archives

James Towery

This category contains 45 posts

California Governor Jerry Brown Appoints Embattled James Towery Judge with Santa Clara Superior Court

James Towery, embattled former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, is now part of the judicial system in Santa Clara, California.

According to San Jose Mercury News, Jerry Brown “appointed James Towery, a former state bar president and longtime civil litigator, to a Santa Clara County judgeship and also Helen Elizabeth Williams, a staff attorney with the San Jose-based 6th District Court of Appeal.

Towery, 64, has been a stalwart in the Santa Clara County legal community for decades, spending much of his career with the Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel law firm, as well as his own Morgan and Towery law firm. He led both the state and county bar associations.

More recently, Towery served as chief trial counsel for the State Bar from 2010 to 2011, but was swept out of the position as part of a purge of that office by Joseph Dunn, the bar’s executive director.

Towery said Wednesday he expects to join the court by Christmas, after wrapping up loose ends with his most recent law firm, Rossi, Hammerslough, Reischl and Chuck. Towery is part of one of Silicon Valley’s power legal couples, married to local prosecutor Karyn Sinunu, who ran unsuccessfully for district attorney six years ago.

“I’m just delighted it happened and ready to go to work,” Towery said.”

Source:http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22042729/governor-adds-two-new-judges-santa-clara-county

For more about Mr. James Towery, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/search/towery/AND/

 

 

 

California Governor Jerry Brown Appoints Embattled James Towery Judge with Santa Clara Superior Court

James Towery, embattled former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, is now part of the judicial system in Santa Clara, California.

According to San Jose Mercury News, Jerry Brown “appointed James Towery, a former state bar president and longtime civil litigator, to a Santa Clara County judgeship and also Helen Elizabeth Williams, a staff attorney with the San Jose-based 6th District Court of Appeal.

Towery, 64, has been a stalwart in the Santa Clara County legal community for decades, spending much of his career with the Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel law firm, as well as his own Morgan and Towery law firm. He led both the state and county bar associations.

More recently, Towery served as chief trial counsel for the State Bar from 2010 to 2011, but was swept out of the position as part of a purge of that office by Joseph Dunn, the bar’s executive director.

Towery said Wednesday he expects to join the court by Christmas, after wrapping up loose ends with his most recent law firm, Rossi, Hammerslough, Reischl and Chuck. Towery is part of one of Silicon Valley’s power legal couples, married to local prosecutor Karyn Sinunu, who ran unsuccessfully for district attorney six years ago.

“I’m just delighted it happened and ready to go to work,” Towery said.”

Source:http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22042729/governor-adds-two-new-judges-santa-clara-county

For more about Mr. James Towery, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/search/towery/AND/

 

 

 

COPY OF DYDZAK V. SCHWARZENNEGER — Suit Filed in US District Court — Washington DC

Dydzak v. Schwarzenegger Complaint – REDACTED.pdf Download this file

 

James Towery and Noreen Evans Hereby Asked to Comment on State Bar of California’s Jayne Kim and Robert Hawley Refusal to Process Complaint Against its Own Executive Director Joseph Dunn of Voice OC

Originally published on January 6, 2012

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

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

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

The State Bar of California, which controls and operates the California Bar Foundation, quietly transferred $780,000 to CaliforniaALL, a charitable entity created by former BOG member Ruthe Catolico Ashley. CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the approximate $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns.

Likewise, the Foundation never acknowledged this transfer to CaliforniaALL — the largest grant it ever bestowed — via publications issued by its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.

As the purpose of CaliforniaALL was to transfer those funds forward, it did so by awarding approximately $300,000 in grants to the UCI Foundation, where Senator Dunn serves as trustee and chair of the Audit Committee.

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

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

Additionally, the belief is heightened given various events’ proximity in time — as noted above, Ruthe Ashley left CaliforniaALL in the same month Mr. Dunn launched “Voice of OC” (as though her mission had been completed).

Moreover, the recent abrupt departure of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan from ‘Voice of OC” ( as though they were fleeing the scene with guilty consciences), the refusal of SAL-UCI to disclose the amount it receive from CaliforniaALL, the simulated RFP, and CaliforniaALL’s pre-selection of the UCI Foundation as a recipient of funds only reinforce the suspicion. This is heightened by Mr. Thomas Girardi’s lack of credibility (pursuant to findings made by a panel of federal judges), and the friendship Mr. Dunn shares with Mr. Girardi.

 

Ethics Complaint,  Joe Dunn, Voice of OC,


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

 

Intake Office

 

 

Intake Office

 

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

 

 

The Leslie Brodie Report “Quit Amid Probe Curse” Allegedly Due to Probes by TLR and/or YR (TLR Note: And One Who Wishes He Can Quit)

Please see relevant links, below:

 

California Supreme Court Associate-Justice Hon Ming Chin:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/18/ming-chin-california-supreme-court-…

 

 

Leslie Hatamiya:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/05/18/leslie-hatamiya-california-bar-foun…

 

 

David Werdegar (Spouse of CSCJ Kathryn Werdegar and Father of Keker & Van Nest’s Matthew Werdegar)

http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/breaking-news-david-werdegar-spo…

 

 

Howard Rice (Legal Scholar Dan Dydzak Substantial Factor):

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/embattled-howard-rice-nemerovski-canady-falk

 

 

James Towery (Alternative theory, quit due to his refusal to submit misleading report to the California legislature)

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/06/16/d-e-v-e-l-o-p-i-n-g-james-towery-ca…

 

 

Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi and Morrison & Foerster’s James Brosnahan:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/23/voice-of-oc-orange-county-s-nonprof…

 

 

Sacramento-based McGeorge School of Law Dean Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker:

http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/mcgeorge-school-of-law-dean-eliz…

And

http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/sacramento-based-mcgeorge-school…

 

 

Ronald George (Legal scholar Dan Dydzak substantial factor due to exposure of Bet Tzedek Connection)

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/07/14/breaking-chief-justice-ronald-georg…

 

 

Holly Fujie:

http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/holly-fujie-appointed-judge-in-t…

 

 

State Bar Executive-Director Joe Dunn of Voice of OC:

 

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/10/19/state-bar-of-california-executive-d…

 

AND

http://www.thelegaloc.com/?p=451

 

AND

 

http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/state-bar-of-california-executive-director-…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Cameron Carr (AKA David Carr) Hereby Asked to Opine on Matters Relating to Search Warrant Re James Towery (TLR Note: See Note Re Jeff Reisig and Michael Cabral of Yolo County District Attorney)

Jeff Reisig and Michael Cabral of Yolo County District Attorney Fail to Grasp, As of Yet, Purpose of TLR to Protect Physical Safety and Security of Complainant YR and Others From Negative Elements  Such As :

1. Rabbi Beater of “60 Days Suspension Scandal”

2. Syndicate of Thomas Girardi

3. Those in the Shady Busnines of Gambling

4. Movements of Money from CPUC to South Los Angeles, Etc             

 

Will Cameron manage to grasp said concerns?

 

Article re James Towery, below:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Judge William Fletcher, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated the matter of In re Girardi, 08-80090, rejected the lenient recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: “with any competent lawyer if you’re omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is intentional.” The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, the California Bar Foundation never acknowledged the largest grant it ever bestowed in its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time.

 

In Letter to Ninth Circuit Judges Complainant Blasts California Bar Re Federal Misconduct Case of Tom Girardi;Alleges Joseph Dunn Aided by Morrison & Foerster/Girardi & Keese in Launching “Voice of OC” under Suspicious Circumstances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Judge William Fletcher, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated the matter of In re Girardi, 08-80090, rejected the lenient recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: “with any competent lawyer if you’re omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is intentional.” The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, the California Bar Foundation never acknowledged the largest grant it ever bestowed in its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding is that members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (presumably, State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, and others with their own financial and liberty interest at stake due to my whistleblowing activities) have presented claims to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Jeff Reisig and Michael Cabral to file criminal charges against me, for among other things, alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 6043.5, on the purported basis that the ethics complaints I filed were unfounded and constituted criminal conduct.

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

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

Thank you for your time.

In Letter to Ninth Circuit Judges Complainant Blasts California Bar Re Federal Misconduct Case of Tom Girardi;Alleges Joseph Dunn Aided by Morrison & Foerster/Girardi & Keese in Launching “Voice of OC” under Suspicious Circumstances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Judge William Fletcher, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated the matter of In re Girardi, 08-80090, rejected the lenient recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: “with any competent lawyer if you’re omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is intentional.” The court adjudicated that the grave misconduct by Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

CaliforniaALL never acknowledged receipt of the $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation in any of its publications, although it did acknowledge the transfer on its IRS tax returns. Likewise, the California Bar Foundation never acknowledged the largest grant it ever bestowed in its newsroom, the California Bar Journal, or similar publications; it did, however, recognize the transfer on its IRS returns, and in a 2 by 2 inch blurb in its annual report.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding is that members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (presumably, State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, and others with their own financial and liberty interest at stake due to my whistleblowing activities) have presented claims to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Jeff Reisig and Michael Cabral to file criminal charges against me, for among other things, alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section 6043.5, on the purported basis that the ethics complaints I filed were unfounded and constituted criminal conduct.

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

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

Thank you for your time.

Addendum to James Towery, Jeff Reisig, Mike Cabral in State Bar Cover-Up of In Re Girardi — Complainant Discovery Special Prosecutor — Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk — Actually Defense Lawyer of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack

REVEALED: Copy of Ethics Complaint Against James Towery Re State Bar Cover-Up of Ninth Circuit Matter of In Re Girardi — Yolo County DA Jeff Reisig and Mike Cabral Allege May Be Criminal

Search warrant re James Towery, below:

 

Complaint against James Towery dated 12/23/2010, below:

Dear President Hebert and Members of the Board of Governors:

Please consider this to be a formal request that the Board of
Governors implement a Task Force/Committee to investigate misconduct
and improprieties by employees and executives of the State Bar of
California relating to their handling of the investigation of
misconduct committed by attorneys from the law offices of Girardi &
Keese in the Dole litigation.

Such investigation should include an examination of the relationship
between Thomas Girardi and Mr. Mike Nisperos, the former chief trial
counsel.  It should also encompass the reasons Mr. Nisperos stated on
his resume immediately after he departed from the State Bar that
Thomas Girardi is his “Mentor Emeritus.”

However, the more serious matter that should be investigated is the
recent appointment of Jerome Falk of the Howard, Rice firm by James
Towery to act as special prosecutor in investigating attorney
misconduct in the Dole case.  The attorneys who
participated in the misconduct are Thomas Girardi, Howard Miller, and
Walter Lack.

Simply stated, Mr. Falk should not have served as special prosecutor
because of an obvious conflict of interest.  As you know, the managing
partner of Howard, Rice is Douglas Winthrop, President-elect of the
Foundation of the State Bar of California. This in and of itself
should have disqualified Mr. Falk from serving in that capacity.

However, and in addition, Mr.  Howard Miller – the ex-president of
the State Bar and one of the attorneys who participated in the scheme
to defraud the judiciary and injure Dole in order to enrich himself
financially — also serves on the Foundation’s Board of Directors
alongside Douglas Winthrop, who is a business partner of Jerome Falk.

As such, in addition to our request for the immediate implementation
of a Task Force, we also ask that the Board of Governors ensure that
any findings by Jerome Falk are annulled and that a new, disinterested
outside counsel be appointed to determine ab initio if Thomas Girardi,
Howard Miller, and Walter Lack should be subject to any disciplinary
proceedings.

Lastly, I sincerely and whole-heartedly believe that the law offices
of Girardi & Keese and associated individuals have a determinable
effect on the State Bar of California in general, and the
administration of justice in particular.  I also believe that it is
unfortunate that such criticism and the above discoveries had to come
from me rather than the State Bar itself.  For these reasons, and in
the interest of justice, I request that you implement the measures
described above.

Thank you for your time.

Copy of Jeff Reisig and Michael Cabral’s Search Warrant Re State Bar of California Employees Robert Hawley, Starr Babcock, Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn and Former-Employee James Towery

Search Warrant No Name.pdf Download this file

Sources: James Towery — Former State Bar of California Chief Prosecutor — Was Dismissed Due His Refusal to Participate in “Achieve Zero” Plan; Replaced by Jayne Kim — Whom Joe Dunn, Starr Babcock, and Robert Hawley Know is Corrupted and Can Be Manipul

Developing …… this just in…….

 

 

Relaible Sources:  James Towery — Former State Bar of California Chief Prosecutor — Was Dismissed Due His Refusal to Participate in “Achieve Zero” Plan and Due to His Refusal Perjure Himself Before the California Legislature ; Replaced by Jayne Kim — Whom Joe Dunn, Starr Babcock, and Robert Hawley Know is Corrupted and Can Be Controlled and Manipulated.  

 

Developing Story…… Details Soon………..                                         

Marcy Tiffany of Tiffany Law Group Asked to Opine on Role of Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk as Special Prosecutor Against His Former Clients In The Matter of In Re Girardi

Amid continuing controversy over the appointment of Jerome Falk to serve as “special prosecutor” on behalf of the State Bar of California to examine attorney misconduct in connection with the Ninth Circuit matter of In Re Girardi;  as part of a journalistic inquiryThe Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks Ms Marcy Tiffany to opine on recent developments.

Specifically, Jerome Falk’s alleged failure to disclose that those he was suppose to prosecute on behalf of the State Bar of California (Thomas Girardi, Girardi & Keese, Walter Lack, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack) were actually his and his firm’s clients.  This newly discovered “Smoking Gun” evidence relates to the fact that starting in 2005, the law firm of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin represented both Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a class action advanced by plaintiff Robert Copple.

Early last year, Howard Rice Partner Jerome Falk was accused of wrongdoing as a result of his decision to exonerate a friend of Ronald George – Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese – along with Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for misconduct the two committed while litigating a case against Dole Food Company before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit.

Subsequently, in late 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Justices William Fletcher , Marsha Berzon, and Randy Smith found that Lack and Girardi had committed grave misconduct which included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

Despite the Ninth Circuit’s determination, in his capacity as special prosecutor, and after reviewing the Ninth Circuit file, Howard Rice partner Jerome Falk chose to not file any disciplinary accusations against Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, stating that he believed Lack’s misconduct was not intentional.

 

Jerome Falk Robert Baker.

 

 


Mr Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese. Per findings by the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Subsequnet to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here.  (Image: courtesy photo)

Please observe that, rather than contacting Ms Marcy Tiffany directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

Any opinion or observation can be sent to lesliebrodie@gmx.com

Hon. A. Wallace Tashima — U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — Hereby Asked to Opine on Events Sorrounding State Bar of California’s Jerome Falk of Arnold & Porter Handling of Matter of In Re Girardi

Amid continuing controversy over the appointment of Jerome Falk to serve as “special prosecutor” on behalf of the State Bar of California to examine attorney misconduct in connection with the Ninth Circuit matter of In Re Girardi,  The Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima — U.S. Circuit Judge and special master in matter of In Re Girardi —  to opine on recent developments.

Specifically, Jerome Falk’s alleged failure to disclose that those he was suppose to prosecute (Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack) were actually his and his firm’s clients.  This newly discovered “Smoking Gun” evidence relates to the fact that starting in 2005, the law firm of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin represented both Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a class action advanced by plaintiff Robert Copple.

 

Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole Food Comany was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Judge Kozinski ordered the appointments of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima as special master and Rory Little as prosecutor in those special disciplinary proceedings known as the matter of In Re Girardi. (photo: courtesy of Wikipedia)

Early last year, Howard Rice Partner Jerome Falk was accused of wrongdoing as a result of his decision to exonerate a friend of Ronald George – Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese – along with Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for misconduct the two committed while litigating a case against Dole Food Company before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit.

