archives

Clint Parish — Yolo County Deputy District Attorney

This category contains 18 posts

Addendum to Coverage of State Bar of California v. Clint Parish : Audio of Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dave Rosenberg RoboCall to Residents of Yolo County In Re Clint Parish / Judge Dan Maguire [TLR Note: use of robocall alone — if legally allowed — not necessarily problematic i.e. “I am Judge A, I call to let you know that I am endorsing Judge B.” Judge Rosenberg, however, crossed line by lending prestige of his name and office (which demonstrates authority) by taking side of dispute between Parish and Maguire i.e. Rosenberg heard stating mailer full of factual inaccuracies. Argument also can be made Maguire equally culpable in re content of robocall by agreeing-urging Rosenberg / paying cost. Of course, readers also need not forget Rosenberg very serious misconduct re threat “phlegm” will backfire ]


(Image: courtesy of DAVISVANGUARD.ORG)

The Leslie Brodie Report has learned that the State Bar of California seeks to impose professional discipline on former Yolo County Assistant District Attorney Clint Parish.

Clint Parish
Clinton E. Parish, 41, is accused of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent — Judge Dan Maguire — in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.

Acccording to the State Bar of California, “Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience.”

 Robert A. Hawley
Mr. Robert Hawley, California State Bar Deputy Executive Director and an adjunct ethics professor at McGeorge School of Law, stated to the Sacramento Bee: “This is a serious charge…If the allegations are proved true, Parish could face penalties that range from a reprimand to disbarment.”

According to the Bee, “The State Bar’s disciplinary filing is rare. Just 28 such misconduct cases – including the one against Parish – have been filed by the bar since 2000, say State Bar officials. Of those, 21 cases were closed without an investigation. The Parish case is one of only two since 2000 to proceed to a hearing.”


California Judicial Council members Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (“best friend” of Ruthe Ashley of financial scheme CaliforniaALL), Yolo County Superior Court PJ Dave Rosenberg, UC Irvine Foundation’s Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson (confederate of Cal Bar executive director Joe Dunn of UC Irvine Foundation / Voice of OC / CaliforniaALL ), Assistant US Attorney Angela Davis. Subsequent to an allegedly inaccurate mailer sent by Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish , who was running for Yolo Superior Court judge against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire, Judge Dave Rosenberg issued the following veil threat against Parish: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.” (image:courtesy photos)

State Bar’s spokeswoman Laura Ernde stated to The Davis Enterprise that “the charges arose from a complaint that was filed with the State Bar, but the identity of the complainant is confidential at this point.”

As we mentioned previously, in response to the mailer sent by Parish’s campaign, a highly perturbed Judge Rosenberg launched an unprecedented attack on Parish. This, despite knowing full well that California Canons of Judicial Ethics permit a judicial officers only to “endorse” candidates for judicial office. Specifically, and consistent with his new role, Judge Rosenberg, inappropriately so, resorted to sending a robocall out to many voters “to set the record straight” of what he called, “a nasty political hit piece” which “contains flat out lies and deceptions about a highly respected Judge here in Yolo County, Judge Dan Maguire.” Judge Rosenberg also promised, inappropriately so, to retaliate against Clint Parish and issued a thinly veiled threat against him by stating: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.”

According to Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”), he is “shocked and disappointed” by the prosecution of Clint Parish and surrounding circumstances.

YR stated: “As a resident of Yolo County, I was exposed to the campaign material of both Parish and Judge Dan Maguire — who is by all accounts, a gentleman.”

“The circulated political propaganda made it very clear that Parish is a prosecutor and not a judge, and as such, I was never led to believe that Parish had prior judicial experience, as the State Bar falsely alleges. Any other unfortunate alleged misstatements concerning Judge Maguire were the fault of Parish’s campaign manager, and once those alleged inaccuracies were brought to the attention of Parish, he immidetly disavowed them,” YR continued.

“At the risk of sounding kitschy, everyone needs to remember that we don’t live in an error-free world, and I call on the person who filed the complaint against Clint Parish with the State Bar of California to withdraw it — be it, as I speculate, Judge Dave Rosenberg or our spineless DA Jeff Reisig,” YR concluded.

Related story, please see HERE

For more about :

Judge Rosenberg, please see HERE and HERE

Judge Dan Maguire, please see HERE

Jeff Reisig, please see HERE

Audio of Yolo County Judge Dave Rosenberg Robo-Call

Advertisements

SCRUTINY OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL INTENSFIES : Judicial Council Watcher Ponders Role of Judicial Council’s Dave Rosenberg of Yolo Superior In Re Cal Bar Prosecution of Clint Parish ; In Light of Overwhelming Evidence of Fraud by Judicial Council Members Joe Dunn of Voice of OC / UC Irvine Foundation, Mark Robinson of UC Irvine Foundation, Thomas Girardi of Voice of OC — TLR asks: Is Judicial Council’s Tani Cantil-Sakauye More Than Just Friend of Ruthe Catolico Ashley of CaliforniaALL Financial Scheme? Judicial Council’sJudge Dave Rosenberg of Yolo County as Potential Accessory In Re Sham Search Warrant ? ; Alliance of California Judges Decries Tani Cantil-Sakauye Reappointment of Current Members to Judicial Council

He’s the presiding judge of Yolo county. He’s a judicial council member. He sits on the litigation management committee for the judicial council – the judges and justices who sit in an effort to manage the litigation against the branch – like the recent appeal of the Emily Gallup case. He has awards for himself posted on his website before they’re presented…. 

Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg Robocall May 2012 apparently to every resident in Yolo County.

Public Utilities Code that applies to this call

PUC 2873.  Automatic dialing-announcing devices may be used to place calls over telephone lines only pursuant to a prior agreement between the persons involved, whereby the person called has agreed that he or she consents to receive such calls from the person calling, or as specified in Section 2874.

PUC 2874.  (a) Whenever telephone calls are placed through the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device, the device may be operated only after an unrecorded, natural voice announcement has been made to theperson called by the person calling. The announcement shall do all of the following:
(1) State the nature of the call and the name, address, and telephone number of the business or organization being represented, if any.
(2) Inquire as to whether the person called consents to hear the prerecorded message of the person calling.
_______________________________________________
Canon of Judicial Ethics that applies to this call

CANON 5
A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL CANDIDATE* SHALL REFRAIN FROM INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Judges are entitled to entertain their personal views on political questions. They are not required to surrender their rights or opinions as citizens. They shall, however, avoid political activity that may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety. Judicial independence and impartiality should dictate the conduct of judges and candidates* for judicial office.

