOHNSON MAYORAL CAMPAIGN / SACRAMENTO FOR OBAMA:Kevin Johnson, Three-Card-Monte‘s Chris Young, Mark Friedman, and Friedman/CaliforniaALL’s CPA — Alison Turner of Alison Turner & Associates

For more about Kevin Johnson, McGeorge School of Law, and Sarah Redfiled See CaliforniaALL Part 8: University of New Hampshire School of Law Professor Sarah Redfield in The Make Believe Launching of SAL

TIER 4

CaliforniaALL Executives, Board and Advisory Council


CaliforniaALL’s Executive Directors: Interim Director Sarah Redfield, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, and Larissa Parecki


DIRECTORS: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal ‘s James Hsu — “Utility APA” and Attorney for Cache Creek Casino, Utility APA Pat Fong-Kushida, Torie Flournoy England, CityView’s Victor Miramontes, Gibor Basri, Freada Kapor Klein, Cary Martin Zellerbach, Douglas Scrivner of Accenture, Ophelia Basgal of Pacific Gas & Electric, Frank Quevedo of Verizon


ADVISORY COUNCIL:Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Kamala Harris, Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, Hon. Morrison England, Steve Poizner, Darrell Steinberg

Political bigs expected at George Soros wedding

Political bigs expected at George Soros wedding
The first wedding picture released from the wedding of George Soros and Tamiko Bolton.
Billionaire investor George Soros, 83, will marry 42-year-old Tamiko Bolton today, followed by a huge party at his Caramoor Estate in Bedford, with 500 guests
Please continue @:
http://pagesix.com/2013/09/20/political-bigs-expected-at-george-soros-wedding/

Breitbart: Lois Lerner — IRS Official at Heart of Tea Party Scandal Retires

Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the agency’s tea party scandal, is retiring, the agency confirmed Monday.

Lerner headed the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status when she was placed on paid leave in May. While she was in charge, the agency acknowledged that agents improperly targeted tea party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status from 2010 to 2012.

Lerner first disclosed the targeting at a law conference in May, when she was asked a planted question about IRS treatment of political groups. Less than two weeks later, she refused to answer questions at a congressional hearing, citing her constitutional right not to incriminate herself.

Please continue @:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-scandal-retires

Categories

RSS .

  • Martin Hoshino and zero-sum decisions…. 2014/10/31
    This past Monday we saw a glimpse of some positive movement when Martin Hoshino told the judicial council “I hope they feel as good about me as I feel about them a year from now, after I’ve had the luxury of making some zero-sum decisions that affect their workplace and their lives,” For those who might […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Our 4th anniversary of tracking the most corrupt institution in state government 2014/10/27
    This past Saturday, October 25th marks our 4th year of tracking the most corrupt institution in state government. You’ll note that this is not an event we’re celebrating. We had hoped that by now the other two branches of government would have used their considerable wherewithal to exercise their respective roles of checks and balances. […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Closure of Plumas / Sierra Regional Courthouse 2014/10/24
    Only four years ago, amid great fanfare, the former AOC heralded the opening of the Plumas/Sierra Regional Courthouse in Portola. This 6500-square-foot courthouse, which features a “prominent transparent glazed entry vestibule and tall clerestoried lobby” along with its single courtroom, was built at a cost of $4.7 million.  In the AOC’s words, it “exemplifi […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Jerry’s pfabulous spending spree…. 2014/10/16
    Jerry Pfab is the phearless leader of the facilities maintenance unit in the Judicial Council. Several months ago we described to you how Jerry is setting public funds ablaze so that he can place a little pick-axe representing the prospectors award on his various printed materials and business cards. The judicial council even recognized him […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • You have until October 20th to register to vote. 2014/10/04
    We would like to join the MyVote Democracy At Work Project and encourage each and every one of you to vote. What’s more is we’re going to make doing so brain-dead easy. Register to vote in person or by mail by clicking here. *(1) Yup, there is no easier way to register to vote than by […]
    Judicial Council Watcher