Subsequently, in late 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Justices William Fletcher , Marsha Berzon, and Randy Smith found that Lack and Girardi had committed grave misconduct which included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

Despite the Ninth Circuit’s determination, in his capacity as special prosecutor, and after reviewing the Ninth Circuit file, Howard Rice partner Jerome Falk chose to not file any disciplinary accusations against Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, stating that he believed Lack’s misconduct was not intentional.

 

Jerome Falk Robert Baker.

 

 


Mr Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese. Per findings by the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Subsequnet to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here.  (Image: courtesy photo)

 

Please observe that, rather than contacting Hon. Judge Tashima directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

Any opinion or observation can be sent to lesliebrodie@gmx.com

Anon Comment on kanBARoo’s Assail David Cameron Carr — former President of Dubious “Association of Discipline Defense Counsel”

Perhaps it’s because Towery, and the idiots at the OCTC who advised the RAD committee to adopt rules that violate B&P Code section 6001, which prohibit adopting anything from the Administrative Procedures Act without express approval from the legislature, and now open up everything they do to collateral attack because they are violating the State Bar Act, is why they were fired. Yes, Towery voiced a weak opposition to the new rules, however he should have told them they were forbidden to adopt the rules, not argue on the merits. Cameron should have also informed them of this, instead he whined that they shouldn’t rather than inform them they are breaking the law. In addition, Towery allowed one of his deputy counsel, to write a article, which gives one MCLE credit, stating that respondents cannot assert the 5th, in express violation of B&P Code section 6085(e). See legislative notes of 1999, which Joe Dunn Voted for, which expressly allows the respondent the right to assert the privilege self-incrimination, which was reiterated in the CAL Supreme Court case Speilberg v. Santa Clara, which cited to Specvack. The OCTC are managing agents, and therefore, give notice to the State Bar that they are violating respondents rights, under 1983 claims. Yes, the State Bar set into policy, that they will violate respondents rights, which under the recent US supreme court case Connick v. ? is the only way one can sue a prosecutors office, and have it stick. Cameron should be charged with incompetence. On his website, he states that the State Bar is a “real court”, not so, and advises clients that they cannot assert the 5th. Justice Baxter, stated that is not so, in the Spielberg case. Who knows what the hell is going on at the State Bar, anything Cameron says should be treated with the stupidity he espouses on his website. God help his clients.

Barack Obama condemned for rewriting online gambling rules – and announcing it at Christmas so no one notices | Mail Online (TLR Note: Similar to Jerome B. Falk in His Role as Prosecutor/Defense Counsel to Walter Lack– Link Included)

Jerome B. Falk of Howard Rice — State Bar of California Special Prosecutor in Ninth Circuit Matter of In Re Girardi (adjudicated by N. Randy Smith, Marsha Berzon, William Fletcher) Lashes Out – Claims Girardi & Keese Client of Howard Rice – Not His


Source

In the interest of ethical journalism, and as public service to the community, The Leslie Brodie Report publishes* communication from Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to Complainant, below: (end hair-splitting, see above)

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

Your allegations are false.

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

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

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

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

————————————————————————————————————–
Letter from Jerome Falk to Walter Lack, Below:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILL BE ASKED TO DISBAR TOM GIRARDI, WALTER LACK, HOWARD RICE’S JEROME FALK FOR SCHEME TO CIRCUMVENT NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER IN MATTER OF “IN RE GIRARDI”

Contending that Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk, acting as Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, repeatedly sought to subvert justice by failing to disclose that those he was suppose to prosecute (Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack) were actually his and his firm’s clients, sources familiar with the situation claim plans are underway to seek the disbarment of Girardi, Lack and Falk.

In a letter to Jerome Falk and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, complainant minced no words in accusing Falk (as well as Girardi and Lack) of egregious misconduct.

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

Dear Mr. Falk:

This will serve as a formal meet and confer attempt regarding various matters, primarily relating to your repugnant and continuous deceitful actions taken in connection with your willingness to serve as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm’s clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) as part of a scheme to exploit your authority as special prosecutor for financial gain.

In addition, this letter will serve to explore potential misconduct in connection with misrepresentations made to an official tribunal (i.e. the RAD Committee of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (“BOG”)) that appointed a special master in proceedings I initiated against you.


Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice (Image:courtesy photo)

To illustrate my point, State Bar of California Board of Governors member William Gailey is a man of high honor with a prior distinguished career as a homicide detective with the Los Angeles Police Department. Presently, he operates his own investigation firm (Gailey Associates, Inc.), which as I understand is one of the best in the country and offers a wide array of services, including industrial espionage and the like.

Assume, hypothetically speaking only, that Mr. X is an industrialist and a client of Gailey Associates in connection with various business-related transactions. Assume also that Mr. X, while a client of Gailey Associates, was charged by the federal government for participating in a conspiracy to kidnap and murder Mr. Y, the owner of a competing business located in Los Angeles. Mr. X is tried and convicted and sentenced to serve a 30 year sentence in a federal correctional facility. However, after one year he is mysteriously pardoned by the U.S. president.

Public and media pressure prompt the Los Angeles District Attorney to file an information against Mr. X for violations of State Penal Code provisions, including PC 182 and 187 in connection with the crimes Mr. X committed against Mr. Y. A shortage of qualified detectives prompts the DA to seek volunteer detectives, and Mr. Gailey is deputized, issued a badge, and appointed the role of lead detective in amassing the case against Mr. X on behalf of the People.

Mr. Gailey shortly thereafter announces the closure of the investigation, and declares that, as far as he is concerned, Mr. X is innocent. As a second hypothetical, assume that with these facts in mind, Mr. Gailey is instead an attorney in private practice who is deputized to act as special prosecutor to try Mr. X, and likewise Mr. Gailey declares Mr. X to be innocent.

If you don’t see anything wrong with the above two hypothetical examples, please delete this email; otherwise, keep reading because the above hypo is very similar to the scenario that ensued when you agreed to act as special prosecutor against your clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) on behalf of the People of the State of California to examine the grave and previously adjudicated attorney misconduct Messrs. Girardi and Lack committed against the Ninth Circuit in the litigation against the Dole Food Company.

The misconduct on the part of Girardi and Lack was investigated by a special master (Senior Judge Hon. Wallace Tashima) appointed by the Ninth Circuit, and his recommendations were adopted by a panel of three Ninth Circuit judges after a full opportunity was afforded to Girardi and Lack to present defenses and bargain with a special prosecutor (Rory Little); these findings were memorialized in the published decision of In Re Girardi. Some of the findings included that Lack and Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and that “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

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

As you surely recall, the Ninth Circuit also ordered Girardi and Lack to report the findings to the State Bar of California. Because Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese served as President of the State Bar, the Bar disqualified itself and you were appointed as Special Prosecutor by the State Bar to further look into this matter on behalf of the People.

Despite ample opportunities, you (nor Lack, Girardi, or members of your firm whom I contacted on several occasions in search of information) mentioned that Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack were your and your firm’s clients.

Shortly thereafter, when you had issued the decision to “exonerate” Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack (as memorialized in a “Dear Bob” letter you sent Mr. Robert Baker of Baker Keener & Nahara), I immediately protested by filing both an ethics complaint with the State Bar of California, and asking the BOG to inquire into the matter. Named in the complaint were yourself, Douglas Wintrhrop, Howard Miller, and James Towery.

At that time, I was unaware that Girardi and Lack were your clients, and the ethics complaint alleged you were biased because of your and your firm’s ongoing business relationship with Skadden Arps and partner Tom Nolan, who served as Girardi’s defense counsel in the matter of In Re Girardi. Also, I argued that since the State Bar of California had disqualified itself, you and your firm should also have been disqualified as the managing partner of your firm (Douglas Wintrhrop) is an officer of the State Bar of California, and was appointed to the position by the BOG headed by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese.

Mr. Robert Hawley immediately appointed himself the point of contact, and only several months ago informed me that the complaint was assigned to RAD, which in turn appointed a special master who examined the complaint and found no ethical violations; RAD voted to accept this conclusion.

Mr Tom Girardi of Girardi & KeeseState Bar of California's Robert Hawley
Mr. Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and State Bar of California
Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Robert A. Hawley.

Subsequently, and fortuitously, I very recently discovered that Lack and Girardi were clients of your firm. I inquired with Mr. Hawley whether this fact was known to the RAD and Special Master investigating my complaint. The inquiry to Mr. Hawley was ignored, ipso facto terminating his role as point of contact.

Mr. Hawley’s lack of response lends credence to my belief that since you knew of the complaint and never informed the Special Master or RAD, you are also liable for defrauding and misrepresenting events to a tribunal. If you have facts to the contrary, please forward them to me ASAP.

Note that subsequent to the discovery of the attorney-client relationship between you and Lack/Girardi, I again wrote SeLegue and Philips seeking additional clarification, and no response was forthcoming. It had occurred to me that, given that Girardi and Lack are clients of your firm, any insinuation of misconduct I may previously have alleged on the part of SeLegue and Philips were improper; as such, these insinuations are hereby withdrawn as I now understand that SeLegue and Philips were acting in the best interest of their clients — Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.

Nevertheless, the serious nature of the offenses and the harm caused by your corrupt activities (as well as the corrupt activities of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, primarily as a result of their failure to speak up and reject your appointment) leaves me no choice but to, again, seek discipline against you, Walter Lack, and Thomas Girardi. Additional factors surrounding Thomas Girardi and Girardi & Keese have also become relevant, including the recent malpractice suits filed by Gutierez and Demeter Energy; the secretive attorney-client relationship between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps in the Fogel vs. Farmers matter, the identity and nature of the firms defending MGA in the litigation against Mattel; Alec Chang’s membership on RAD; the overall corruption within the State Bar of California manifested in its unwillingness to prosecute Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack; Girardi’s unsettling friendship with Ronald George and “mentoring” of former crack-addict Mike Nisperos. These factors, coupled with my impression that the firms of Girardi & Keese, Skadden Arps, and Howard Rice have somehow exempted themselves from complying with the rules, make clear that I must press ahead to ensure that you, Walter Lack, and Thomas Girardi are held fully accountable and otherwise prevented from practicing before any federal or state court.

As such, in the near future the federal district court, appellate court, and U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to investigate your misconduct (and that of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), and to otherwise permanently remove your names from the roll of members allowed to practice before each of those courts.

Particularly, I plan to ask the Ninth Circuit to appoint a Special Master to investigate the matter, and to reopen the matter of In Re Girardi to examine whether Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi fully complied with the order in the matter of In Re Girardi and to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California. It is my position that the order to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California included an implied covenant that any State Bar of California proceedings would be conducted in good faith and in conformity with all rules and duties and principles consistent with the fair administration of justice. By not speaking up when you were appointed, Messrs. Girardi and Lack further aggravated matters and, arguably, violated the order handed down by the Ninth Circuit.


Mr. Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack. In the matter of In Re Girardi, the Ninth Circuit adjudicated: “with respect to Respondents Lack and Traina, we conclude that the mitigating factors can affect only the length of the suspension we impose. Although Lack’s involvement in the enforcement proceedings was more long-standing than Traina’s, each was specifically responsible for the falsehoods presented to this court. Consequently, each is suspended from the practice of law in this court for six months, effective on the filing date of this order. Fed. R.App. P. 46(c). Respondents Lack and Traina may each file a petition for reinstatement after the period of suspension pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(h). Each shall file the petition using this docket number and include evidence that he is in good standing, with no discipline pending, in all courts and bars to which he is admitted.” (Image:courtesy photo)

Similarly, when Walter Lack sought to reinstate himself via a motion advanced to Ninth Circuit Commissioner Shaw, he relied heavily on the fact that the State Bar of California decided not to discipline him. In aggravation and while exponentially compounding his lack of credibility, Mr. Lack conveniently failed to mention that he and you (who represented the State Bar of California) have an attorney-client relationship, and that your decision to not prosecute him was the fruit of an unlawful and highly unethical scheme.

In addition, please note that I plan to file a writ with the California Supreme Court seeking to invalidate your decision, and asking the Court to order the State Bar of California to commence proceedings consistent with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct against you, Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, and your respective firms, and to otherwise take action on the original complaint I submitted to the Intake Office which was never processed.

The writ will be filed prior to the end of this year so as to allow the Court to also address separate matters, and to otherwise maintain jurisdiction over Douglas Winthrop (also of Howard Rice) and Holly Fujie in their capacities as President and Vice President of the California Bar Foundation, and in connection with the overall circumstances, particularly the hush-hush and unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Foundation to sham charity CaliforniaALL.

Hence, at your earliest convenience I ask that you provide information, as well as, if you wish, any memorandum containing legal authority explaining why your actions did not constitute professional misconduct.

Below is a synopsis of the various acts of misconduct I intend to allege. If you believe I am wrong, legally or factually, please so advise as soon as possible:

Your first act of misconduct took place once the State Bar initially contacted you. Rather than rejecting the appointment, you intentionally, deliberately, and with aforethought accepted the assignment, knowing full well that you were unable to take a position adverse to your clients Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and also knowing full well that you would exonerate both of them regardless of the weight of the evidence. In doing so, you hoped to maintain your attorney-client relationship with Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi in order to obtain a future stream of business from them, as well as from Thomas Girardi’s defense lawyer — your confederate, Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps. By doing so, you have completely breached the duties expected of a prosecutor. Moreover, while temporarily holding public office, you placed your financial interests, as well as the financial interest of your firm, before those of the People, causing injury to the federal judiciary, the Dole Food Company, the State Bar of California, the People of the State of California, the fair administration of justice, myself, and frankly, even your own clients Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.

Your second act of misconduct involved the hampering of an investigation, and misleading a tribunal (i.e. the BOG/RAD and the appointed Special Master) by not fully disclosing the attorney-client relationship.

Thirdly, and in aggravation, even to this date, and after members of your firm were informed of the recent discovery and you had ample opportunity to admit you mistakes, you still have not taken any action to remedy the situation. Instead, you appear to hope that by ignoring the problem, it will somehow disappear. It shall not.

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information or clarification of the above-described facts.

*Links and photos inserted by The Leslie Brodie Report.

Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck hires James Towery – Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Richard Zitrin: State Bar of California Discipline System in Bad Shape

Media_httpwwwlawcomim_agvhc

James Towery — Former California Bar Chief Prosecutor — Joins Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck

James Towery — the former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California — has joined the San Jose-based law firm of Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.

James Towery OCTC - Copy
Mr. James Towery, whom Girardi & Keese’s Howard Miller chose to serve as the Chief Trial Counsel.

Towery, who served as president of the State Bar in 1995-96, was a member of Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel prior to assuming the role of top prosecutor.

According to the Oakland Tribune, upon departing the State Bar, Towery stated: “After much reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this position and my personal situation are not a good fit,” Towery said. “The challenge of managing offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles while maintaining my residence in San Jose has proven more onerous than I anticipated.” “There are a number of opportunities. I’m confident I’m going to get re-engaged with the legal community soon.”

For more information, please visit: http://www.rhrc.net/Bio/JamesTowery.asp

The State Senate Should Have No Role in Operations of the State Bar

GERT K. HIRSCHBERG

The State Bar of California had its own massacre on July 6, 2011 when it fired unceremoniously Deputy Chief Trial Counsel Russell Weiner, Assistant Chief Trial Counsel Victoria Malloy, Djinna Gochis and Nancy J. Watson. Thus, in one fell swoop, the prosecutorial arm of the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel, leaderless already since the resignation of Chief Trial Counsel James E. Towery, was decimated. These being personnel decisions, apparently the Brown Act (Government Code 54950 et seq) does not apply.