Now if the CJP wasn’t Big Dave’s bitch, do you think they might have something to say about content in light of the coincidence that Clint Parish being prosecuted in State Bar Court for said mailer? What are the odds that sitting on the all-powerful litigation management committee someone might be actually managing litigation and sending a chilling message to attorneys of “don’t take us on – or risk disbarment….”

Source @:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/03/18/aoc-in-woodshed-over-lb-chief-re-appoints-three-to-judicial-council-from-the-desk-of-jcw/

++++++++++

Clint Parish
Clinton E. Parish, 41, is accused of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent — Judge Dan Maguire — in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.

Acccording to the State Bar of California, “Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience.”

 Robert A. Hawley
Mr. Robert Hawley, California State Bar Deputy Executive Director and an adjunct ethics professor at McGeorge School of Law, stated to the Sacramento Bee: “This is a serious charge…If the allegations are proved true, Parish could face penalties that range from a reprimand to disbarment.”

According to the Bee, “The State Bar’s disciplinary filing is rare. Just 28 such misconduct cases – including the one against Parish – have been filed by the bar since 2000, say State Bar officials. Of those, 21 cases were closed without an investigation. The Parish case is one of only two since 2000 to proceed to a hearing.”


California Judicial Council members Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (“best friend” of Ruthe Ashley of financial scheme CaliforniaALL), Yolo County Superior Court PJ Dave Rosenberg, UC Irvine Foundation’s Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson (confederate of Cal Bar executive director Joe Dunn of UC Irvine Foundation / Voice of OC / CaliforniaALL ), Assistant US Attorney Angela Davis.  Subsequent to an allegedly inaccurate mailer sent by Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish , who was running for Yolo Superior Court judge against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire, Judge Dave Rosenberg issued the following veil threat against Parish: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.” (image:courtesy photos)

State Bar’s spokeswoman Laura Ernde stated to The Davis Enterprise that “the charges arose from a complaint that was filed with the State Bar, but the identity of the complainant is confidential at this point.”

As we mentioned previously, in response to the mailer sent by Parish’s campaign, a highly perturbed Judge Rosenberg launched an unprecedented attack on Parish.  This, despite knowing full well that California Canons of Judicial Ethics permit a judicial officers only to “endorse” candidates for judicial office. Specifically, and consistent with his new role, Judge Rosenberg, inappropriately so, resorted to sending a robocall out to many voters “to set the record straight” of what he called, “a nasty political hit piece” which “contains flat out lies and deceptions about a highly respected Judge here in Yolo County, Judge Dan Maguire.”  Judge Rosenberg also promised, inappropriately so, to retaliate against Clint Parish and issued a thinly veiled threat against him by stating: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.”

According to Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”), he is “shocked and disappointed” by the prosecution of Clint Parish and surrounding circumstances.

YR stated: “As a resident of Yolo County, I was exposed to the campaign material of both Parish and Judge Dan Maguire — who is by all accounts, a gentleman.”

“The circulated political propaganda made it very clear that Parish is a prosecutor and not a judge, and as such, I was never led to believe that Parish had prior judicial experience, as the State Bar falsely alleges.  Any other unfortunate alleged misstatements concerning Judge Maguire were the fault of Parish’s campaign manager, and once those alleged inaccuracies were brought to the attention of Parish, he immidetly disavowed them,” YR continued.

“At the risk of sounding kitschy, everyone needs to remember that we don’t live in an error-free world, and I call on the person who filed the complaint against Clint Parish with the State Bar of California to withdraw it —  be it, as I speculate, Judge Dave Rosenberg or our spineless DA Jeff Reisig,” YR concluded.

Related story, please see HERE

For more about :

Judge Rosenberg, please see HERE and HERE

Judge Dan Maguire, please see HERE

Jeff Reisig, please see HERE

++++++++++

Were Thomas Girardi and Joe Dunn Part of CaliforniaALL Financial Scheme in Judicial Council Capacity? Role of UCI Foundation’s Mark Robinson? Judge Dave Rosenberg as Potential Accessory In Re Sham Search Warrant ? Angela Davis?

Joe Dunn


MORRISON & FOERSTER TEAM: CHRIS YOUNG , JAMES BROSNAHAN, TONY WEST, ANNETTE CARNEGIE, SUSAN MAC CORMAC, ERIC TATE

” VOICE OF OC” TEAM — Henry Weinstein, Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi , Morrison & Foerster’s James Brosnahan, and Joe Dunn.  In September of 2009, Dunn (with the help of Girardi and Brosnahan) launched “The Voice of Orange County” — an online publication.  Additionally, Dunn is a trustee with the UCI Foundation — an entity which absorbed most of the grants CaliforniaALL had bestowed.

As mentioned before, in a letter to Joe Dunn,  YR wrote “Once Ashley assumed the position, the Foundation of the State Bar of California (which is under the complete control of the BOG) made a quiet and unlawful transfer of approximately $780,000 from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL. At the time of the transfer, the individuals controlling the Foundation were Holly Fujie, Girardi & Keese’s Howard Miller, Howard Rice’s Douglas Winthrop, Geoffrey Brown, and a few others.

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

During its brief existence, CaliforniaALL obtained additional funding of close to $1.5 million from utility companies such as Verizon Wireless, Sempra, PG&E, and others.

As the purpose of CaliforniaALL was to transfer those funds forward, it did so by awarding approximately $300,000 in grants to the UCI Foundation, where you serve as trustee and chair of the Audit Committee. (Please note that this figure may change once I obtain CaliforniaALL’s final tax return.)

Note that from my perspective, the award of this grant is suspect as it appears that CaliforniaALL pre-selected UCI Foundation, making the simulated request for proposal (RFP) by Sarah Redfield that led to the grant a sham process. (Note also that Sarah Redfield later falsely claimed she “launched” SAL-UCI, and falsely stated on her resume that she was part of the “Curriculum Committee”; in reality, you and I know that SAL-UCI was established by Santana Ruiz and Rob Vicario, several years earlier.)

In September 2009, Ruthe Ashley abruptly exited CaliforniaALL. In the same month and year, you publicly launched your online publication, “The Voice of OC.” Public sources have stated that the Voice of OC was financed by various foundations, unions, and the like.

The fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting you with the creation of “Voice of OC” has caused me to entertain the thought that “Voice of OC” may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.