RSS Drudge Report Feed

  • REID TRIES 'BEGGING'... 2014/10/31
    REID TRIES 'BEGGING'...(Top headline, 1st story, link)Related stories:One Million Senate Ads -- And Counting...NYT: 70% REPUBLICANS TAKE...WASH POST: 90% CHANCE...
  • One Million Senate Ads -- And Counting... 2014/10/31
    One Million Senate Ads -- And Counting...(Top headline, 2nd story, link)Related stories:REID TRIES 'BEGGING'...NYT: 70% REPUBLICANS TAKE...WASH POST: 90% CHANCE...
  • NYT: 70% REPUBLICANS TAKE... 2014/10/31
    NYT: 70% REPUBLICANS TAKE...(Top headline, 3rd story, link)Related stories:REID TRIES 'BEGGING'...One Million Senate Ads -- And Counting...WASH POST: 90% CHANCE...
  • WASH POST: 90% CHANCE... 2014/10/31
    WASH POST: 90% CHANCE...(Top headline, 4th story, link)Related stories:REID TRIES 'BEGGING'...One Million Senate Ads -- And Counting...NYT: 70% REPUBLICANS TAKE...
  • EARLY VOTING: REPUBLICANS HAVE 10% LEAD 2014/10/31
    EARLY VOTING: REPUBLICANS HAVE 10% LEAD(Main headline, 1st story, link)
  • Smartphones will soon know when you're lying... 2014/10/31
    Smartphones will soon know when you're lying...(First column, 1st story, link)
  • Drivers Scramble To Grab Money Flying Around Interstate... 2014/10/31
    Drivers Scramble To Grab Money Flying Around Interstate...(First column, 2nd story, link)
  • SNAP: Cowboys Fan Destroys House After Team's Loss... 2014/10/31
    SNAP: Cowboys Fan Destroys House After Team's Loss...(First column, 3rd story, link)
  • DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'... 2014/10/31
    DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...(First column, 4th story, link)Related stories:PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...Landrieu blames Southern hostility...TIMES-PICAYUNE: Desperate Senator smears state she represents...SPI […]
  • PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election... 2014/10/31
    PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...(First column, 5th story, link)Related stories:DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...Landrieu blames Southern hostility...TIMES-PICAYUNE: Desperate Senator smears state she represents...SPI […]
  • RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'... 2014/10/31
    RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...(First column, 6th story, link)Related stories:DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...Landrieu blames Southern hostility...TIMES-PICAYUNE: Desperate Senator smears state she represents...SPI […]
  • Landrieu blames Southern hostility... 2014/10/31
    Landrieu blames Southern hostility...(First column, 7th story, link)Related stories:DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...TIMES-PICAYUNE: Desperate Senator smears state she represents...SPI […]
  • TIMES-PICAYUNE: Desperate Senator smears state she represents... 2014/10/31
    TIMES-PICAYUNE: Desperate Senator smears state she represents...(First column, 8th story, link)Related stories:DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...Landrieu blames Southern hostility...SPI […]
  • SPIKE LEE: Post-Racial America is 'Bullshit'... 2014/10/31
    SPIKE LEE: Post-Racial America is 'Bullshit'...(First column, 9th story, link)Related stories:DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...Landrieu blames Southern hostility...TIMES-PICA […]
  • GRAHAM: Remark About Helping White Men Was Joke... 2014/10/31
    GRAHAM: Remark About Helping White Men Was Joke...(First column, 10th story, link)Related stories:DEMOCRAT HALLOWEEN: PARTY LOSSES 'COULD BE HISTORIC'...PAPER: Desperate Dems resort to race baiting in final days of election...RANGEL: Some Republicans Believe 'Slavery Isn't Over'...Landrieu blames Southern hostility...TIMES-PICAYUNE: […]
  • MAG: FACEBOOK conducts secret voting tests on users... 2014/10/31
    MAG: FACEBOOK conducts secret voting tests on users...(First column, 11th story, link)
  • VIDEO: Man in Obama mask and hazmat suit posts 'Obola' posters across Chicago... 2014/10/31
    VIDEO: Man in Obama mask and hazmat suit posts 'Obola' posters across Chicago...(First column, 12th story, link)
  • FEAR GRIPS FERGUSON -- AGAIN... 2014/10/31
    FEAR GRIPS FERGUSON -- AGAIN...(First column, 13th story, link)Related stories:Sharpton returns...
  • Sharpton returns... 2014/10/31
    Sharpton returns...(First column, 14th story, link)Related stories:FEAR GRIPS FERGUSON -- AGAIN...
  • NYT: RUSSIA SUSPECTED OF HACKING WHITE HOUSE COMPUTERS... 2014/10/31
    NYT: RUSSIA SUSPECTED OF HACKING WHITE HOUSE COMPUTERS...(First column, 15th story, link)Related stories:Back to Cold War...
.