27 Page Declaration of Howard Rice ‘s Sean Selegue Re Conversation with James Towery in ConnectU / Facebook Matter

Complainant Reply to RAD Committee’s Decision as Communicated to State Bar’s Robert Hawley

RE: Matter of Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk Acting as Special Prosecutor on Behalf of State Bar of California Relating to Grave Attorney Misconduct by Howard Miller, Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp in Litigation against Dole Food Company (aka the Rule 2201(i) Matter)

Dear Mr. Hawley:

This will respond to your correspondence, in which you informed me that the RAD Committee has appointed a special counsel to inquire into the above matter, and that said special counsel prepared a report recommending closure of the matter, and that the RAD Committee adopted said recommendation.

Note, that as there are parallel proceedings (pursuant to thecomplaints I filed with both the RAD and the Intake Office), I am working on the assumption that the Intake Office is still reviewing the complaint I filed against Messrs. Towery, Miller, Falk, and Winthrop, and that the Intake Office will soon appoint outside counsel to determine the validity of the complaint. Please advise, as I have not yet heard from the Intake Office.

Note that, from my perspective, the decision of the RAD Committee is void ab initio, and I will seek such a declaration via a direct petition to the California Supreme Court. Said petition will be styled as John Doe vs. Douglas Winthrop, and will seek multiple remedies. One requested form of relief will be that the California Bar Foundation be directed to produce the signed conflict of interest forms signed by Douglas Winthrop and Howard Miller, as well as all communications and documents relating to CaliforniaALL.

For your information, following are the reasons I find the RAD decision problematic:

1. The presence and participation of Alec Chang of Skadden Arps as a member of the RAD Committee, as well as a lack of disclosure on his part as required by the State Bar Act. Note that Thomas Girardi was represented by Skadden Arps in the Ninth Circuit matter of “In Re Girardi,” where both Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack were found to have committed outrageous and intentional misconduct vis-à-vis years of the persistent use of known falsehoods.

Note that Alec Chang’s participation is problematic not only as far as the findings, but also his misconduct arising from his participation and failure to publicly disclose conflict, as required by the State Bar Act.

Also note that Skadden’s shenanigans are also currently being manifested in the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers, where Skadden represents Farmers in a case in which Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack represent the class of plaintiffs.

2. The Presence of RAD Committee member Gwen Moore. Note that I previously submitted a complaint and a request for inquiry to the BOG regarding unlawful transactions pertaining to CaliforniaALL. RAD Committee member Gwen Moore was part and parcel of events surrounding CaliforniaALL even though, technically speaking, she may have committed no misconduct. In fact, Ms. Sarah Attia, a consultant for CaliforniaALL, is shown to have participated in preparations for a gala thrown by CaliforniaALL to honor Gwen Moore at the Radisson Hotel in Sacramento ( See press-release dated Septemebr 1, 2009 issued by Ms. Attia.)

Additionally, it is apparent that Gwen Moore has a clear motive to attempt to discredit me because I exposed the scheme concerning CCPF and Judy Johnson.

3. Refusal by California Bar Foundation (where Howard Rice’s Douglas Winthrop serves as President) to produce to me the signed conflict of interest forms signed by Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese. It is patently unfair to deprive me of evidence that I am entitled to examine (as was recently stated by the First District Court of Appeal in the matter of Sander vs. State Bar of California), and would have produced to the RAD Committee in support of my complaint. This is particularly given that I am unsure of the special counsel’s identity, what evidence he or she collected, and the like.

4. In addition, recent discoveries have came to light vis-à-vis the surprise disclosure by MGA and Tom Nolan that Mr. Nolan is still representing MGA and, in fact, participated in the second trial involving MGA and Mattel. Note that Skadden Arps’ Tom Nolan (Girardi’s counsel in In Re Girardi) and Howard Rice’s Falk and Winthrop represented MGA in the first trial, and the latest revelations also lead me to conclude that it is very likely Howard Rice did as well. I am currently looking into the matter, and will also include as part of the relief sought via the writ for Howard Rice to disclose the matter.

If appropriate, I request that you please forward a copy of the report prepared by the special counsel to me at your earliest convenience. Also, I will be awaiting word about the status of the complaint against Towery, Miller, Winthrop, and Falk, which is currently pending with the Intake Office.

Thank you.

State Bar of California RAD Committee: No Misconduct by James Towery and Howard Rice’s Jerry Falk in Decision to Exonerate Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack for Misconduct Against Dole Food Company/Ninth Circuit

RAD Decision

Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley Named Interim Chief Trial Counsel

State Bar of California Deputy Executive Director, Robert A. Hawley, was selected today by Executive Director Joseph Dunn to serve as Interim Chief Trial Counsel, the Leslie Brodie Report has learned.

Hawley, a graduate of hastings College of the Law, will fill the position on a temporary basis, following the abrupt departure of James Towery amid a developing ethics probe.

Robert A. Hawley

Robert A. Hawley,  has served in senior executive positions with the State Bar of California for more than 25 years. Begining in 1978 and ending in 1981, he was employed as staff prosecutor in the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel prosecuting attorney misconduct cases. Resuming employment, from 1983 to 1993 Mr. Hawley was in private practice, specializing in labor and employment. In 1993, State Bar of California and Mr Hawley reunited as he was named Chief Assistant General Counsel.  Commencing in 2000, he assumed the title of Deputy Executive Director. (Photo:courtesy)

 

JAMES TOWERY — CALIFORNIA BAR EMBATTLED CHIEF PROSECUTOR — TO RESIGN

Amid a developing ethics probe — James Towery — the embattled Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, has resigned.

The Leslie Brodie Report has learned Towery will exit on July 1, and a search for a replacement is underway.

James Towery OCTC - Copy

Mr. James Towery, whom Mr. Howard Miller chose to serve as the Chief Trial Counsel. (Photo:courtesy)

Towery, who served as president of the State Bar in 1995-96, was a member of Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel prior to assuming the role of top prosecutor.

According to the Oakland Tribune, Towery stated:

“After much reflection, I have come to the conclusion that this position and my personal situation are not a good fit,” Towery said.

“The challenge of managing offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles while maintaining my residence in San Jose has proven more onerous than I anticipated.” “There are a number of opportunities. I’m confident I’m going to get re-engaged with the legal community soon,” he said.

For a prior coverage concerning Mr. Towery,including information about the ethics complaint advanced against Towery, please visit:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/12/23/james-towery-girardi-keese-s-howard…

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/12/26/of-all-the-lawyers-in-all-the-towns…

In Letter to California Bar’s James Towery — Northern California Innocence Project Urges Examination of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Omitting a Casino Card Dealer, Professor of Law Hircshberg on California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye — “Felix Frankfurter She Is Not”. – The Leslie Brodie Report

« State Bar Failure to Prosecute Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack — Update 4: Message from Complainant to Robert A. Hawley Re James Towery, Howard Miller, Jerome Falk, Douglas Winthrop and JFKU’s Dean — Dean Barbieri

Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a Los Angeles daily newspaper focusing on law and the courts, recently published an OP-ED piece by Gert Hirschberg.

Hircshberg, a retired trial lawyer and a former professor of torts, is of the opinion that none of Arnold Schwarzenegger “deeds or misdeeds exceeded the damage he did upon the people of California with his appointment of the new Chief Justice.”

Hircshberg wrote:

“Tani Cantil-Sakauye is a pleasant, likeable graduate from the UC Law School at Davis. The only trouble is that a Felix Frankfurter she is not. Arnold Schwarzenneger plucked her out of hundreds to become the next Chief Justice of California.

What is her history? College and law school at UC Davis; four years in the Sacramento District Attorney’s office; eight years in the Superior Court as a trial judge; five years in the Appellate Court. She had also served one year as legal affairs secretary for then Governor Deukmejian. Scholarly writings in books, appellate briefs, law review articles, none. Teaching in law schools, none.

Unless she has completely concealed it from public scrutiny, she has never managed an investment or a business, nor been involved in any personnel administration, public or private. Yet, she has been put in charge of a multi-billion dollar enterprise with real estate holdings in every town so large it would make Donald Trump look like a piper.”

According to www.blackjackchamp.com “As a student, Cantil-Sakauye received training as a blackjack dealer. With her training, she was able to get a job dealing blackjack during summers and weekends at Harrah’s Casino in Lake Tahoe. She used the money she earned to help pay her way through law school at the University of California. After finishing her law degree, Cantil-Sakauye went back to the tables for a short time, dealing blackjack again in Reno.”

Please visit the below link for the entire article written by Professor Hirshberg .
http://tinyurl.com/winelovedIdeeplydicedear

State Bar Failure to Prosecute Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack — Update 4: Message from Complainant to Robert A. Hawley Re James Towery, Howard Miller, Jerome Falk, Douglas Winthrop and JFKU’s Dean — Dean Barbieri

For earlier entries about this topic, please visit:

http://goo.gl/CXxuK

http://goo.gl/kNMpL

http://goo.gl/rCedG

http://goo.gl/mEFqJ

<img src=”http://data6.blog.de/media/456/5562456_a223695665_s.jpeg&#8221; alt=”Robert A. Hawley” style=”margin:5px;” />
Mr. Robert A. Hawley,Deputy Executive Director of the State Bar of California.(Photo:courtesy)

Enclosed below is a letter which was sent by the confidential complainant to the State Bar of California’s point of contact — Mr. Robert A. Hawley, and is dated May 23, 2011

Dear Mr. Hawley:

1. Unless I am mistaken, the understating between you, Mark Torres-Gil, and myself was that matters concerning the ethics complaint I filed against James Towery, Howard Miller, Jerome Falk, and Douglas Winthrop relating to the State Bar’s handling of attorney misconduct in the litigation against Dole will be communicated to you, and matters relating to CaliforniaALL will be directed to Mr. Torres-Gil.

Other than the initial communication received from you about 5 months ago, I haven’t heard from you.  Last week, I spoke with the Intake Office and was informed that the complaint is still within the confines of the State Bar.  This complaint should have been forwarded to outside counsel shortly after it was received by the Intake Office.

Specifically, the policy governing ethics complaints against attorneys employed by the State Bar calls for a quick examination for probable cause and, if such probable cause exists, that the matter be quickly farmed out to outside counsel.  This is a procedure the Intake Office failed to utilize.

Accordingly, I ask that you provide the name of the Special Counsel investigating this matter within 10 days.

You also stated in your initial and only communication of five months ago that you would forward documents which I was entitled to examine. Since I have received no documents from you, is it safe to assume that no such documents exist?

2.  In connection with the collusion to conceal the relationship
between one of the parties and the court in the matter of Granda v. State Bar of California, and while in the process of drafting an ethics complaint against the attorneys involved, I noticed that Dean Barbieri, the former State Bar employee responsible for the administration of the Bar Exam who now serves as JFK School of Law’s dean, lists his address as JFK School of law with an email of dean.barbieri@calbar.ca.gov.

Is Dean Barbieri still employed by the State Bar? Or was he remiss in changing his email address? Or does the State Bar allow former employees the use of its email system?

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

Class-Action Against State Bar of California Filed By Nationally-Renowned Lawyer’s Lawyer Philip Edward Kay

View this document on Scribd

Class-Action Against State Bar of California Filed By Nationally-Renowned Lawyer’s Lawyer Philip Edward Kay

Untitledhttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/54882351/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-5hguzl995ahrkbq5i3y<script type=”text/javascript”>(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js&#8221;; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();</script>

Dear post ! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

Update 4: Communication between Confidental Complainant and Howard Rice’s Pamela Phillips and Sean SeLegue

I write to address matters relating to the involvement by you and your firm in the circumstances surrounding the appointment, and subsequent actions, of Jerome Falk as Special Deputy Trial Counsel for purposes of examining attorney misconduct in the litigation against Dole.

As explained below, I request that you forward to me various data and information.

Because Mr. Miller served as President of the State Bar during the imposition of discipline by the Ninth Circuit, the State Bar properly disqualified itself. Mr. Falk of Howard Rice — a firm in which you are both members — was appointed to serve as Special Deputy Trial Counsel. Mr. Falk’s recommendations shocked many including, most recently, Mr. David Cameron Carr, President of the Association of Discipline Defense Counsel.

My position is that because Mr. Falk should never have been assigned the task of serving as Special Deputy Trial Counsel, his decision is void, as it was procured as a result of factors inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.

Accordingly, a few weeks ago I asked the Board of Governors to independently examine the circumstances and reassign the case to a wholly new independent and neutral Special Deputy Trial Counsel. I have also advanced an ethics complaint against Messrs. Falk, Winthrop, Miller, and Towery for improperly assigning the case to the firm of Howard Rice, and against Mr. Falk for prosecutorial misconduct. Additionally, if necessary, I plan to approach the California Supreme Court for redress.

When Jerome Falk was notified that he was selected to serve as Special Deputy Trial Counsel, alarms, bells, whistles, and red flags should have been raised and sounded at the offices of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin. The appointment should have been immediately overruled by the managing partner of Howard Rice (Mr. Douglas Winthrop) during the conflict check process as he himself served (and continues to serve) as an officer of the State Bar of California.

Also, the appointment should have been immediately overruled because of the close personal relationship between Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Miller (who, in addition to serving as president of the State Bar and a partner with Girardi & Keese, was one of the attorneys Jerome Falk should have investigated because he was one of the attorneys of record in the case against Dole).

Moreover, during the initial conflict check, both of you (as well as Mr. Noah Rosenthal) had a duty to speak up and point out that, due to the nature of your practice (i.e. defending attorneys and law-firms in ethics-related proceedings) doubts would be raised as to Howard Rice’s impartiality, in that Jerome Falk would arguably be influenced by financial considerations and would compromise his duties of loyalty and zealousness as a special prosecutor by failing to prosecute with vigor. After all, a firm known as “the lawyers for lawyers” would not want to cross to the other side given the potential damage to its reputation in that arena. Mr. SeLegue’s and Mr. Rosenthal’s membership in the specialized Bar known as the “Association of Discipline Defense Counsel” further bolsters this rational.

As a side note, and as referenced above, even the President of that organization expressed dismay at the result of Mr. Falk’s decision in an article he wrote entitled, “It is good to be a king.” The fact that Mr. Girardi’s other attorney in the matter of In Re Girardi, Ms. Diane Karpman, is also a member of the association (who also, conveniently, chose to remain silent) further raises doubts.

Notwithstanding Sean SeLegue’s role as the main actor, both of you had a duty to speak up again around October 12, 2010, when the First District Court of Appeal published its decision in Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors, 189 Cal.App.4th 126 (2010) concerning Sean SeLegue’s appearance of partiality; the rationale of that decision alone should have alerted all of you that doubts would be raised as to the impartiality of Jerome Falk and firm that specializes in defending attorneys and law firms when it is selected to prosecute attorney misconduct.

As such, in addition to Jerome Falk and Douglas Winthrop, doubts exist as to the impartiality and the fulfillment of duties by both of you, as well as whether all of you compromised your professional obligations in favor of economic considerations in order to maintain a future stream of clients in general, and from the firm of Skadden Arps in particular.

Therefore, in order to complete my inquiry into these matters, I ask you to forward me the following information, which I plan to use when amending the ethics complaint and when approaching the California Supreme Court:

1. The extent of Howard Rice’s involvement in the case of Slesinger v. Walt Disney. At one point or another, Girardi & Keese, Eric M. George of Browne Woods George, and Steven Mayer of Howard Rice were involved in this matter as plaintiffs’ counsel. As such, I need as much information as possible. I ask that you specifically advise me whether Howard Rice took the case on a contingency basis, and whether Girardi & Keese and Eric George’s firm maintain liens on any potential recovery.