This belief is heightened given various events’ proximity in time — as noted above, Ruthe Ashley left CaliforniaALL in the same month you launched “Voice of OC” (as though her mission had been completed). Moreover, the recent abrupt departure of Thomas Girardi and James Brosnahan from ‘Voice of OC” ( as though they were fleeing the scene with guilty consciences), the refusal of SAL-UCI to disclose the amount it receive from CaliforniaALL, the simulated RFP, and CaliforniaALL’s pre-selection of the UCI Foundation as a recipient of funds only reinforce this belief. This is heightened by Mr. Thomas Girardi’s lack of credibility (pursuant to findings made by a panel of federal judges), and the friendship you share with him.”


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

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

Judge Dave Rosenberg as Potential Accessory After the Fact ?

I. INTRODUCTION

Sara M. Granda v State Bar of California (2009 cv 02015)

In May 2009, Sara Granda graduated from U.C. Davis School of Law and, like most of her peers, hoped to sit for the July 2009 bar exam.

California’s Department of Rehabilitation paid the $600 bar exam fee with a check, and Granda was assured that she was properly registered.


Ms. Sara Granda. It is easy to imagine Sara Granda in a courtroom, questioning witnesses, challenging the opposition, and fighting for justice with the force of her large personality. A ventilator, which she needs to breathe, would hang from the back of her wheelchair. An assistant would help her flip through files, since she cannot move her hands or arms. When she approaches the bench, Ms. Granda would maneuver her chair using her tongue. “So much of what happens in the courtroom is theater,” says Ms. Granda, 29, who has lived out her own drama since she became paralyzed from the neck down at age 17. “I’m not sure how much time I will spend in court as an attorney. But I know I could do it.” (Photo and Narrative Courtesy of www.alldeaf.com)

However, the State Bar of California’s Office of Admission, headed by Ms. Gayle Murphy, never processed Granda’s application because the Department of Rehabilitation paid the $600 fee with a check, rather than a credit card The State Bar of California did not relent, and neither did Granda.


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

Local and national media expressed outrage after the situation gained publicity as a result of statements by Governor Schwarzenegger, who publicly stated: “It is outrageous that someone who has overcome so much in life is penalized by a bureaucratic error that prevents her from taking the bar exam. Government should work for the people, not against them and I’m calling on the state bar to allow Sara Granda to take next week’s test. Sara is a fighter and I am with her all the way.”

 Robert A. Hawley
Mr. Robert A. Hawley, California State Bar Deputy Executive Director and an adjunct ethics professor at McGeorge School of Law, stated to the Sacramento Bee: “It’s a high-tech process, and people need to maneuver it successfully, and we can’t be in the business of helping any one person out with it.” Hawley continued: “That takes us down a path that ends up in a place we don’t want to be. How do you then choose which ones to help and which you don’t?”

“I worked very, very hard for every cent,” Granda stated to the local media. “So for everything to come together in the end and for it to just kind of fall through on such a minor, minor detail.”

True to her spirit, Granda filed an action in federal court seeking an order directing the State Bar of California to allow her to take the fast-approaching bar exam.


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

The case was assigned to the courtroom of Judge Morrison England of CaliforniaALL. Judge England is the husband of California ALL board member Torie Flournoy-England who, together with State Bar Executive Director Judy Johnson and Patricia Lee also served on CaliforniaALL’s advisory council.

Torie Flournoy Morrison England
After Judge Morrison England quickly filed for summary dissolution in Sacramento County Superior Court, and after Judge England and Torie Flournoy wed, and after Torie Flournoy-England was appointed to serve as a member of CaliforniaALL’s board of directors, and while CaliforniaALL was in existence — a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant. Serving on CaliforniaALL’s board of directors of CaliforniaALL (which was in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California) was Torie Flournoy-England. State Bar of California Executive Director Judy Johnson, State Bar employee Patricia Lee, Kamala Harris, CPUC’s Michael Peevey, CPUC’s Tim Simon, as well as Judge England were part of CaliforniaALL’s Advisory Council. The above photo, which was published on the cover of a local magazine in Sacramento, notes that the Englands wed in May 2008. (image: courtesy photo)

Making an appearance and vigorously contending that the federal court had no jurisdiction over the State Bar of California were State Bar of California emloyees, Larry Yee, Rachel Grunberg, and Mark Torres-Gil of the State Bar office of General Counsel, the same office that drafted the partnership agreement between CaliforniaALL and the State Bar of California, as well as attorneys from the law offices of Kerr & Wagstaffe.

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

California Bar Journal

In the midst of a public relations crisis arising from the mistreatment of the Sara Granda by the State Bar of California, an article was published in the California Bar Journal. The article was published on July 27, 2009, and was written by Diane Curtis.

As the reader will soon observe, this article is imbued with inaccurate information and is otherwise dishonest.
Article California Bar Journal about Granda

Soon after U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England dismissed the federal complaint filed by Granda against the State Bar, a Sacramento attorney, Stewart Katz, volunteered to help Granda, and did so by filing a writ of preemptive mandate against the State Bar of California.

The emergency writ was filed on July 27, 2009 and was served electronically on the State Bar. (See below.)

GRANDA v STATE BAR DOCKET

Richard Zanassi, an attorney employed by the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel, filed an opposition in response to the writ. However, due to the wide media attention focusing on the case, the opposition was styled as a request for guidance by the court.

Thus, the article written by Diane Curtis and published in the California Bar Journal is dishonest as it misleads readers into believing that the State Bar, on its own accord, approached the California Supreme Court of its own volition, as an act of altruism and due to concern for Ms. Granda. Clearly, this was not the case.

In addition, one must wonder why Diane Curtis did not mention the fact that Granda, through Stewart Katz, filed the writ for mandamus.

As is made clear by its order, the Supreme Court decided the matter by granting the writ, and not by granting the State Bar’s purported request for guidance.

 

III. YR’S ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST LARRY YEE, MARK TORRES-GIL, RACHEL GRUNBERG, JUDY JOHNSON

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter 1

May 31, 2011

State Bar of California
1149 South Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Attention: INTAKE OFFICE

Re: Complaint for Ethical Violations Against the State Bar of California; Lawrence Yee – #84208; Rachel Grunberg – #197080; Judy Johnson – #71360 ; Mark Torres-Gil – #91597.

INTRODUCTION

In lieu of submitting a complaint form, I submit this letter and enclosed materials as a formal complaint against the above-named attorneys for grave misconduct that took place in handling matters relating to applicant Sara Granda and the case of Granda v. State Bar of California.

As will be shown, the above parties, together and individually, engaged in egregious misconduct by conspiring and failing to disclose to the plaintiff the existence of a close relationship between the State Bar of California, CaliforniaALL, State Bar Executive Director Judy Johnson,Patricia Lee, and the judge who presided over a case (Hon. Morrison C. England) in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant.

Furthermore, misconduct in the form of misrepresentations to the court took place regarding the current state of the law; further misconduct resulted from the discrimination against against the plaintiff based on her disability, and the unwillingness to comply with the ADA by affording the plaintiff reasonable accommodations. In addition, and adding insult to injury, the State Bar of California used the California Bar Journal as a tool to further injure and harass Granda by publishing an incomplete and inaccurate article which asserted that the State Bar had sought the advice of the California Supreme Court in determining how to resolve Granda’s claims. The article failed to mention that, in actuality, Granda had filed an action with the California Supreme Court for a preemptive writ and a writ of mandamus, such that the article misled readers regarding the actual circumstances surrounding Granda’s claims.

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

Because Ruthe Ashley also served on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California and Sarah Redfield served on the State Bar’s Council on Fairness and Access, the parties from Sacramento (namely, Parker, Ahley, Flournoy, Redfield and Judge England) became acquainted with individuals from the State Bar of California who were involved in matters relating to diversity, including Executive Director Judy Johnson, State Bar employee Patricia Lee, and Buchalter Nemer’s Holly Fujie.

As such, it was common to observe the same participant names at various diversity-related events taking place around the country. For example, over a 3 day weekend in Monterrey on October 5-7, 2006, part of the Wingspread program ran concurrently with the State Bar of California’s annual convention. Some of the attendees included Judy Johnson, Holly Fujie, Patricia Lee, Ruthe Ashley, Torie L. Flournoy, Hon. Morrison C. England, Dean Elizabeth Parker, and Sarah Redfield. (See attachment titled “Wingspread VI.”) This event, Wingspread — Blackboard Bench and Bar, was organized by Sarah Redfield. Similarly, in June 2007, and also part of the “Wingspread” series, a summit was held in Honolulu, Hawaii at which Dean Elizabeth Parker, Hon. Morrison C. England, Sarah Redfield and Torie L. Flournoy were all in attendance. (See attachment titled “UH Manoh Law School.”)

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

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

As such, Peter Arth (Chief of Staff to then-President of the CPUC, Michael Peevey) invited Ruthe Ashley to a restaurant in San Francisco. As a result of the meeting, a new entity known as CaliforniaALL was formed as a Section 501(c)(3) charitable entity that would collect funds to theoretically be used to invest in promoting diversity. CaliforniaALL, which came into existence in 2008 and was abruptly dissolved in 2010, was considered to have been in a partnership relationship with the State Bar of California. (See Attachment titled “Memo from Patricia Lee to BOG.”) In addition, the partnership stipulation between the State Bar and CaliforniaAll provided that the Board of Governors would appoint two of CaliforniaALL’s members to the Board of Directors.

Executive Director of the State Bar of California Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, and Judge Morrison England were members of CaliforniaALL’s “Advisory Council” (see Attachment titled “CaliforniaALL December 2008 Newsletter”), affording Judy Johnson and Judge England numerous opportunities to meet and collude or, at a minimum, to create such an appearance.

CaliforniaALL obtained donations of almost $2 million, primarily from utility companies such as Sempra, AT&T, PG&E and, of course, Verizon Wireless. In addition, Judy Johnson, Patricia Lee, Buchalter Nemer’s Holly Fujie, and Leslie Hatamiya colluded to transfer $774,247 sub rosa from the State Bar of California Foundation (dba California Bar Foundation) to CaliforniaALL. (See attachment titled “Cal Bar Foundation’s tax return for 2008.”) In 2009, yet another $5,000 was transferred from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL for purposes of “researching” best practices. Hence, for simplicity’s sake, this complaint rounds the amount at issue to $780,000.

The transfer of $780,000 from Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL was never acknowledged by any of CaliforniaALL’s publications. Similarly, it was never mentioned in the California Bar Journal or the NewsRoom of Cal Bar Foundation, where all other grants were heavily reported.

It is my position that the transfer of funds was never mentioned because it resulted from a conspiracy by Ruthe Ashley, Holly Fujie, Patricia Lee, and Leslie Hatamiya (all, incidentally, Asian-Americans who are very active in the promotion of diversity) to quietly shift the $780,000, some of which would later be misappropriated and used for personal gain and kickbacks. Indeed, once the funds reached CaliforniaALL, some of it was misappropriated. In order to cover-up the misappropriation, false and inaccurate statements were submitted to the IRS by CaliforniaALL and Ruthe Ashley. For example, CaliforniaALL, which was housed pro bono at the Sacramento Office of DLA Piper, falsely claimed in IRS filings that it had paid approximately $16,000 in occupancy fees. Additional financial improprieties also exist which cannot be disclosed due to the fact that the State Bar is the wrongdoer and, ironically, is the entity to which I am required to submit this complaint for processing.

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

In the meantime – after Judge England filed for summary dissolution in the Sacramento Superior Court, and after Judge England and Torie L. Flournoy wed, and after Torie Flournoy-England was appointed to serve as a member of CaliforniaALL’s board of directors, and while CaliforniaALL was still in existence – a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, in which the State Bar of California was named as the sole defendant.

The action was filed by plaintiff Sara Granda and was titled Sara Granda v. the State Bar of California (Case Number 2:09-cv-02015- MCE; see attachment titled “Complaint by Plaintiff Sara Granda”). The matter was adjudicated by Judge England, who promptly dismissed it. Neither Judge England, the defendant, Judy Johnson, or defense counsel Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil, or Rachel Grunberg disclosed to Granda the State Bar’s ongoing relationship with CaliforniaALL, to wit:

1. CaliforniaALL and the defendant (State Bar of California) are business partners.
2. Judge England and the Executive Director of the State Bar of California (Ms. Judy Johnson) are members of CaliforniaALL’s advisory council.
3. Torie Flournoy-England, the spouse of Judge England, is a board member of CaliforniaALL, an entity that is a partner of the State Bar.
4. The unusual sub rosa transfer of $780,000 from defendant to CaliforniaALL.

By failing to make the disclosures mandated by these facts, the above-named attorneys committed misconduct, irrespective of the actual merit of Granda’s case or its outcome. As such, each must be disciplined for his/her wrongful conduct. Those attorneys are Judy Johnson, Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil, Rachel Grunberg, and Holly Fujie.