2. The extent of Mr. Winthrop’s and Ms. Phillips’ involvement as a members of a State Bar of California Foundation event committee in an event sponsored, in part, by Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack. It is interesting to note that prior to this event, Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack never made any contribution to the Foundation.

3. Thomas Nolan, the West Coast chair of Skadden Arps, represented Mr. Girardi in the matter of In Re Girardi. The relationship between Messrs. Nolan and Girardi extends beyond the average attorney-client relationship. Their close friendship and loyalty to each other is well known and well established. As such, I ask that you also provide a list of all cases in which Howard Rice and Skadden Arps both represented parties in the past 5 years.

In addition to the matters of Mattel v. MGA and City of Hope v. Genentech, I ask that you provide information about transactions which may not generally be accessed by the public, as well as all proceedings involving arbitration, mediation, securities, etc. Please include proceedings venued outside of California, such as Mary Morgan v. Berry Cash, if they exist.
As questions exist as to the motives of Skadden Arps in asking the Ninth Circuit to remove its name from the published decision in the matter of In Re Girardi at around the time Mr. Girardi was acting as plaintiffs’ lead counsel in Fogel v. Farmers Group (a case in which Raoul Kennedy of Skadden Arps was part of the defense team), I ask that you briefly delineate the relationship between Raoul Kennedy and Howard Rice in matters other than Strauss v. Horton.

4. Prior to assuming the role of Chief Trial Counsel, James Towery served as the attorney for ConnectU — a company established by Howard Rice’s clients, Messrs. Winklevoss. While the case was litigated, there were back and forth communications between Sean SeLegue and James Towery. As ConnectU eventually was subsumed by Facebook and as a result of other complicated transactions, I ask that you briefly delineate the role and the extent of involvement of Jerome Falk, Sean SeLegue, and James Towery in those matters, and whether or not their interests were adverse to one another.

5. The extent, if at all, of the relationship between Howard Rice and Girardi & Keese and Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack. Was Howard Rice ever assisted by or did it obtain assistance, either formally or informally, from either of those firms such as, for example, in the case Howard Rice prosecuted against Ford Motor Company? At first glance, it appears fortuitous that all three firms engaged in litigation against Ford around the same time.

6. Due to the enmeshment of Girardi & Keese and Howard Rice with the State Bar of California, I request a detailed list of all monetary contributions by Howard Rice to the State Bar of California in the past 5 years.

In addition to the Foundation of the State Bar of California, the State Bar also encourages members to donate money to various other programs, such as the “Justice Gap Funds” and the “California Equal Access Fund.” While donations made to the Foundation are easily ascertained and are otherwise freely available for public inspection, there is much secrecy about the amounts contributed and how the funds are distributed (including amounts) with respect to the Justice Gap Funds and the California Equal Access Funds.

7. Any and all other factors or facts that would cause a reasonable person to entertain doubts as to the impartiality of Howard Rice and its members in the proceedings at issue, including the disclosure of relationships between members of the firm and others (ie, former Chief Justice Ronald George). If, for example, Jerome Falk or Stephen Mayer are friends of the former Chief Justice, this should be disclosed.

Serious concerns exist as to the relationship and friendship between Mr. Girardi and Ronald George. Similarly, concerns exist regarding a class action in which Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, and Eric George prosecuted on behalf of various plaintiffs in the Hawaiian Ocean Shipping antitrust litigation, as well as the Horizon Lines matter in which Walter Lack and Eric George were part of a team of plaintiffs’ counsel.

Thank you for your cooperation regrading these matters. I look forward to your response.

Up Up and Away

According to confidential sources, a cease and desist demand has been delivered to Ms. Beth Jay — who in addition to serving as Ronald George’s principal attorney — also serves as a liaison between the California Supreme Court and the State Bar of California.

Beth Jay, according to the Recorder, is known as “the “Winston Wolf” of the California Supreme Court who does her work behind the scenes”. Please see: http://tinyurl.com/bethjaythefixer

Specifically, Ms. Beth Jay was conveyed the following: “By meeting with James Towery during meetings that are closed to the public, you create the appearance that both you and former Chief Justice George, as well as James Towery, unlawfully attempt to manipulate proceedings, engage in ex parte communications, and otherwise violate the due process rights of countless individuals.”

In addition, Beth Jay was asked to produce records of all meetings she attended with anyone from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel going back to the year 2000.

Beth Jay was also asked if she ever discussed with anyone at the State Bar Mr. Thomas Girardi and/or any attorney misconduct that took place in the Dole litigation as well as if she “ever personally receive any benefit from Mr. Girardi (ie, flying to attend a meeting in San Francisco or Los “Angeles on Mr. Girardi’s private airplane)?”

Anonymous sources in California maintain that the query concerning Mr. Girardi’s private airplane is part of a larger investigation into the relationship between Thomas Girardi and Ronald George as well as the relationship between Thomas Girardi and Mike Nisperos.

According to the sources, the dates and names of all passengers are easily ascertained as they would be included in the captain’s log pursuant to federaly mandated regulations and procedures.

State Bar Failure to Prosecute Thomas Girardi/Walter Lack / Howard Rice/CalBar Connection — Update 3: Communication between Complainant and Robert Hawley

Dear Mr. Hawley:

1. Your reply gravitates toward the ethics complaint I filed against Towery, Miller, Falk, and Winthrop; whereas the main issue and my request was how the BOG/RAD independently review any improprieties relating to the selection of Mr. Falk as a special prosecutor, and if necessary, to take appropriate actions which may include, but are not limited to, re-opening and reassigning the investigation of attorney misconduct in the Dole litigation to an unbiased and uninvolved special prosecutor to examine from scratch such misconduct in accordance with Rule 2603.

Jerome Falk was not, could not be, and is not an objective prosecutor. There is a strong appearance of impropriety for the following reasons:

A) The State Bar of California (properly so) disqualified itself from any involvement in the matter.

Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice is an officer of the State Bar of California. As such, by extension, Douglas Winthrop and the entire firm of Howard Rice are also disqualified –including Jerome Falk — pursuant to the imputed disqualification doctrine.

B) Additionally, and independent of the above, the former president of the State Bar of California, Mr. Howard Miller, was the individual who installed Mr. Winthrop as an officer of the State Bar of California, and served alongside Mr. Winthrop on the Board of the Foundation. As such, there is a strong appearance of the existence of a close personal relationship between Miller and Winthrop.

Both Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Falk work at the San Francisco office of Howard Rice and very frequently litigate cases together (very effectively, I might add). Any argument that an ethical wall was built between the two is irrelevant and will be rejected by the CSC sitting in equity.

C) Moreover, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is an appearance of improprieties which include, but not limited to, the following:

–The Ninth Circuit’s unequivocal language in the matter of In re Girardi;
–The outcome of Jerome Falk’s investigation;
–The fact that Howard Miller served as President of the Bar;
–The fact that Girardi was and is a close friend of many State Bar employees, including Tom Layton, Mike Nisperos, Executive Director Joe Dunn (in addition to Girardi’s friendship with CJ Ronald George);
–The fact that Howard Miller was the one who hired James Towery; and a recent working relationship between Jerome Falk and Girardi’s counsel, Tom Nolan of Skadden Arps. (Please note that I am currently looking into the business relationship between Skadden Arps and Howard Rice. Once I obtain the necessary information, I will update you.)

2. In your communication dated January 13, 2011, you noted that the confidential ethics complaint I advanced was referred to you in accordance with Rule 2201 of the State Bar Rules of Procedures.

Were you mistaken in citing Rule 2201? I have read Rule 2201 and it does not mention any direct involvement of the Deputy Executive Director. As such, it was improper for the Intake Unit/OCTC to forward the complaint to you. I am sure there are many competent individuals in the Intake Unit/OCTC (other, of course, than Mr. Towery) who can review the complaint and decide if and to which outside counsel it will be assigned in accordance with Rule 2201.

In your reply, you were not clear whether the RAD/BOG will review my request to independently examine the circumstances relating to this matter. As such, I reiterate my request — I am asking the RAD/BOG to independently review any improprieties relating to the selection of Mr. Falk to serve as a special prosecutor, and to take all necessary and appropriate actions which may include, but are not limited to, re-opening and reassigning the investigation of attorney misconduct in the Dole litigation in accordance with Rule 2603.

3. You also mentioned that you will discuss the ethics complaint with the RAD. Please note that Mr. Alec Chang, a member of the RAD Committee, is also a shareholder with Skadden Arps, a firm which represented Mr. Girardi in the matter of In re Girardi. Which further create an appearance of impropriety.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

“The HowardS/Cal Bar/Girardi/Winthrop Connections” (Update 1)

Enclosed below is a letter which was sent by the complainant to the
State Bar of California’s point of contact — Mr. Robert Hawley. The author of the letter had asked us to keep his identity private.

Dear Mr. Hawley:

1. UPS records show that the envelope was delivered to the State
Bar office in Los Angeles, and was signed for by A. Daniels. Please
let me know if the State Bar contends otherwise.

2. Please advise if you have a response concerning the request to
Mr. Towery to reopen and reassign the case to a different outside
attorney.

3. Will the Board of Governors act and establish a task force?
Please advise if the request met all the necessary formalities to at
least be considered by the Board or if I need to submit a more formal
request.

4. Additionally, I am giving you a head’s up that I would like to
examine the entire file concerning this matter and inspect the
complete file that Mr. Towery forwarded to Mr. Falk, as well as the
complete file (including all memoranda) prepared by Mr. Falk.

5. If the State Bar or its representative are in receipt of any
correspondence from Diane Karpman, Pam Philips, Sean SeLegue, or Tom
Nolan (or anyone else for that matter) arguing that it was proper to
assign the case to Howard Rice and that the firm should not have been
imputedly disqualified, I ask that such memos be forwarded to me.

6. Please feel free to forward all information that is pertinent to
these matters. I also request that you keep me updated on any
developments.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

A New Scandal Involving Howard Rice and the State Bar of California on the Cusp of Breaking by a Modern Day David — Will Jerome Falk Rip His Throat Out?

A young man has recently emerged to stake his claim for the role of David in fighting abuse and injustices within the corrupt California State Bar.

According to anonymous sources, David Dydzak Daniel, a relatively unknown attorney from Marina Del Ray, will be airing his grievances concerning State Bar corruption, as well as the instrumental involvement of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin in said corruption, at a special hearing ordered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to examine alleged violations of David’s due process rights.

It is safe to assume that the judges on the Ninth Circuit – who were victimized and had a mockery made of them vis-à-vis the decision by the State Bar and Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk not to discipline Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi – will be paying closer attention to David’s grievances.


Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, an appellate specialist with a mercurial personality. In 2008, during an interview with a legal publication, Mr. Falk stated while describing some opposing counsel, “I would do anything to squash them. So those cases don’t settle. You just want to rip their throats out.” After visiting Vietnam, Mr. Falk joined East meets West, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of children in Vietnam. (Photo:courtesy of Vietnam, East meets West)

While it would, of course, be premature to assess the validity of David’s claims without first fully examining the case file. According to the sources, however, David is a credible and capable lawyer who is passionate about justice; and has already proven that he is able to withstand the kind of punishing opposition allegedly provided courtesy of the State Bar on behalf of the wrongdoers.

More specifically, it is alleged that Howard Rice was instrumental in using the State Bar of California/State Bar Court as a vehicle to punish David for his role in exposing corruption and improprieties at brokerage house Charles Schwab, an established client of Howard Rice.

In his pleadings submitted to the Ninth Circuit, David alleges improprieties on the part of State Bar Court Judge Donald Miles, a former partner at Howard Rice, as well as Sean Selegue, who is presently a partner at Howard Rice.

Notably, Howard Rice is a major contributor to the State Bar Foundation. Doug Winthrop, President-elect of the State Bar of California Foundation and a partner at Howard Rice, has not been named as one of the actors who participated in the alleged scheme to harm David, and as such TLR urges readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions regarding any involvement by him.

[ tags East meets West, Ninth Circuit, State Bar of California, State Bar Court, Charles Schwab, Jerome Falk, Howard Rice, Sean SeLegue, Donald Miles, Doug Winthrop, David Dydzak Daniel]

Of all the lawyers, in all the towns, to investigate and prosecute State Bar President’s Howard Miller’s firm, James Towery chose the firm of President-Elect of State Bar of California Foundation (Shhh! He sits on the Board with Miller)

Good Day, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, Happy Eid
al-Adha, Happy Kawanzaa, and a belated Happy Hanukah to the two
newcomers–Messrs. Jerome Falk and Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice
Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin.

Jerome falk jr of Howard RiceDouglas A. Winthrop
Mr. Jerome Falk (photo:courtesy) Mr. Douglas Winthrop (Photo:courtesy)

We are going to examine Falk and Winthrop (as well as, later on, Howard
Rice)in connection with the recent decision to exonerate Howard Miller,
Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack for the grave misconduct the three had
committed in the litigation against the Dole Food Company– a California
based corporation.

Howard MillerThomas Girardi of Girardi & KeeseLack Walter - Copy
Participating in the scheme to defraud the judiciary and injure Dole in
order to enrich themselves financially were (from the left) Howard
Miller, Thomas Girardi, and Walter Lack.(photo:courtesy)

After Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack obtained a FRAUDULENT translation
of the $489 million default judgment which both knew was fraudulent, a
wholly frivolous law suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The
suit was later removed to federal court.

The federal District Court (Hon. Judge Mannela)dismissed the case and
referred to the translation as “suspect”. A notice of appeal was filed
with the Ninth Circuit court of appeal. Dole, not wishing to forfeit $489 Million, stepped up the effort to
expose the scheme. Facing a motion for sanctions, plaintiff’s attorney
dismissed the appeal. Even though the appeal was dismissed, the Ninth
Circuit, concerned about the events that had taken place, appointed a
Special Master (Judge Wallace Tashima) and commenced a special
proceedings against Howard Miller, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack (In re
Girardi, 08-80090)
Diane Karpman
Ms. Diane Karpman, who represented Thomas Girardi before the Ninth
Circuit. Ms. Karpman is an ethics specialist and writes a column for the
Cal Bar Journal. She is a bone fide “State Bar Insider” (In order to
avoid confusion, it must be stated that she is not TLR’s source and
legal counsel whom we also refer to as State Bar Insider.) During the
Ninth Circuit proceedings against Girardi Ms. Karpman stated:
If the court was going to look at our conduct, we wanted a
neutral and objective prosecutor
(photo:courtesy) Later, the Ninth Circuit also appointed a Special Prosecutor, Mr. Rory
Little. The special prosecutor was appointed pursuant to a request by
Ms. Diane Karpman, who was one of the attorneys representing Girardi in
the matter.