Fujie, who participated in all the proceedings concerning CaliforniaALL (including, strangely, causing the ex post facto appointment of Peter Arth to the Council of Access and Fairness to give them a chance to meet and collude), was also a member of the Board of Governors’ Operation Committee and was briefed regarding Granda’s case. In addition, she was aware that Judge England was presiding over the case and that he and his wife were part of CaliforniaALL. In addition, Fujie served as the president of the State Bar of California and as a member of both the Board of Governors and Operations Committee, and was briefed on the matter; in fact, she authorized the expenditure of money to pay as legal fees to oppose the suit before Judge England. In addition Ms. Fujie participated in multiple diversity-related events at which Judge England and his wife Torie Flournoy-England were present; one such even took place on January 27, 2009, when 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. Despite of all the above, Fujie –instead of speaking up concerning the obvious conflict regarding Judge England — kept quiet and looked the other way.

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

The fact of the matter is that the plaintiff Granda was severely prejudiced by the misconduct.

Granda, a 2009 graduate of U.C. Davis School of Law, intended to sit for the July 2009 bar exam. The recent graduate, a quadriplegic who can only move her head and fingers, arranged for the California Department of Rehabilitation to pay the examination fee of $600, which it did via check. However, the State Bar stated that it only accepts payments made via credit card, and would not allow Granda to sit for the fast-approaching bar examination. Plaintiff sensed unfairness and, like many recent law school graduates before her who approached federal court, she asked the federal court to award her both monetary and equitable relief in her lawsuit, which claimed that defendant State Bar of California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The State Bar of California, which was represented by Michael von Loewenfeldt of Kerr & Wagstaffe, as well as Lawrence Yee, Mark Gil-Torres and Rachel Grunberg (State Bar in-house attorneys), asserted that the State Bar was immune pursuant to the 11th Amendment. (See attachment titled “Defendant’s Opposition.”) In its filing and opposition, defendant mostly cited as authority cases adjudicated by district courts around the country, as there is no clear authority addressing the interactions between the ADA and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Cases which held otherwise were not referenced by defendant, including Stoddard v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners and many other cases which held that, in fact, the ADA abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity.

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

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the above-named attorneys engaged in egregious misconduct. The fact that they are part of the State Bar, an entity that should hold itself as a beacon of high ethical standards, coupled with Ms. Granda’s special circumstances, mandate and call for severe discipline.

IV. REPLY TO COMPLAINT BY JILL SPERBER OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

Letter Jill Sperber State Bar of CaliforniaJill Sperber to Complainant 2

V. SUBTERFUGE BY TORIE FLOURNOY-ENGLAND, SARAH REDFIELD AND RUTHE CATOLICO ASHLEY

Ms. Sarah E. Redfield is a tenured law professor at the UNH School of Law. She is an expert in the area of education, education jurisprudence, and matters relating to diversity in the legal profession.

Between 2004 and 2008, Professor Redfield served as a “visiting” professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. From 2008-2009, she served as interim Executive Director of CaliforniaALL, as well as program director. Professor Redfield was paid $157,763 for her services while she was misclassified as an “independent contractor.

Events surrounding Redfield, as shown below, appear to be imbued with fraud and deceit, and it appears her role was to create a subterfuge to justify the existence of CaliforniaALL. Since CaliforniaALL’s main achievement was the purported creation of a “Saturday Academy of Law” at UC Irvine (“SALUCI” or “UCISAL”), Ms. Redfield pretended to have engaged in Requests for Proposals (“RFP”), as well as falsely claiming that she “launched” SALUCI. She gave very little, if anything, in return for the $157,763 she was paid. In fact, she took credit for the extremely hard work of others.

As circumstances presented themselves, particularly with the election of former NBA player Kevin Johnson as the mayor of Sacramento, an idea surfaced that McGeorge (and other law schools in their respective communities) would create their own supplies of qualified minority students by actively engaging the community of potential future students as early as junior high school. Activities would include mentoring, speaker series, field trips, on-site visits to the law schools, Saturday law classes, and the like.

Thus, with visiting Professor Redfield, various programs came about, such as Wingspread P20 Consortium. At McGeorge, a local program known as the “Pacific Pathways” was created by Professor Redfield with help from Twin Rivers Unified School District employee, Torie Flournoy.

Also employed at McGeorge as Assistant Dean for Career Services was Vice President of the State Bar of California, Ms. Ruthe Catolico Ashley, as well as State Bar of California Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Robert Hawley. Ashley and Redfield were also involved with diversity-related matters within the State Bar of California as part of its council on access and fairness, and as the head of a working group referred to as “Education Pipeline, State Bar of California.”

Shortly, thereafter, Ashley left McGeorge to work at CalPERS as a “Diversity Officer” for External Affairs. Subsequenty, CPUC General Counsel Peter Arth invited Ashley and Redfield to dinner, whereupon the idea for CaliforniaALL (initially known as Ca AAL) was memorialized on a paper napkin in approximately July 2007.

In mid 2008, CaliforniaALL was ready to rock and roll. It had just obtained Section 501(C)(3) approval, Ruthe Catolico Ashley was hired as a CEO, a sub rosa transfer of $780,000 had been received from the State Bar of California Foundation (AKA Cal Bar Foundation), and close to another million dollars from utility companies, allegedly, poured in.

According to Professor Redfield’s CV, between 2008 and 2009 she “launched” CaliforniaALL, participated in RFP, and “launched” the Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine.

Sara E. Redfield SAL

Similarly, CaliforniaALL’s own publication indicates that with CaliforniaALL’s grant funds, U.C. Irvine developed and implemented the Saturday Academy of Law, and that by 2009 CaliforniaALL’s mission was visibly at work through the program. See below.

Work CALALL SAL

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead, as most transactions involving CaliforniaALL, the California Bar Foundation and the State Bar of California, it is imbued with fraud and egregious acts dishonesty and deception.

Specifically, the Saturday Academy of Law has been in existence for many years, and is part of the University of California Irvine’s Center for Educational Partnerships (CFEP), which has many programs to benefit the community, such as “UCI Saturdays with Sciences,” “Saturday Academy in Mathematics,” and the like.

For example, as part of a field trip to law firms, the photo below was taken in 2007 when the UCISAL group visited the law offices of Allen Matkins. (See below.) We have intentionally blurred the photo to maintain the students’ privacy. Seated on the right is Allen Matkins managing partner Robert Hamilton. On the far right is Karina Hamilton, a former Allen Matkins associate, wife of Robert Hamilton, and the former Director of Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine.

SAL Visit to Allen Matkins

 

Saturday Academy of Law at U. C. Irvine Director Karina Hamilton

On April 13, 2012 Adam Stock of Allen Matkins’ office in Orange County published the following:

“Allen Matkins joined the Orange County Diversity Task Force, a collaborative effort of professionals from top Orange County law firms and businesses that are committed to achieving cultural diversity in the legal profession. As part of this effort, on April 6, 2010, Allen Matkins hosted an office visit and luncheon for the inaugural class of the University of California — Irvine Saturday Academy of Law program (“SAL”).”

Allen Matkins Web Page Re Saturday Law Academy

Unfortunately, again, this is not the case. Instead, as most transactions involving CaliforniaALL, the California Bar Foundation and the State Bar of California, it is imbued with fraud and egregious acts dishonesty and deception.

Specifically, the Saturday Academy of Law has been in existence for many years, and is part of the University of California Irvine’s Center for Educational Partnerships (CFEP), which has many programs to benefit the community, such as “UCI Saturdays with Sciences,” “Saturday Academy in Mathematics,” and the like.

In fact, metadata from Allen Matkins’ own photos reveals the photos below were taken on January 24, 2007, and not on April 2, 2010 as Allen Matkins (who’s managing partner is Bob Hamilton — husband of UC Irvine’s Karina Hamilton) falsely alleges.

The metadata results were obtained by examining the following links at www.findexif.com :

http://allenmatkinsdiversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SAL01.jpg

AND

http://calconsumerproductlaw.com/AllenMatkinsDiversity/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SAL02.jpg

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 1

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 2


VI. YR’S VIEW OF EVENTS SURROUNDING CaliforniaALL

CaliforniaALL -- Team Barack Obama
(L-R) USDOJ’s Tony West, Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, HUD’s Ophelia Basgal, Judy Johnson, Chris Young, Annette Carnegie, James Brosnahan, and Kamala Harris. (Image:courtesy photos)

As matters presently stand, it appears that in 2008 Morrison & Foerster attorneys James Brosnahan (self-proclaimed “mastermind behind the Democratic Party.), Tony West (Barack Obama’s Chair of California Finance Committee), Chris Young (“Obama for America” Northern California Deputy Finance Director) and Annette Carnegie (former director with the California Bar Foundation) in conjunction with Kamala Harris (Co-Chair, Obama for America ; member of CaliforniaALL) , Jeffrey Bleich (president of the State Bar of California, director with the California Bar Foundation, founding member and Chair of Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee) executed a sophisticated financial scheme to misuse all or part of the “hush-hush” $780,000.00 originating from the California Bar Foundation by improperly transferring the money to Barack Obama’s coffers via a separate foundation created ad hoc by Susan Mac Cormac of Morrison & Foerster known as CaliforniaALL.

Other then collecting close to $2 million directly from utility companies (including the “hush-hush” transfer of $774,247, comprised of one installment of $5000 and another contribution of $769,247 from the Foundation which was never mentioned in the Foundation’s “newsroom” or by any other of its publications such as the California Bar Journal or by any of the newsletters and alerts published by CaliforniaALL), CaliforniaALL appears to have been be a sham, phantom entity from its inception in 2008 to the day it began to slowly be dissolved in approximately 2009, subsequent to the election of Barack Obama as president of the U.S. Its only alleged achievement was providing some money for the creation of the Saturday Academy of Law at UC Irvine (“SALUCI”) in approximately 2008-2009. Here too vast and intense suspicious circumstances exist as the funds from CaliforniaALL actually went to the UC Irvine Foundation, where the present executive director of the State Bar of California (Senator Joe Dunn) serves as a member of the audit committee, and it turns out that the SALUCI was actually already created in 2005 and was fully operational before CaliforniaALL arrived on the scene. In addition, some records seem to indicate that Verizon Wireless funneled the money directly to SALUCI , while CaliforniaALL took the credit.

Initially, due to circumstances which cannot be viewed as mere coincidence, I was under the impression that funds have been misappropriated from the California Bar Foundation by Voice of OC — specifically, by its founders 1) Joe Dunn and 2) Martha Escutia (both former state senators who were overseeing utility companies and the CPUC and investigating the California energy crisis), and 3) Thomas Girardi and 4) James Brosnahan who were litigating cases involving the California energy crisis on opposite sides, and/or Geoffrey Brown, former Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission and 2007 Director of the Foundation during the time of the suspicious transfer of funds to CaliforniaALL (an entity of which CPUC’s Peter Arth was one of the main initiators).

However futile, I asked the State Bar of California to investigate the matter. While the Foundation alleges that the source of the (relatively) large sum of $774,247 which it transferred to CaliforniaALL was from four utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Edison International, and Verizon Wireless — as reflected in the Foundation’s 2008 Annual Report and tax return showing contributions to CaliforniaALL), there is no corresponding entry in any Foundation tax return (for tax years 2007 or 2008), nor any mention in the Annual Report, showing the initial receipt of those funds.

Nevertheless, I continued with the inquiry as large pieces of the puzzle were missing, and in fact stated so in a letter seeking information about one of the actor’s employment history. However, within the past several weeks, I believe that I finally managed to put all the pieces together.

These facts raised suspicions that money has been misappropriated from the Foundation, and places those individuals who controlled the Foundation (Jeffrey Bleich, Annette Carnegie, Douglas Winthrop, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Geoffrey Brown, and others), who “legally” created CaliforniaALL (James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, Susan Mac Cormac, and Annette Carnegie of the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster), who controlled the money (Ophelia Basgal of PG&E; Douglas Winthrop, attorney for PG&E; Jeffrey Bleich, attorney for Verizon Wireless; and Edison (client of James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, and Annette Carnegie), who controlled CaliforniaALL (Ruthe Ashley, Ophelia Basgal), and who controlled the finances for the Obama for America’s 2008 campaign (Jeffrey Bleich, Tony West, and Chris Young) in a very awkward position.

In my opinion, and based on the information I’ve discovered, it appears that funds were misappropriated and/or laundered through the California Bar Foundation by various individuals through the misuse of CaliforniaALL. Although other potential explanations certainly exist, based on these individuals’ involvement in the “Obama for America” 2008 presidential campaign (as discussed below), one likely possibility is that the funds were unlawfully misdirected to that campaign.

VII.  STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA’S JOE DUNN AND JON STREETER OF KEKER & VAN NEST PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST YR WITH YOLO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; PARTIAL COPY OF  DECLARATION OF BRUCE NALIBOFF PRESENTED TO JUDGE TIM FALL

1

2

3

5

4

+++++++++++

Letterhead Logo Smaller

March 18, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

The attached articles deal with two subjects that are inexorably intertwined. The first by Courthouse News reporter, Maria Dinzeo, recounts the fact that the Chief Justice has reappointed three current members to the Judicial Council. The second article, by The Recorder’s Cheryl Miller, details a recent legislative hearing that focused on the money-sucking Long Beach Courthouse.