Judge William Fletcher, one of the judges who adjudicated the matter of
In re Girardi, 08-80090. Judge Fletcher rejected the lenient
recommendations of Rory Little. He stated: “with any competent lawyer
if you’re omitting part of a document, that is not accidental. That is
intentional.”
The Ninth Circuit, ignoring the recommendations of Rory Little for a
“stayed suspension”, ordered Walter Lack and Paul Triana suspended from
practicing before it for a period of six months. Mr. Thomas Girardi was
reprimanded. In addition, Monterey sanctions were imposed: Walter Lack
$250,000.00 ; Thomas Girardi $125,000.00; Paul Triana $10,000.00 and
Sean Topp $5,000.00

The court adjudicated:

“Respondents initiated and directed years of litigation against
Defendants. Respondents efforts went beyond the use of “questionable tactics” — they
crossed the line to include the persistent use of known
falsehoods. (emphasis added)

This litigation was based on three falsehoods: that Dole Food Company
was named as a judgment debtor by a Nicaraguan court, that the
Nicaraguan court corrected any mistakes it might have made regarding
Dole Food Company in its judgment by the Writ of Execution, and that
Respondents had submitted the corrected Writ of Execution to the state
court and the federal district court. Respondents made these false representations knowingly,
intentionally, and recklessly. Their actions vexatiously
multiplied the proceedings at great expense to Defendants and required
the Ninth Circuit to deal with a frivolous appeal.”
(At this
point, Howard Miller was no longer part of the proceedings. Respondents
are Lack, Girardi, Triana, and Topp)

Now, it was the turn of the State Bar of California to examine the
conduct of Miller, Girardi, Lack, Triana and Topp with respect to events
at the Ninth Circuit; AND with respect to the frivolous suit filed in
the Los Angeles Superior Court and the U.S. District Court. (Howard
Miller’s name appeared on all the pleadings which were submitted to the
U.S. District Court). These two courts were also victims of the scheme
by Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack to defraud the judiciary and
injure Dole. Additionally, the State Bar of California must examine the
impact and injuries sustained by respondent’s clients.

The State Bar of California declared a conflict due to:

1. Howard Miller, who participated in the scheme to defraud the
judiciary and injure Dole in order to enrich himself financially, is/was
the president of the State Bar of California during the time Thomas
Girardi and Walter Lack self-reported the findings and sanctions by the
Ninth Circuit to the State Bar.

2. Mr. James Towery, who is the chief prosecutor (AKA Chief Trial
Counsel) assumed the position only few months prior. Selecting Towery,
from an otherwise large pool of qualified applicants, to serve as Chief
Trial Counsel was none other than Howard Miller.
James Towery OCTC - Copy
Mr. James Towery, whom Mr. Howard Miller chose to serve as the Chief
Trial Counsel. Mr. Towery chose Jerome Falk of Howard Rice to serve as
“special prosecutor” on behalf of the people of the State of California
to investigate attorney misconduct relating to the litigation against
Dole Food Company.

Nevertheless, few months ago, Mr. Towery chose (or perhaps was told) Jerome Falk Jr. of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin to
serve as special prosecutor.

Jerome Falk duties were to investigate, and if necessary, prosecute
Howard Miller and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Mr. Walter
Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack.

Jerome Falk, is a named partner at the San Francisco based Howard Rice
Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin. The managing partner of Howard
Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin is Mr. Douglas Winthrop.
Jerome Falk Howard MillerDouglas A. Winthrop
Mr. Jerome Falk Mr. Howard Miller Mr. Douglas Winthrop Douglas Winthrop is the President-elect of the Foundation of the State
Bar of California. Serving along Mr. Winthrop on the Board of the Foundation is a familiar
face, the president of the State Bar, Mr. Howard Miller.

Douglas Winthrop and Jerome Falk are good friends and work together on
many of the cases handled by the firm.(such as Uziel v.
Kadisha
)

Additionally, aligned together as defendants in a suit filed by a
plaintiff from Marina Del Rey, CA are: Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady
Falk & Rabkin, State Bar of California, State Bar Court, and the one
who is either unable or unwilling to recognise the seriousness of her
anti-social behaviour, Judge Patrice McElroy.
Two days before Christmas, while most people were either busy shopping,
traveling or on vacation, Jerome Falk, assumptively, released his
findings. The State Bar of California has no interest in imposing any
discipline on Howard Miller, Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, Paul Triana
and Sean Topp.

According to Walter Lack’s attorney, Robert Baker of Los Angeles’ Baker,
Keener & Nahra “That’s absolutely the right result” as appeared in
the Recorder. According to Baker, the Ninth Circuit was “FLAT WRONG”.

Mr. Girardi, who recently paid for singer Paul Anka and an entire
orchestra to fly from Los Angeles to Monterey in order to serenade his
friend Chief Justice Ronald George at an official convention of the
State Bar of California, stated to the Recorder: “The matter is closed
in the State Bar. It’s great to get exonerated.”

Oy vey.

NOT SO FAST TOMMY GIRARDI, THE HOWARD CONNECTION GOT BUSTED

Leslie Brodie in Holiday Outfit

NOT SO FAST, TOMMY GIRARDI

THE HOWARD CONNECTION GOT BUSTED

Enclosed below are 2 letters. One which was sent to Mr. Towery, and a separate letter which was sent to the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California. The author of the letters had asked us to keep his identity private.

Dear Mr. Towery:

Thank you for serving as Chief Trial Counsel. I sincerely apologize for having to contact you at all, particularly during the holiday season.

However, I am writing to advise you that yesterday an ethics complaint was mailed to the Intake Office in Los Angeles against you, Howard Miller, Douglas Winthrop, and Jerome Folk.

The complaint alleges that it was improper for you to appoint Jerome Falk of Howard, Rice, Falk & Nabrinski as the special prosecutor to investigate attorney misconduct relating to the litigation against Dole Food Company.

As you know, the managing partner of Howard, Rice is Douglas Winthrop, President-elect of the Foundation of the State Bar of California. This in and of itself should have disqualified Mr. Falk from serving in that capacity.

However, and in addition, Howard Miller — one of the attorneys who participated in the scheme to defraud the judiciary and injure Dole in order to enrich himself financially — also serves on the Board of the Foundation. The complaint alleges that Messrs. Miller, Falk and Winthrop intentionally hid the conflict and that Mr. Falk otherwise engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

For these reasons, I must ask you and the State Bar to ignore any recommendation made by Mr. Falk, and to assign the Dole matter to a new, different special prosecutor who will reexamine the case ab initio.

Moreover, I request that my complaint also be determined by an outside entity.

Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.

Tommy Girardi , Hold it right there!!! The Howard Connection Got Busted !!!!

 

Leslie Brodie in Holiday Outfit

NOT SO FAST, TOMMY GIRARDI , THE HOWARD CONNECTION GOT BUSTED!!!

Enclosed below are 2 letters. One which was sent to Mr. Towery, and a
separate letter which was sent to the Board of Governors of the State
Bar of California. The author of the letters had asked us to keep his
identity private.

Dear Mr. Towery:

Thank you for serving as Chief Trial Counsel. I sincerely apologize
for having to contact you at all, particularly during the holiday
season.

However, I am writing to advise you that yesterday an ethics
complaint was mailed to the Intake Office in Los Angeles against you,
Howard Miller, Douglas Winthrop, and Jerome Folk.

The complaint alleges that it was improper for you to appoint Jerome
Falk of Howard, Rice, Falk & Nabrinski as the special prosecutor to
investigate attorney misconduct relating to the litigation against
Dole Food Company.

As you know, the managing partner of Howard, Rice is Douglas Winthrop,
President-elect of the Foundation of the State Bar of California. This
in and of itself should have disqualified Mr. Falk from serving in
that capacity.

However, and in addition, Howard Miller — one of the attorneys who
participated in the scheme to defraud the judiciary and injure Dole in
order to enrich himself financially — also serves on the Board of the
Foundation. The complaint alleges that Messrs. Miller, Falk and
Winthrop intentionally hid the conflict and that Mr. Falk otherwise
engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

For these reasons, I must ask you and the State Bar to ignore any
recommendation made by Mr. Falk, and to assign the Dole matter to a
new, different special prosecutor who will reexamine the case ab
initio.

Moreover, I request that my complaint also be determined by an outside
entity.

Thank you for your time and attention to these matters.

———————————————————

Dear President Hebert and Members of the Board of Governors:

Please consider this to be a formal request that the Board of
Governors implement a Task Force/Committee to investigate misconduct
and improprieties by employees and executives of the State Bar of
California relating to their handling of the investigation of
misconduct committed by attorneys from the law offices of Girardi &
Keese in the Dole litigation.

Such investigation should include an examination of the relationship
between Thomas Girardi and Mr. Mike Nisperos, the former chief trial
counsel. It should also encompass the reasons Mr. Nisperos stated on
his resume immediately after he departed from the State Bar that
Thomas Girardi is his “Mentor Emeritus.”

However, the more serious matter that should be investigated is the
recent appointment of Jerome Falk of the Howard, Rice firm by James
Towery to act as special prosecutor in investigating attorney
misconduct in the Dole case. The attorneys who
participated in the misconduct are Thomas Girardi, Howard Miller, and
Walter Lack.

Simply stated, Mr. Falk should not have served as special prosecutor
because of an obvious conflict of interest. As you know, the managing
partner of Howard, Rice is Douglas Winthrop, President-elect of the
Foundation of the State Bar of California. This in and of itself
should have disqualified Mr. Falk from serving in that capacity.

However, and in addition, Mr. Howard Miller — the ex-president of
the State Bar and one of the attorneys who participated in the scheme
to defraud the judiciary and injure Dole in order to enrich himself
financially — also serves on the Foundation’s Board of Directors
alongside Douglas Winthrop, who is a business partner of Jerome Falk.

As such, in addition to our request for the immediate implementation
of a Task Force, I also ask that the Board of Governors ensure that
any findings by Jerome Falk are annulled and that a new, disinterested
outside counsel be appointed to determine ab initio if Thomas Girardi,
Howard Miller, and Walter Lack should be subject to any disciplinary
proceedings.

Lastly, I sincerely and whole-heartedly believe that the law offices
of Girardi & Keese and associated individuals have a determinable
effect on the State Bar of California in general, and the
administration of justice in particular. I also believe that it is
unfortunate that such criticism and the above discoveries had to come
from me rather than the State Bar itself. For these reasons, and in
the interest of justice, I request that you implement the measures
described above.

Thank you for your time.

SPECIAL REPORT: The Girardi/Nisperos Scandal

TLR’s readers should be familiar with Mike Nisperos, a former
Crack-addict and the former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of
California.

Nisperos - Copy
Mike Nisperos Jr. Delusional and under the influence of crack opened
fire at an imaginary intruder for which he was fired from his INS
position. He sued the INS despite receiving “Minimally Satisfactory”
rating in the category of “Productivity, Problem Solving Ability,
Motivation” based on a below-average quantity of written work.
(Photo:Courtesy)

Nisperos, a truly despicable human being whose multidimensional
involvement in State Bar scandals was documented extensively by TLR, as
applied to both himself and others. To his defense, he is not malicious per se. Only weak, and lacking
any conviction and principles. He did, however, declare to the press
that he “enjoy” being a prosecutor. As we have observed, it appears that Nisperos is easy to manipulate. As
lacking healthy self-esteem, he wishes to please others, especially
white men. Feeling inferior, he feels important and equal socializing
and sharing a good hearty laugh with them. I am no longer a Filipino,
now I am one of the good old boys. Nisperos’s latest excited utterance of July 2010 “Thomas Girardi’s a
good friend of mine. He got tickets for my son and I to see a playoff
game for the Lakers” should serve as an example to support our point. In essence, Nisperos is telling the world, look at me I am a somebody, I
am a friend of Girardi (The latter friendship with the former is an
entirely separate can of worms).

On the other hand, Nisperos still feeling vulnerable, insecure, and
aware of his shortcomings, always sought to be protected by an
organization, either the federal or the state government, where he spent
his entire legal career. Even while working for the various
governmental agencies, he was eventually let go, or was asked to leave.
After his term as Chief Trial Counsel has ended, the State Bar of
California made a decision not to extend his contract, among other
things, because of a conflict between him and Ms. Johnson on issues
relating to budget. That conflict grew personal, and as was reported,
the all powerful executive director of the State Bar, the home-grown
Judy Johnson, always win. Today, Judy Johnson, is executive director only on paper, and is due to
leave at the end of the year.

State Bar of California Judy Johnson - Copy
Judy Johnson, after 2 Governors’ vetoes and endless scandals, was ousted
and is due to leave by the end of the year. (Photo: Courtesy Bar
Journal)

Nonetheless, the public was made to believe that Nisperos left on his
own volition. He was quoted as saying “Although it is tempting to seek
another four-year term, I feel the Bay Area calling me back, back to my
roots.”

Back in the Bay Area, Nisperos ran for a public office along with 6
other contenders. Nisperos lost by finishing last. This, despite an
endorsement from his good friend, Thomas Girardi.

Shortly thereafter, uprooted, he left for a position in Saipan to “fight
white collar crime” as a prosecutor. After only nine months, uprooted
again, he moved to Guam to defend criminals as a public defender, where
he is today.

Mr. Nisperos was the subject multiple stories we published here.

For example, you may recall the story regarding the unlawful discharge
of a weapon. Delusional, Nisperos fired a shot at an imaginary intruder whom he
believed to have entered his home in Oakland. The following day, he was
arrested and charged with possession of narcotic paraphernalia and for
being under the influence. At that time, Nisperos admitted that he
moved from cocaine to crack, and was “cooking” the cocaine at his
Oakland home. Nisperos, who was employed with the INS, received “Minimally
Satisfactory” rating in the category of “Productivity, Problem Solving
Ability, Motivation” based on a below-average quantity of written work.

Upon learning of the arrest and the drug use, Nisperos’s supervisors at
the INS decided to terminate his employment. Defiant, Nisperos sued
the INS for reinstatement. Nisperos v. Buck, 720 F.Supp. 1424

Mike Nisperos Jr - Copy
Nisperos, hoping to advance his career, neglected to properly prosecute
an attorney who shared bodily fluids and otherwise terrorized attendees
of a religious institution. (Photo: California Bar Journal)

Later, Nisperos was appointed as Oakland “Drug Czar”. A position which pre-qualified him to serve as the chief prosecutor of the State Bar, at
least in a world according to Johnson.

Upon being retained by the State Bar to police its 200,000 lawyers, both
the State Bar and the Bar Journal mislead the public into believing that
Nisperos had independently realized that he had a drug problem, and
checked himself into a rehab center as an act of heroism. Not quite
true, and not as pretty. It was only after his arrest that he took such an action in order to
save face, his job, and for the purpose of diverting the criminal
charges. Incidentally, the Bar Journal never mentioned the crack-addiction and
the length of the addiction; as well as the fact that Nisperos use of
alcohol and drugs begun while he was a teenager. In a similar fashion,
when reporting about Gattschalk, the Bar Journal never mention the name
of Girardi & Keese, instead generic terms are used such as opposing
counsels.

Other story describes Nisperos attempt to board an airplane while in
possession a dangerous weapon. This took place after his tenure as Chief
Trial Counsel had ended. Attempting to board an airplane from the Burbank Airport to Oakland he was arrested, and later criminally
prosecuted. Yet, he stated, “I am not a criminal” while trying to shift
responsibility to his son. Despite the above, Nisperos was never disciplined by the State Bar of
California. So unimpressed we were of Nisperos , we had no choice but to name the
“Michael Nisperos Scandal” after him. This, despite his passive
participation in the decision to appoint him to the position of Chief
Trial Counsel who polices California’s 200,000 lawyers.
TLR’s readers should be familiar with Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller
of Girardi & Keese. Mr. Miller incidentally, is the current
president of the State Bar of California.
Stories and investigations by TLR about Girardi and Nisperos never
intercepted each other. Much to our chagrin, this is no longer the
case. Giradi’s involvement manifested itself to TLR yet again. This time it
was vies a vie Nisperos. It also now appears that Mr. Thomas Girardi
has turned from an infrequent guest to a regular.

Thomas Girardi
Thomas Girardi, once a “Champion for Justice,” is now a regular at TLR.