These two issues must be viewed in the larger context of a dysfunctional form of branch governance and the lack of a real system of checks and balances.

Reappointing the same judges/justices who have failed to appropriately oversee the bloated and entrenched bureaucracy is not a recipe for success. Rather, it is history repeating itself. We have not found a single instance when any of these three re-appointed members has voted against an AOC staff recommendation. They have fallen in lock-step with the other appointees who supported the failed CCMS project and repeatedly overlooked wasteful spending on court construction and maintenance. Recently each joined in rejecting the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee’s recommendation to end telecommuting for central office staff.

And that history brings us to the second article concerning the Long Beach Courthouse.

The Alliance has obtained an un-redacted copy of the building and maintenance contract that has left the judiciary on the hook for $2.3 billion over the next 35 years. We looked high and we looked low in an effort to learn who entered into this agreement where the construction/maintenance company bore zero risk. We can tell you that NO local court officials inked this deal. The bureaucrats from the AOC own this debacle from A to Z.

The Legislative Analyst correctly observed that the Long Beach project would go way over budget. That same Legislative Analyst had presciently warned that CCMS had not been properly vetted and was in danger of failing. Again the warnings have been ignored. And who suffers for these blunders? Certainly not those who entered into these contracts from the central office or the Council members who have repeatedly failed to rein them in. Instead the price is paid by every trial court in this state that is forced to layoff critically needed staff, close courtrooms and courthouses, make do with unsafe and overcrowded facilities, and shorten business hours for the public seeking redress.

Last week the Chief Justice addressed both houses of the Legislature. In her remarks she observed: “Structurally” the judicial branch was “reborn a mere 16 years ago.” Later in referring to the branch as “16 years young” she went on to say, “Like any adolescent it needs a check-in.” The Alliance would go one step further in this analogy: What adult in their right mind would give a 16-year-old carte blanche to spend over three billion dollars a year and not expect bad decision making and wasteful spending?

As we did with the CCMS fiasco, the Alliance is asking for the Legislature — which appropriated these monies the AOC and Judicial Council have so badly mismanaged — to direct respected State Auditor Elaine Howle to conduct an audit of the construction and maintenance programs overseen by the AOC. We caution the legislature not to be misled into thinking that the AOC-commissioned Pegasus report is comparable to a real independent audit, any more than were AOC-sponsored reports on CCMS. It is not. What is needed is an independent evaluation, just as was done with CCMS.

Finally, we thank State Senator Loni Hancock for shining the light on the Long Beach Court financing debacle by holding a public meeting. Senator Hancock’s question to AOC staff: “How did you let this happen?” — referencing the apparent belief by branch leaders that the State General Fund would pay for this behemoth — harkens eerily back to the days when our branch leaders and AOC staff attempted to shift responsibility for the concept of CCMS onto past Governors. Nonsense.

Directors, Alliance of California Judges

Source @:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/03/18/aoc-in-woodshed-over-lb-chief-re-appoints-three-to-judicial-council-from-the-desk-of-jcw/

Update In Re State Bar of California V. Respondent Clinton Edward Parish — TLR’s Coverage of Selective Political Prosecution of Former Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clint Parish: Copies of State Bar of California Charging Document and Reply of Respondent Clint Parish

For a copy of Parish’s reply, please see @:

http://tinyurl.com/arjblon

Alliance of California Judges on Secrecy Surrounding Judicial Council of California; Addenda to JNC Cabal — California Judicial Council Member Judge Dave Rosenberg of Yolo County Superior Court ; Matter of State Bar of California v. Clint Parish [TLR Note: In re vindictive prosecution of Clint Parish, many (including YR) speculate JC member Judge Dave Rosenberg (appointed by Tani per instructions from George) behind complaint filed with Cal Bar against Parish. Given Rosneberg’s own misconduct in resorting to sending “Robo-Calls” and a threat against Parish, one can’t escape thoughts Parish reference to Judge Dan Maguire as “bagman” of Schwarzenegger touched raw nerve with Rosenberg — who acted in a similar role (i.e. conduit) for Gov. Gray Davis. Per sources, it was Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese who caused the appointment of Maguire to Schwarzenegger’s legal team. During Schwarzenegger’s tenure, Ronald George / Tom Girardi / Howard Miller / Tom Layton monopolized judicial appointments by feeding Sharon Major-Lewis names of acceptable prospective judicial candidates ]

Part 1 of JNC CABAL, please see @:

https://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/uc-regent-ronald-stovitz-in-addendum-to-richard-blum-regent-of-the-university-of-california-and-husband-of-united-states-senator-from-california-dianne-feinstein-tlr-note-1-stovitz-former-jud/

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

Alliance of California Judges on Secrecy Surrounding Judicial Council of California

Dear Members and Others,

We attach articles by Cheryl Miller of the Recorder and Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News.

Cheryl Miller’s article details the secrecy surrounding many important decisions made by branch leaders. She points out the obvious disconnect between the courts’ consistent enforcement of the constitutional mandate favoring disclosure and the continued lack of access to Judicial Council decision making.

In that regard, several months ago the Alliance requested that Justice Douglas Miller, Chairman of the powerful Judicial Council Rules Committee, open up the proceedings wherein recommendations from the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee were to be discussed and voted on. Of course our request was denied and what we believed would happen has occurred. While the Council appeared to “adopt” all recommendations, the report’s recommendations are on a slow track to nowhere. Because of this cloak of secrecy surrounding Justice Miller’s committee we are left to speculate as to what did or did not occur.

Maria Dinzeo’s article highlights the wisdom of allowing our local court experts to come up with a common sense and cost effective solution to the need for case management computer programs. Rather than reinventing the wheel, these competent IT professionals have identified three vendors who can provide courts with off-the-shelf computer programs that best fit their needs.

Meanwhile the Judicial Council has gathered many of the same folks involved in the disastrous half-billion dollar CCMS project to make recommendations on court technology. Rest assured that the Alliance and the Legislature will carefully monitor Council involvement in IT projects and insist that no more precious court dollars be wasted on unreliable, untested and expensive technology that the courts do not want or need.

Lastly, for those of you attending this coming weekend’s educational conference in Palo Alto, we look forward to seeing you and hearing what your thoughts are on the issues affecting our branch. We also wish to thank those of you who have voluntarily contributed to the Alliance. We are gratified to inform you that we have sufficient funding to lease office space and pay for clerical support for this year’s legislative session.