The friendship between Girardi and Nisperos is of an extreme concern to
TLR, not the least of which because it supports our prior contention as
to Girardi’s grips of the State Bar. After U.S. District Court judge, Nora Manella, raised a red-flag over
the litigation against Dole, and for an additional period of two-years,
Nisperos did not fulfill his duties as chief trial counsel as to
the firm of Girardi & Keese
, other than to provide a safe
corridor for Walter Lack to try and defraud the Ninth Circuit into
enforcing a $500 million judgment which Lack knew to be invalid.

Lack Walter - Copy
Walter Lack, a ferocious litigator and a pilot, sent an urgent email to
the Nicaraguan law firm (on which Girardi’s firm was cc:d) stating that
the “JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WRONG ENTITY” (Photo:courtesy of Chancery
Club)

Girardi, by the way, is a friend of Nisperos. A good friend, as we
learned in an article published in the Recorder on July 30, 2010.
Additionally, in 2006 Thomas Girardi endorsed Nisperos for public
office.

Nisperos - Copy
Nisperos, a “good friend” of Thoams Girardi, failed to intercept Lack’s
in his mission against Dole by providing a safe corridor for a period of
two years. (If this were a novel, the fact that Nisperos is now a public defender
in Hagatha, Guam would be portrayed as a plan by Girardi to exile
Nisperos to Guam. Girardi, by the way, is very familiar with the law of
Guam; having been involved in the DHL litigation, and having been named
a defendant in a suit. Guam courts, Girardi knows, have no jurisdiction
over California residents, and vice versa. TLR is not a novel,
however.)

Speaking of exiles, TLR asks:

1. Is Sean Topp in exile? TLR will publish the story next week.

2. Why Judge Nora Manella, after dismissing the suit and raising a
red-flag, did not sanction her Chancery Club friends, Girardi and Lack? 3. Why was a “curtain” placed (as other reporters also so stated) on the
Dole case for several years?

4. What was/is the involvement of of Scott Drexel? 5. Why part of the Dole case placed under seal?

6. What is the nature of the friendship between Girardi and Nisperos?
Was it proper for Girardi to endorse Nisperos when he vie for office
shortly after his departure from the State Bar?
Back to the article which appeared in the Recorder, it dealt with the
new Chief Trial Counsel, Mr. James Towery, and the potential conflict
the State Bar faces in advancing charges against Thomas Girardi and
Walter Lack, for misconduct the two had committed during the Dole
litigation.
James Towery OCTC - Copy
James Towery, Chief Trial Counsel (Photo:Courtesy)

The conflict stems from the fact Mr. Howard Miller, the current State
Bar president is a partner at the firm of Girardi & Keese

Mr. Howard Miller
Feeling ashamed, Howard Miller looks the other way

Like in the case of Shalant and Gottschalk, which were only one side of
the coin, and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese the other side.

In the case of Nisperos’s friendship with Girardi, and the lack of
investigation or prosecution should also be viewed as only one side of a
coin. The other side, which TLR is currently investigating, is
Nisperos’s potential role in the attempted cover-up of a new State Bar
scandal. The scandal involves the the punishment of a man because of
his past mandatory service in the IDF(Israel Defense Forces). TLR is in receipt of documents that provide, in no uncertain terms, that
the man was framed. At the moment, it is unclear to TLR if Nisperos was
involved in the original framing, or only in the subsequent cover-up.

During a hearing at the State Bar Court, the man testified that during
an altercation, he was pushed and fell down onto the sidewalk and
potentially, into traffic. Panicked, he used a pepper spray to defend
himself. The victim, who was also called to testify at the State Bar Court
hearing, offered testimony that the man, out of nowhere, begun to push,
beat, kick, and pepper-spray without any provocation.

TLR possesses a sworn testimony and transcripts, in which the victim,
prior to testifying at the State Bar Hearing, previously had testified
that the man was indeed pushed, that he had fallen down, and only later
he had gotten up and used pepper-spray. Public medical records also provide that the victim only suffered
injuries that were as result of being pepper sprayed. This, in marked
contradiction to testimony procured by Donald Steedman, that the man had
punched and otherwise delivered 8-9 blows to the victim’s face.

The judges of the State Bar Court, in addition to ruling against the man
as to what had transpired, also branded the man a liar and a perjurer. The judges found it to be “implausible” that a man who had been a
solider in the IDF would have fallen down. The judges wish for the man
to recant his testimony, and admit that he had committed perjury. The
man refuses, as the charade continues.
Nisperos’s unwillingness to investigate and prosecute Girardi and Lack ,
while providing a safe corridor for a period of two-years in which they
made made an attempt to defraud the Ninth Circuit, is and should be
viewed in connection with Nisperos’s action in the case of the former
Israeli soldier, and in many other cases where there is a claim of State
Bar injustices while Nisperos was in office. Nisperos, after all, had
to show results.

The article in the Recorder in which Nisperos admit his friendship with
Girardi can be viewed below.
The article published July 30, 2010 stated:

Nisperos Girardi - Copy

Nisperos said that when he came into office he immediately compiled a
list of friends and acquaintances from whose cases he would recuse
himself in the unlikely event they ever were hit with discipline
charges. In fact, he said he would have had to take himself out of the
mix on the Girardi case if he was still at the State Bar.

“He’s a good friend of mine, too,” Nisperos said. “He got tickets for
my son and I to see a playoff game for the Lakers.”

Ex-Respondent Bill; a Friend of Bill; a Friend of a Friendof Bill; 3Sons(Law + Lar+ Abel), and a Johnson. ((tags:HowardMiller, Thomas Girardi, State Bar of California, Girardi & Keese,Donald Steedman, Patrice McElroy, Stanley Arouty,

1. The latest article published by TLR, tells the story of two lawyers
who were disbarred from the State Bar of California under questionable
circumstances, Mr. Shalant and Mr. Gottschalk. Both nemesis of Thomas
Girardi of Girardi & Keese. The story should be viewed as only one
side of the coin. The other side, is the unwillingness of the State Bar to prosecute
attorneys from the firm of Girardi & Keese (or associated firms)
when circumstances clearly mandate such prosecution. Misconduct by
Girardi & Keese in the litigation against Dole is such an example,
where charges should have been filed over five years ago. Reciprocating, Howard Miller, the president of the State Bar of
California, ignores misconduct committed by State Bar employees, judges,
executives, and prosecutors.

Miller’s inaction is not motivated at all by the fact that Girardi
deposits money at his bank account on a bi-weekly basis. Performance
bonus,once per year.

Additionally, Girardi & Keese is one of the main contributors to the
State Bar Foundation. As was reported here, the Foundation funnels a
large part of the donation it receives to the State Bar of California,
the parent organization. The rest goes to operating expenses,
scholarships, and legal organizations.

The money funneled to the State Bar of California is usually spent by
the State Bar on diversity related event. For example, on April 12-13
of this year, the State Bar of California sponsored a two-day diversity
workshop. It took place at the San Francisco Hyatt.
You did not hear about it, as it was only open to employees of the state
bars of California’s 49 sister states. A copy of the brochure can be found at the State Bar of Ohio web-site:

http://www.ohiobar.org/General%20Resource/misc/CA%20Diversity%20Forum.pdf

Strangely, while State Bar employees are being laid-off, the State Bar
of California offered stipends to those who wish to attend from across
the country. The purpose of the event was to educate the employees on matters
relating to diversity in the legal profession. Of course, the current
de-jure executive director of the State Bar of California, Judy Johnson,
was one of the speakers.

Johnson, feeling important and proud of herself ( with the monetary help
of Girardi & Keese), is nowhere to be found when it relates to
misconduct by Girardi & Keese, as the charade continues.

Notwithstanding the above, TLR acknowledges the wide spread instances of
racism, sexism and discrimination within the legal profession and the
legal system. TLR will continue to support the advancement of racial,
ethnic, religious, women and LGBT persons, as well as persons with
disabilities. Concurrently, TLR will continue with efforts to
investigate specific institutions, organizations, and individuals who
display or otherwise engage in invidious discrimination.
2. TLR became aware of Ronald Gottschalk during the investigation and
publication of the expose dubbed “Bribing Pat.” Gottschalk’s defense attorney, Mr. Stanley Arouty, alleged that Judge
Pat McElroy engaged in the destruction and spoliation of evidence. For McElroy, it was the third time a party levels such accusation
against her.

To date, the California Supreme Court and the State Bar Board of
Governors took no action to inquire as to Judge McElroy’s trail of
lawlessness. Should such an investigation be requested by Miller, it would sabotage
the disbarment of Gottschalk, who is one of Thomas Girardi’s nemeses.

However, Girardi & Keese’s involvement in the Gottschalk proceedings
does not end with Mr. Miller. It also manifested itself to TLR via the
name Stephen Larson. With respect to Mr. Stephen Larson, TLR declares unequivocally that
presently it possesses no evidence of any wrongdoing on
his part.

Stephen Larson is a former federal judge and a current partner at the
firm of Girardi & Keese. At 2006, he assumed the position of a
district court judge in the Central District of California. In
September of 2010, he quit the bench amid dissatisfaction with his low
salary. A month later, he assumed a partnership position with the firm
of Girardi & Keese. While a district court judge, Stephen Larson presided over a case that
was brought by Ronald Gottschalk against Litt, Vargas, and L.A. County.

Stephen Larson’s adjudication of the matter involving Gottschalk,
standing alone, is of no concern to TLR. However, the surfacing of the name Girardi & Keese, via Stephen
Larson, is troubling to TLR, under the totality of the circumstances.

Also troubling to TLR is the fact that presiding over the Gottschalk’s
proceedings in the State Bar Court is Judge Patrice McElroy, who
unfortunately possesses very little qualities normally expected of a
judge. Her prior involvement in the Bribing Pat saga alerted TLR,
McElroy’s integrity is amiss.

McElroy - Copy
Pat McElroy, failed to recognise the seriousness of her anti-social
behaviour. Her prior involvement in the Bribing Pat saga alerted TLR,
McElroy’s integrity is amiss.

3. An article published in yesterday’s Recorder discusses the
potential conflict of interest Mr. James Towery faces in any prosecution
of Thomas Girardi. The article quotes several legal experts who opined that since Howard
Miller is both a partner at Girardi & Keese, and the president of
the State Bar, a conflict exists. The experts opined Towery’s best
course of action would be to assign the case to an outside entity. As stated above, the referral to an outside counsel should have been
done 5 years ago, when the attempted fraud was discovered.

4. The “Rachel Abelson Scandal” is yet another scandal involving
extreme misconduct by the State Bar of California; and subsequent
attempt to cover it up, and cover a little more, and just a tiny bit
more.

The net result, as the readers will soon see, is that the compounding
alone is greater than the principal; and, is of a greater interest to
TLR and its staff.

It took for an honest judge from the San Francisco Superior Court to
shed just enough light on the scandal, providing TLR with the
opportunity to connect the dots.

The judge, Hon. James Warren, admonished the State Bar that he (Judge
Warren) finds that the trial tactics, and meritless legal position the
State Bar was advocating to be “Disquieting“.

Additionally, Judge Warren, in a written decision stated that he found
the circumstances in which Rachel Abelson, a State bar employee who
breached confidentiality, to be “Rather Gossipy”.

James Warren Superior Court - Copy

It now appears that Debra Murphy Lawson, along with a State Bar
investigator, Mr. Malmquist, also took part in the attempt to conceal
the breach of confidentiality, at the expense of the victim.
In a suit filed in federal court, it was alleged that Debra Lawson,
along with State Bar investigator Malmquist, intentionally did not
contact or questioned Abelson at all, despite knowing about her
involvement.

The one and only time Abelson was contacted by anyone from the State
Bar, pursuant to her sworn testimony, was when Donald Steedman had
called to alert her that the victim managed to ascertain her identity.

Specifically, Abelson testified that Donald Steedman spoke with her for
less than a minute, and did not ask any questions or attempted to
conduct an inquiry. This, despite Steedman’s duty to investigate
exculpatory evidence.

Most troubling to TLR is Donald Steedman prior attempts, via his
oppositions to the various motions submitted by the victim to the State
Bar Court, urging the court to block any attempts by the victim to
ascertain the name and identity of his former law clerk. Based on Judge Warren’s findings that Abelson breach of confidentiality
was “rather gossipy,” it is easy to understand Steedman, Malmquist, and
Lawson’s motives.
5. Previously, TLR learned of the involvement of Hastings Ethics
Professor, Mr. Geoffrey Hazard, in the Ninth Circuit proceedings
involving Girardi & Keese and Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack. Allegedly, Prof. Geoffrey Hazard, was retained by the defense as an
expert witness to opine about issues pertaining to ethics. Prof. Hazard
submitted an expert opinion, in a form of a sworn declaration, that no
sanctions should be imposed.

Hazard’s testimony was before the panel of judges consisted of Marsha
Berzon, Randy Smith, and William Fletcher.

William Fletcher, aka Bill Fletcher, is a well-known FOB. A Friend of
Bill.

Bill is a disbarred ex-respondent, and the former president of the
United States of America. While president, Bill Clinton nominated W. Fletcher, a Boalt Hall
professor and his campaign manager in Northern California, to serve as a
judge with the Ninth Circuit. The appointment was delayed as W. Fletcher’s mother, Betty Fletcher,
also serves as a judge on the Ninth Circuit. Despite allegation of
nepotism, W. Fletcher was confirmed.

In addition to being a judge, the former campaign manager of Bill
Clinton, and a law professor, W. Fletcher is also an accomplished
author.

In fact, he, along with Geoffrey Hazard, the ethics expert who appeared
before him in the Dole litigation, co-authored the following:

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Pleading_and_Procedure/1566627451/

A big coincidence, or just a coincidence?

Ex-Respondent Bill; a Friend of Bill; a Friend of a Friendof Bill; 3Sons(Law + Lar+ Abel), and a Joh

1. The latest article published by TLR, tells the story of two lawyers
who were disbarred from the State Bar of California under questionable
circumstances, Mr. Shalant and Mr. Gottschalk. Both nemesis of Thomas
Girardi of Girardi & Keese. The story should be viewed as only one
side of the coin. The other side, is the unwillingness of the State Bar to prosecute
attorneys from the firm of Girardi & Keese (or associated firms)
when circumstances clearly mandate such prosecution. Misconduct by
Girardi & Keese in the litigation against Dole is such an example,
where charges should have been filed over five years ago. Reciprocating, Howard Miller, the president of the State Bar of
California, ignores misconduct committed by State Bar employees, judges,
executives, and prosecutors.

Miller’s inaction is not motivated at all by the fact that Girardi
deposits money at his bank account on a bi-weekly basis. Performance
bonus,once per year.

Additionally, Girardi & Keese is one of the main contributors to the
State Bar Foundation. As was reported here, the Foundation funnels a
large part of the donation it receives to the State Bar of California,
the parent organization. The rest goes to operating expenses,
scholarships, and legal organizations.

The money funneled to the State Bar of California is usually spent by
the State Bar on diversity related event. For example, on April 12-13
of this year, the State Bar of California sponsored a two-day diversity
workshop. It took place at the San Francisco Hyatt.
You did not hear about it, as it was only open to employees of the state
bars of California’s 49 sister states. A copy of the brochure can be found at the State Bar of Ohio web-site:

http://www.ohiobar.org/General%20Resource/misc/CA%20Diversity%20Forum.pdf

Strangely, while State Bar employees are being laid-off, the State Bar
of California offered stipends to those who wish to attend from across
the country. The purpose of the event was to educate the employees on matters
relating to diversity in the legal profession. Of course, the current
de-jure executive director of the State Bar of California, Judy Johnson,
was one of the speakers.

Johnson, feeling important and proud of herself ( with the monetary help
of Girardi & Keese), is nowhere to be found when it relates to
misconduct by Girardi & Keese, as the charade continues.

Notwithstanding the above, TLR acknowledges the wide spread instances of
racism, sexism and discrimination within the legal profession and the
legal system. TLR will continue to support the advancement of racial,
ethnic, religious, women and LGBT persons, as well as persons with
disabilities. Concurrently, TLR will continue with efforts to
investigate specific institutions, organizations, and individuals who
display or otherwise engage in invidious discrimination.
2. TLR became aware of Ronald Gottschalk during the investigation and
publication of the expose dubbed “Bribing Pat.” Gottschalk’s defense attorney, Mr. Stanley Arouty, alleged that Judge
Pat McElroy engaged in the destruction and spoliation of evidence. For McElroy, it was the third time a party levels such accusation
against her.

To date, the California Supreme Court and the State Bar Board of
Governors took no action to inquire as to Judge McElroy’s trail of
lawlessness. Should such an investigation be requested by Miller, it would sabotage
the disbarment of Gottschalk, who is one of Thomas Girardi’s nemeses.

However, Girardi & Keese’s involvement in the Gottschalk proceedings
does not end with Mr. Miller. It also manifested itself to TLR via the
name Stephen Larson. With respect to Mr. Stephen Larson, TLR declares unequivocally that
presently it possesses no evidence of any wrongdoing on
his part.

Stephen Larson is a former federal judge and a current partner at the
firm of Girardi & Keese. At 2006, he assumed the position of a
district court judge in the Central District of California. In
September of 2010, he quit the bench amid dissatisfaction with his low
salary. A month later, he assumed a partnership position with the firm
of Girardi & Keese. While a district court judge, Stephen Larson presided over a case that
was brought by Ronald Gottschalk against Litt, Vargas, and L.A. County.

Stephen Larson’s adjudication of the matter involving Gottschalk,
standing alone, is of no concern to TLR. However, the surfacing of the name Girardi & Keese, via Stephen
Larson, is troubling to TLR, under the totality of the circumstances.

Also troubling to TLR is the fact that presiding over the Gottschalk’s
proceedings in the State Bar Court is Judge Patrice McElroy, who
unfortunately possesses very little qualities normally expected of a
judge. Her prior involvement in the Bribing Pat saga alerted TLR,
McElroy’s integrity is amiss.

McElroy - Copy
Pat McElroy, failed to recognise the seriousness of her anti-social
behaviour. Her prior involvement in the Bribing Pat saga alerted TLR,
McElroy’s integrity is amiss.

3. An article published in yesterday’s Recorder discusses the
potential conflict of interest Mr. James Towery faces in any prosecution
of Thomas Girardi. The article quotes several legal experts who opined that since Howard
Miller is both a partner at Girardi & Keese, and the president of
the State Bar, a conflict exists. The experts opined Towery’s best
course of action would be to assign the case to an outside entity. As stated above, the referral to an outside counsel should have been
done 5 years ago, when the attempted fraud was discovered.

4. The “Rachel Abelson Scandal” is yet another scandal involving
extreme misconduct by the State Bar of California; and subsequent
attempt to cover it up, and cover a little more, and just a tiny bit
more.

The net result, as the readers will soon see, is that the compounding
alone is greater than the principal; and, is of a greater interest to
TLR and its staff.

It took for an honest judge from the San Francisco Superior Court to
shed just enough light on the scandal, providing TLR with the
opportunity to connect the dots.

The judge, Hon. James Warren, admonished the State Bar that he (Judge
Warren) finds that the trial tactics, and meritless legal position the
State Bar was advocating to be “Disquieting“.

Additionally, Judge Warren, in a written decision stated that he found
the circumstances in which Rachel Abelson, a State bar employee who
breached confidentiality, to be “Rather Gossipy”.

James Warren Superior Court - Copy

It now appears that Debra Murphy Lawson, along with a State Bar
investigator, Mr. Malmquist, also took part in the attempt to conceal
the breach of confidentiality, at the expense of the victim.
In a suit filed in federal court, it was alleged that Debra Lawson,
along with State Bar investigator Malmquist, intentionally did not
contact or questioned Abelson at all, despite knowing about her
involvement.

The one and only time Abelson was contacted by anyone from the State
Bar, pursuant to her sworn testimony, was when Donald Steedman had
called to alert her that the victim managed to ascertain her identity.

Specifically, Abelson testified that Donald Steedman spoke with her for
less than a minute, and did not ask any questions or attempted to
conduct an inquiry. This, despite Steedman’s duty to investigate
exculpatory evidence.

Most troubling to TLR is Donald Steedman prior attempts, via his
oppositions to the various motions submitted by the victim to the State
Bar Court, urging the court to block any attempts by the victim to
ascertain the name and identity of his former law clerk. Based on Judge Warren’s findings that Abelson breach of confidentiality
was “rather gossipy,” it is easy to understand Steedman, Malmquist, and
Lawson’s motives.
5. Previously, TLR learned of the involvement of Hastings Ethics
Professor, Mr. Geoffrey Hazard, in the Ninth Circuit proceedings
involving Girardi & Keese and Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack. Allegedly, Prof. Geoffrey Hazard, was retained by the defense as an
expert witness to opine about issues pertaining to ethics. Prof. Hazard
submitted an expert opinion, in a form of a sworn declaration, that no
sanctions should be imposed.

Hazard’s testimony was before the panel of judges consisted of Marsha
Berzon, Randy Smith, and William Fletcher.

William Fletcher, aka Bill Fletcher, is a well-known FOB. A Friend of
Bill.

Bill is a disbarred ex-respondent, and the former president of the
United States of America. While president, Bill Clinton nominated W. Fletcher, a Boalt Hall
professor and his campaign manager in Northern California, to serve as a
judge with the Ninth Circuit. The appointment was delayed as W. Fletcher’s mother, Betty Fletcher,
also serves as a judge on the Ninth Circuit. Despite allegation of
nepotism, W. Fletcher was confirmed.

In addition to being a judge, the former campaign manager of Bill
Clinton, and a law professor, W. Fletcher is also an accomplished
author.

In fact, he, along with Geoffrey Hazard, the ethics expert who appeared
before him in the Dole litigation, co-authored the following:

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Pleading_and_Procedure/1566627451/

A big coincidence, or just a coincidence?

SPECIAL REPORT: The Girardi/Nisperos Scandal

James Towery

TLR’s readers should be familiar with Mike Nisperos, a former
Crack-addict and the former Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of
California.

Nisperos - Copy
Mike Nisperos Jr. Delusional and under the influence of crack opened
fire at an imaginary intruder for which he was fired from his INS
position. He sued the INS despite receiving “Minimally Satisfactory”
rating in the category of “Productivity, Problem Solving Ability,
Motivation” based on a below-average quantity of written work.
(Photo:Courtesy)

Nisperos, a truly despicable human being whose multidimensional
involvement in State Bar scandals was documented extensively by TLR, as
applied to both himself and others.

To his defense, he is not malicious per se. Only weak, and lacking
any conviction and principles. He did, however, declare to the press
that he “enjoy” being a prosecutor.

As we have observed, it appears that Nisperos is easy to manipulate. As
lacking healthy self-esteem, he wishes to please others, especially
white men. Feeling inferior, he feels important and equal socializing
and sharing a good hearty laugh with them. I am no longer a Filipino,
now I am one of the good old boys.

Nisperos’s latest excited utterance of July 2010 “Thomas Girardi’s a
good friend of mine. He got tickets for my son and I to see a playoff
game for the Lakers” should serve as an example to support our point.
In essence, Nisperos is telling the world, look at me I am a somebody, I
am a friend of Girardi (The latter friendship with the former is an
entirely separate can of worms).

On the other hand, Nisperos still feeling vulnerable, insecure, and
aware of his shortcomings, always sought to be protected by an
organization, either the federal or the state government, where he spent
his entire legal career. Even while working for the various
governmental agencies, he was eventually let go, or was asked to leave.

After his term as Chief Trial Counsel has ended, the State Bar of
California made a decision not to extend his contract, among other
things, because of a conflict between him and Ms. Johnson on issues
relating to budget. That conflict grew personal, and as was reported,
the all powerful executive director of the State Bar, the home-grown
Judy Johnson, always win.

Today, Judy Johnson, is executive director only on paper, and is due to
leave at the end of the year.

State Bar of California Judy Johnson - Copy
Judy Johnson, after 2 Governors’ vetoes and endless scandals, was ousted
and is due to leave by the end of the year. (Photo: Courtesy Bar
Journal)

Nonetheless, the public was made to believe that Nisperos left on his
own volition. He was quoted as saying “Although it is tempting to seek
another four-year term, I feel the Bay Area calling me back, back to my
roots.”

Back in the Bay Area, Nisperos ran for a public office along with 6
other contenders. Nisperos lost by finishing last. This, despite an
endorsement from his good friend, Thomas Girardi.

Shortly thereafter, uprooted, he left for a position in Saipan to “fight
white collar crime” as a prosecutor. After only nine months, uprooted
again, he moved to Guam to defend criminals as a public defender, where
he is today.

Mr. Nisperos was the subject multiple stories we published here.

For example, you may recall the story regarding the unlawful discharge
of a weapon.

Delusional, Nisperos fired a shot at an imaginary intruder whom he
believed to have entered his home in Oakland. The following day, he was
arrested and charged with possession of narcotic paraphernalia and for
being under the influence. At that time, Nisperos admitted that he
moved from cocaine to crack, and was “cooking” the cocaine at his
Oakland home.

Nisperos, who was employed with the INS, received “Minimally
Satisfactory” rating in the category of “Productivity, Problem Solving
Ability, Motivation” based on a below-average quantity of written work.

Upon learning of the arrest and the drug use, Nisperos’s supervisors at
the INS decided to terminate his employment. Defiant, Nisperos sued
the INS for reinstatement. Nisperos v. Buck, 720 F.Supp. 1424

Mike Nisperos Jr - Copy
Nisperos, hoping to advance his career, neglected to properly prosecute
an attorney who shared bodily fluids and otherwise terrorized attendees
of a religious institution. (Photo: California Bar Journal)

Later, Nisperos was appointed as Oakland “Drug Czar”. A position which
pre-qualified him to serve as the chief prosecutor of the State Bar, at
least in a world according to Johnson.

Upon being retained by the State Bar to police its 200,000 lawyers, both
the State Bar and the Bar Journal mislead the public into believing that
Nisperos had independently realized that he had a drug problem, and
checked himself into a rehab center as an act of heroism. Not quite
true, and not as pretty.

It was only after his arrest that he took such an action in order to
save face, his job, and for the purpose of diverting the criminal
charges.

Incidentally, the Bar Journal never mentioned the crack-addiction and
the length of the addiction; as well as the fact that Nisperos use of
alcohol and drugs begun while he was a teenager. In a similar fashion,
when reporting about Gattschalk, the Bar Journal never mention the name
of Girardi & Keese, instead generic terms are used such as opposing
counsels.

Other story describes Nisperos attempt to board an airplane while in
possession a dangerous weapon. This took place after his tenure as Chief
Trial Counsel had ended. Attempting to board an airplane from the
Burbank Airport to Oakland he was arrested, and later criminally
prosecuted. Yet, he stated, “I am not a criminal” while trying to shift
responsibility to his son.

Despite the above, Nisperos was never disciplined by the State Bar of
California.

So unimpressed we were of Nisperos , we had no choice but to name the
“Michael Nisperos Scandal” after him. This, despite his passive
participation in the decision to appoint him to the position of Chief
Trial Counsel who polices California’s 200,000 lawyers.

TLR’s readers should be familiar with Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller
of Girardi & Keese. Mr. Miller incidentally, is the current
president of the State Bar of California.

Stories and investigations by TLR about Girardi and Nisperos never
intercepted each other. Much to our chagrin, this is no longer the
case.

Giradi’s involvement manifested itself to TLR yet again. This time it
was vies a vie Nisperos. It also now appears that Mr. Thomas Girardi
has turned from an infrequent guest to a regular.

Thomas Girardi
Thomas Girardi, once a “Champion for Justice,” is now a regular at TLR.

The friendship between Girardi and Nisperos is of an extreme concern to
TLR, not the least of which because it supports our prior contention as
to Girardi’s grips of the State Bar.

After U.S. District Court judge, Nora Manella, raised a red-flag over
the litigation against Dole, and for an additional period of two-years,
Nisperos did not fulfill his duties as chief trial counsel as to
the firm of Girardi & Keese
, other than to provide a safe
corridor for Walter Lack to try and defraud the Ninth Circuit into
enforcing a $500 million judgment which Lack knew to be invalid.

Lack Walter - Copy
Walter Lack, a ferocious litigator and a pilot, sent an urgent email to
the Nicaraguan law firm (on which Girardi’s firm was cc:d) stating that
the “JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WRONG ENTITY” (Photo:courtesy of Chancery
Club)

Girardi, by the way, is a friend of Nisperos. A good friend, as we
learned in an article published in the Recorder on July 30, 2010.
Additionally, in 2006 Thomas Girardi endorsed Nisperos for public
office.

Nisperos - Copy
Nisperos, a “good friend” of Thoams Girardi, failed to intercept Lack’s
in his mission against Dole by providing a safe corridor for a period of
two years.

(If this were a novel, the fact that Nisperos is now a public defender
in Hagatha, Guam would be portrayed as a plan by Girardi to exile
Nisperos to Guam. Girardi, by the way, is very familiar with the law of
Guam; having been involved in the DHL litigation, and having been named
a defendant in a suit. Guam courts, Girardi knows, have no jurisdiction
over California residents, and vice versa. TLR is not a novel,
however.)

Speaking of exiles, TLR asks:

1. Is Sean Topp in exile? TLR will publish the story next week.

2. Why Judge Nora Manella, after dismissing the suit and raising a
red-flag, did not sanction her Chancery Club friends, Girardi and Lack?

3. Why was a “curtain” placed (as other reporters also so stated) on the
Dole case for several years?

4. What was/is the involvement of of Scott Drexel?

5. Why part of the Dole case placed under seal?

6. What is the nature of the friendship between Girardi and Nisperos?
Was it proper for Girardi to endorse Nisperos when he vie for office
shortly after his departure from the State Bar?

Back to the article which appeared in the Recorder, it dealt with the
new Chief Trial Counsel, Mr. James Towery, and the potential conflict
the State Bar faces in advancing charges against Thomas Girardi and
Walter Lack, for misconduct the two had committed during the Dole
litigation.

James Towery OCTC - Copy
James Towery, Chief Trial Counsel (Photo:Courtesy)

The conflict stems from the fact Mr. Howard Miller, the current State
Bar president is a partner at the firm of Girardi & Keese

Mr. Howard Miller
Feeling ashamed, Howard Miller looks the other way

Like in the case of Shalant and Gottschalk, which were only one side of
the coin, and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese the other side.

In the case of Nisperos’s friendship with Girardi, and the lack of
investigation or prosecution should also be viewed as only one side of a
coin. The other side, which TLR is currently investigating, is
Nisperos’s potential role in the attempted cover-up of a new State Bar
scandal. The scandal involves the the punishment of a man because of
his past mandatory service in the IDF(Israel Defense Forces).

TLR is in receipt of documents that provide, in no uncertain terms, that
the man was framed. At the moment, it is unclear to TLR if Nisperos was
involved in the original framing, or only in the subsequent cover-up.

During a hearing at the State Bar Court, the man testified that during
an altercation, he was pushed and fell down onto the sidewalk and
potentially, into traffic. Panicked, he used a pepper spray to defend
himself.

The victim, who was also called to testify at the State Bar Court
hearing, offered testimony that the man, out of nowhere, begun to push,
beat, kick, and pepper-spray without any provocation.

TLR possesses a sworn testimony and transcripts, in which the victim,
prior to testifying at the State Bar Hearing, previously had testified
that the man was indeed pushed, that he had fallen down, and only later
he had gotten up and used pepper-spray.

Public medical records also provide that the victim only suffered
injuries that were as result of being pepper sprayed. This, in marked
contradiction to testimony procured by Donald Steedman, that the man had
punched and otherwise delivered 8-9 blows to the victim’s face.

The judges of the State Bar Court, in addition to ruling against the man
as to what had transpired, also branded the man a liar and a perjurer.
The judges found it to be “implausible” that a man who had been a
solider in the IDF would have fallen down. The judges wish for the man
to recant his testimony, and admit that he had committed perjury. The
man refuses, as the charade continues.

Nisperos’s unwillingness to investigate and prosecute Girardi and Lack ,
while providing a safe corridor for a period of two-years in which they
made made an attempt to defraud the Ninth Circuit, is and should be
viewed in connection with Nisperos’s action in the case of the former
Israeli soldier, and in many other cases where there is a claim of State
Bar injustices while Nisperos was in office. Nisperos, after all, had
to show results.

The article in the Recorder in which Nisperos admit his friendship with
Girardi can be viewed below.

The article published July 30, 2010 stated:

Nisperos Girardi - Copy

Nisperos said that when he came into office he immediately compiled a
list of friends and acquaintances from whose cases he would recuse
himself in the unlikely event they ever were hit with discipline
charges. In fact, he said he would have had to take himself out of the
mix on the Girardi case if he was still at the State Bar.

“He’s a good friend of mine, too,” Nisperos said. “He got tickets for
my son and I to see a playoff game for the Lakers.”
Continue reading

Ex-Respondent Bill; a Friend of Bill; a Friend of a Friend of Bill; 3Sons(Law + Lar+ Abel), and a Johnson.

1. The latest article published by TLR, tells the story of two lawyers who were disbarred from the State Bar of California under questionable circumstances, Mr. Shalant and Mr. Gottschalk. Both nemesis of Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese. The story should be viewed as only one side of the coin.

The other side, is the unwillingness of the State Bar to prosecute attorneys from the firm of Girardi & Keese (or associated firms) when circumstances clearly mandate such prosecution. Misconduct by Girardi & Keese in the litigation against Dole is such an example, where charges should have been filed over five years ago.

Reciprocating, Howard Miller, the president of the State Bar of California, ignores misconduct committed by State Bar employees, judges, executives, and prosecutors.

Miller’s inaction is not motivated at all by the fact that Girardi deposits money at his bank account on a bi-weekly basis. Performance bonus,once per year.

Additionally, Girardi & Keese is one of the main contributors to the State Bar Foundation. As was reported here, the Foundation funnels a large part of the donation it receives to the State Bar of California, the parent organization. The rest goes to operating expenses, scholarships, and legal organizations.

The money funneled to the State Bar of California is usually spent by the State Bar on diversity related event. For example, on April 12-13 of this year, the State Bar of California sponsored a two-day diversity workshop. It took place at the San Francisco Hyatt.

You did not hear about it, as it was only open to employees of the state bars of California’s 49 sister states.

A copy of the brochure can be found at the State Bar of Ohio web-site:

Strangely, while State Bar employees are being laid-off, the State Bar of California offered stipends to those who wish to attend from across the country.

The purpose of the event was to educate the employees on matters relating to diversity in the legal profession. Of course, the current de-jure executive director of the State Bar of California, Judy Johnson, was one of the speakers.

Johnson, feeling important and proud of herself ( with the monetary help of Girardi & Keese), is nowhere to be found when it relates to misconduct by Girardi & Keese, as the charade continues.

Notwithstanding the above, TLR acknowledges the wide spread instances of racism, sexism and discrimination within the legal profession and the legal system. TLR will continue to support the advancement of racial, ethnic, religious, women and LGBT persons, as well as persons with disabilities. Concurrently, TLR will continue with efforts to investigate specific institutions, organizations, and individuals who display or otherwise engage in invidious discrimination.

2. TLR became aware of Ronald Gottschalk during the investigation and publication of the expose dubbed “Bribing Pat.”

Gottschalk’s defense attorney, Mr. Stanley Arouty, alleged that Judge Pat McElroy engaged in the destruction and spoliation of evidence.

For McElroy, it was the third time a party levels such accusation against her.

To date, the California Supreme Court and the State Bar Board of Governors took no action to inquire as to Judge McElroy’s trail of lawlessness.

Should such an investigation be requested by Miller, it would sabotage the disbarment of Gottschalk, who is one of Thomas Girardi’s nemeses.

However, Girardi & Keese’s involvement in the Gottschalk proceedings does not end with Mr. Miller. It also manifested itself to TLR via the name Stephen Larson.

With respect to Mr. Stephen Larson, TLR declares unequivocally that presently it possesses no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.

Stephen Larson is a former federal judge and a current partner at the firm of Girardi & Keese. At 2006, he assumed the position of a district court judge in the Central District of California. In September of 2010, he quit the bench amid dissatisfaction with his low salary. A month later, he assumed a partnership position with the firm of Girardi & Keese.

While a district court judge, Stephen Larson presided over a case that was brought by Ronald Gottschalk against Litt, Vargas, and L.A. County.

Stephen Larson’s adjudication of the matter involving Gottschalk, standing alone, is of no concern to TLR.

However, the surfacing of the name Girardi & Keese, via Stephen Larson, is troubling to TLR, under the totality of the circumstances.

Also troubling to TLR is the fact that presiding over the Gottschalk’s proceedings in the State Bar Court is Judge Patrice McElroy, who unfortunately possesses very little qualities normally expected of a judge. Her prior involvement in the Bribing Pat saga alerted TLR, McElroy’s integrity is amiss.

3. An article published in yesterday’s Recorder discusses the potential conflict of interest Mr. James Towery faces in any prosecution of Thomas Girardi.

The article quotes several legal experts who opined that since Howard Miller is both a partner at Girardi & Keese, and the president of the State Bar, a conflict exists. The experts opined Towery’s best course of action would be to assign the case to an outside entity.

As stated above, the referral to an outside counsel should have been done 5 years ago, when the attempted fraud was discovered.

4. The “Rachel Abelson Scandal” is yet another scandal involving extreme misconduct by the State Bar of California; and subsequent attempt to cover it up, and cover a little more, and just a tiny bit more.

The net result, as the readers will soon see, is that the compounding alone is greater than the principal; and, is of a greater interest to TLR and its staff.

It took for an honest judge from the San Francisco Superior Court to shed just enough light on the scandal, providing TLR with the opportunity to connect the dots.

The judge, Hon. James Warren, admonished the State Bar that he (Judge Warren) finds that the trial tactics, and meritless legal position the State Bar was advocating to be “Disquieting”.

Additionally, Judge Warren, in a written decision stated that he found the circumstances in which Rachel Abelson, a State bar employee who breached confidentiality, to be “Rather Gossipy”.

It now appears that Debra Murphy Lawson, along with a State Bar investigator, Mr. Malmquist, also took part in the attempt to conceal the breach of confidentiality, at the expense of the victim.

In a suit filed in federal court, it was alleged that Debra Lawson, along with State Bar investigator Malmquist, intentionally did not contact or questioned Abelson at all, despite knowing about her involvement.

The one and only time Abelson was contacted by anyone from the State Bar, pursuant to her sworn testimony, was when Donald Steedman had called to alert her that the victim managed to ascertain her identity.

Specifically, Abelson testified that Donald Steedman spoke with her for less than a minute, and did not ask any questions or attempted to conduct an inquiry. This, despite Steedman’s duty to investigate exculpatory evidence.

Most troubling to TLR is Donald Steedman prior attempts, via his oppositions to the various motions submitted by the victim to the State Bar Court, urging the court to block any attempts by the victim to ascertain the name and identity of his former law clerk.

Based on Judge Warren’s findings that Abelson breach of confidentiality was “rather gossipy,” it is easy to understand Steedman, Malmquist, and Lawson’s motives.

5. Previously, TLR learned of the involvement of Hastings Ethics Professor, Mr. Geoffrey Hazard, in the Ninth Circuit proceedings involving Girardi & Keese and Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack.

Allegedly, Prof. Geoffrey Hazard, was retained by the defense as an expert witness to opine about issues pertaining to ethics. Prof. Hazard submitted an expert opinion, in a form of a sworn declaration, that no sanctions should be imposed.

Hazard’s testimony was before the panel of judges consisted of Marsha Berzon, Randy Smith, and William Fletcher.

William Fletcher, aka Bill Fletcher, is a well-known FOB. A Friend of Bill.

Bill is a disbarred ex-respondent, and the former president of the United States of America.

While president, Bill Clinton nominated W. Fletcher, a Boalt Hall professor and his campaign manager in Northern California, to serve as a judge with the Ninth Circuit.

The appointment was delayed as W. Fletcher’s mother, Betty Fletcher, also serves as a judge on the Ninth Circuit. Despite allegation of nepotism, W. Fletcher was confirmed.

In addition to being a judge, the former campaign manager of Bill Clinton, and a law professor, W. Fletcher is also an accomplished author.

In fact, he, along with Geoffrey Hazard, the ethics expert who appeared before him in the Dole litigation, co-authored the following:

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Pleading_and_Procedure/1566627451/

A big coincidence, or just a coincidence?

Categories

RSS .

  • A 132 year old tradition that’s still going strong 2014/08/31
    On Tuesday, September 5th the anniversary of a hundred and thirty two year old celebration will pass. Today, most of us now have that celebration on the first Monday in September. On September 5th, 1882 twenty thousand american workers marched in a parade from New York’s City Hall to Union Square where they celebrated people […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Powerful Judicial Council Committee opens the public meeting doors for a brief glimpse before slamming them shut. 2014/08/22
    Last week, the Executive & Planning Committee held a brief public meeting by telephone. After approving the agenda for the next Judicial Council meeting, the committee’s chair, Justice Miller, asked the members to call a different number so that the committee members could privately discuss appointments to the Council’s advisory committees. An article in […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • You no longer have a right to remain silent without being guilty….. 2014/08/16
    Please do not read this article without acknowledging our first amendment right under the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • According to the Judicial Council perjury is OK when they’re conducting it 2014/08/14
    It’s just one of those double standards we apparently must live with, though I would think it entirely fair that a federal grand jury look into the obvious evidence that judicial council staff and their attorneys committed perjury in depositions and filings with the federal courts. After all, a federal grand jury would have jurisdiction […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Are the AOC and JC really the same? 2014/07/29
      On July 29, the Judicial Council will vote to “retire” the name of the Administrative Office of the Court and henceforth refer to the AOC as “the Judicial Council staff.”  The reasons for the change, and for the haste with which it’s being made, remain muddled.  Our branch leaders claim that the change is […]
    Judicial Council Watcher

RSS Drudge Report Feed

  • FLASH: OBAMA ORDERS MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ... 2014/09/03
    FLASH: OBAMA ORDERS MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ...(Top headline, 1st story, link)
  • WHAT BIG APPLES YOU HAVE! 2014/09/03
    WHAT BIG APPLES YOU HAVE!(Main headline, 1st story, link)
  • Father of man killed by illegal immigrant demands Obama visit son's grave... 2014/09/03
    Father of man killed by illegal immigrant demands Obama visit son's grave...(First column, 1st story, link)
  • SECOND AMERICAN JOURNALIST BEHEADED... 2014/09/03
    SECOND AMERICAN JOURNALIST BEHEADED...(First column, 2nd story, link)Related stories:'Jihadi John' Threatens More Executions...ISIS: 'Published by Mistake'...
  • 'Jihadi John' Threatens More Executions... 2014/09/03
    'Jihadi John' Threatens More Executions...(First column, 3rd story, link)Related stories:SECOND AMERICAN JOURNALIST BEHEADED...ISIS: 'Published by Mistake'...
  • ISIS: 'Published by Mistake'... 2014/09/03
    ISIS: 'Published by Mistake'...(First column, 4th story, link)Related stories:SECOND AMERICAN JOURNALIST BEHEADED...'Jihadi John' Threatens More Executions...
  • MILBANK: Obama's unnerving happy talk... 2014/09/03
    MILBANK: Obama's unnerving happy talk...(First column, 5th story, link)
  • CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'... 2014/09/03
    CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'...(First column, 6th story, link)Related stories:Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions...ANOTHER American Doctor Infected...MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain...WIRE: World losing battle to contain...VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search of […]
  • Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions... 2014/09/03
    Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions...(First column, 7th story, link)Related stories:CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'...ANOTHER American Doctor Infected...MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain...WIRE: World losing battle to contain...VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search of […]
  • ANOTHER American Doctor Infected... 2014/09/03
    ANOTHER American Doctor Infected...(First column, 8th story, link)Related stories:CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'...Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions...MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain...WIRE: World losing battle to contain...VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search of […]
  • MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain... 2014/09/03
    MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain...(First column, 9th story, link)Related stories:CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'...Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions...ANOTHER American Doctor Infected...WIRE: World losing battle to contain...VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search of […]
  • WIRE: World losing battle to contain... 2014/09/03
    WIRE: World losing battle to contain...(First column, 10th story, link)Related stories:CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'...Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions...ANOTHER American Doctor Infected...MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain...VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search o […]
  • VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search of food... 2014/09/03
    VIDEO: Patient escapes quarantine in search of food...(First column, 11th story, link)Related stories:CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak 'Spiraling Out Of Control'...Advises Colleges to Tighten Precautions...ANOTHER American Doctor Infected...MYSTERY: Congo outbreak 'genetically unrelated' to West African strain...WIRE: World losing battle to c […]
  • 'Homeland' Lose Track of 6,000 Foreigners on Student Visas... 2014/09/03
    'Homeland' Lose Track of 6,000 Foreigners on Student Visas...(First column, 12th story, link)
  • BEZOS MAKES HIS MOVE: WASHPOST names new publisher... 2014/09/03
    BEZOS MAKES HIS MOVE: WASHPOST names new publisher...(First column, 13th story, link)Related stories:Founding CEO of POLITICO...END OF GRAHAM DYNASTY...
  • Founding CEO of POLITICO... 2014/09/03
    Founding CEO of POLITICO...(First column, 14th story, link)Related stories:BEZOS MAKES HIS MOVE: WASHPOST names new publisher...END OF GRAHAM DYNASTY...
  • END OF GRAHAM DYNASTY... 2014/09/03
    END OF GRAHAM DYNASTY...(First column, 15th story, link)Related stories:BEZOS MAKES HIS MOVE: WASHPOST names new publisher...Founding CEO of POLITICO...
  • No End in Sight for Cannibal Crickets Eating Through Eastern USA... 2014/09/03
    No End in Sight for Cannibal Crickets Eating Through Eastern USA...(First column, 16th story, link)Related stories:Massive Bedbug Problem Spreads In NYC Subways...
  • Massive Bedbug Problem Spreads In NYC Subways... 2014/09/03
    Massive Bedbug Problem Spreads In NYC Subways...(First column, 17th story, link)Related stories:No End in Sight for Cannibal Crickets Eating Through Eastern USA...
  • VANISH: Police Dept Loses Military Humvee... 2014/09/03
    VANISH: Police Dept Loses Military Humvee...(First column, 18th story, link)
.