Directors,
Alliance of California Judges

Please continue @:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/02/26/discussion-on-private-committees-court-case-mangement-systems/

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

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA V. CLINT PARISH

There’s a lot going on in California in terms of preparation by various parties for fast approaching adversarial legal proceedings involving California State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy.

First, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned that the frivolous and politically motivated prosecution by the State Bar of California against  former Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clint Parish has been assigned to be adjudicated by Judge McElroy.

Clint Parish
Clinton E. Parish, 41, is accused of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent — Judge Dan Maguire — in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.

Case Name:     Parish, Clinton Edward
Case Number:     12-O-15242
Member #:    211982
Venue:     SF
Status:     Open
Case Filed:     02/12/2013
Counsel:    Pro Per
Deputy Trial Counsel:    Robert A. Henderson
Assigned Judge: Patrice McElroy
Next Scheduled Event:    Status Conference 03/25/2013

The State Bar of California maintains that “Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience. ”

According to Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”), he is “shocked and disappointed” by the prosecution of Clint Parish and surrounding circumstances.

YR stated: “As a resident of Yolo County, I was exposed to the campaign material of both Parish and Judge Dan Maguire — who is by all accounts, a gentleman.”

“The circulated political propaganda made it very clear that Parish is a prosecutor and not a judge, and as such, I was never led to believe that Parish had prior judicial experience, as the State Bar falsely alleges.  Any other unfortunate alleged misstatements concerning Judge Maguire were the fault of Parish’s campaign manager, and once those alleged inaccuracies were brought to the attention of Parish, he immidetly disavowed them,” YR continued.

“At the risk of sounding kitschy, everyone needs to remember that we don’t live in an error-free world, and I call on the person who filed the complaint against Clint Parish with the State Bar of California to withdraw it —  be it, as I speculate, Judge Dave Rosenberg or our spineless DA Jeff Reisig,” YR concluded.

State Bar Court Patrice McElroy
Pictured above is Judge McElroy, who is either unwilling or unable to recognize the seriousness of her anti-social behaviour. Her involvement in the “Bribing Pat” saga alerted TLR, McElroy’s integrity is amiss. (Photo: Courtesy of Bar Journal.)

Second, at least two (2) other planned adversarial proceedings relating to Judge McElroy’s misconduct as it relates to Ronald Gottschalk – Thomas Girardi’s former co-counsel in class-action litigation and current nemesis – will be addressed in a Kastigar Evidentiary Hearing/ Brady Evidence, as well as a separate civil suit naming Judge McElroy and alleged cousin, Leslie McElroy.

As was previously reported, Mr. Ronald Gottschalk and Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi (husband of singer Erika Jayne aka Erika Girardi) were co-counsel representing plaintiffs in various actions. Once a dispute erupted between Gottschalk and Girardi, the State Bar of California came knocking on Gottschalk’s door.

Patrice McElroy's Misconduct
Gottschalk’s lawyer– Mr. Stanley Arouty– submitted a sworn statement to the California Supreme Court accusing McElroy of intentionally destroying an audio tape which serves as the official court record.
(See excerpts from Arouty’s declaration above)

The State Bar of California, realizing that the evidence against Gottschalk is weak and not credible at the extreme, obtained a default judgment against Gottschalk during a time period which the State Bar knew Mr. Gottschalk was unavailable. Participating in the scheme against Gottschalk were Mr. Paul O’Brien from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and Judge Patrice McElroy.

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

Clipboa - Copy

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

Clip - Copy

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

In yet another instance, McElroy’s penchant for destroying the official records of her own courtroom also manifested itself during the proceedings against Respondent Khanna.

Please continue @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2013/03/01/breaking-news-corrupt-judge-patrice-mcelroy-assigned-to-vindictive-matter-of-state-bar-of-california-v-clint-parish-15580685/

Richard Zitrin and Mark Chavez Hit Plaintiffs Shop with New Ethics Suit [TLR Note: Speaking of Richard Zitrin, TLR recommends former Yolo County Assistant DA Clint Parish at least consult with Zitrin — highly competent and highly ethical attorney– in re latest State Bar of California developments. TLR further recommends Parish better-off not consulting with Jerry Fishkin of Fishkin & Slatter whereas “Christian white family is an irritant to him”]

Upping the ante in their fight over class action ethics, two Bay Area attorneys have sued one of the state’s largest plaintiff shops, alleging that it’s a vehicle for hiding assets from their $20 million fraud suit.

Mark Chavez and Richard Zitrin allege that after they brought a fraud suit against Initiative Legal Group last summer, the firm began shifting its most valuable asset — pending contingency fee cases — to a new firm called Capstone Law APC.

Since October, 48 attorneys from Initiative Legal Group, or ILG as it’s known, have moved to Capstone, which is housed in the same Century City business complex as ILG. Many of those attorneys have since appeared under Capstone’s name in litigation that originated with ILG — but without filing substitution, association or even change-of-address forms, the attorneys allege.

Please continue @: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202589185319&Plaintiffs_Shop_Hit_With_New_Ethics_Suit

+++++++++

As necessary background, it should be mentioned that Mr. Fishkin is a Jew. He lived for many years in San Francisco, and is quite liberal in his politics. For example, a few weeks ago he gave a speech at a Reform synagogue in Walnut Creek in support of gay marriage. Likewise, Mr. Fishkin supported efforts to allow a lesbian high school student to attend her high school prom with her girlfriend. Nothing mentioned in this paragraph as part of Mr. Fishkin’ background presents any problem; in fact, his support and efforts on behalf of gay civil rights should be commended. Rather, the information is included to provide context for his comments and actions described below.

First Act of Misconduct

Simply put, Mr. Fishkin engages in discriminatory practices and speech that demonstrate invidious animosity toward a group different from that to which he belongs, namely White Christians.  This is particularly true if the individuals in question are members of the lower/middle working class and appear to be people of faith.

As is evident from Mr. Fishkin’ Facebook postings, the average middle-class Christian white family is an irritant to him, and he holds in his heart enormous animosity and contempt toward them.

Jerome Fishkin Making Fun of Redneck. - Copy

As such, he often uses pejorative and demeaning stereotypes to describe them. For example, on one of his Facebook pages, Mr. Fishkin mocks women from Virginia, their virginity and their vaginas. He sets forth the stereotypes that exist in his own mind, including that women from Virginia tend to be prudent in the area of sexuality; he then attempts to make a joke about their virginity, and wonders if do or do not have vaginas. He ultimately concludes that they must, in fact, have vaginas.

By taking such cheap shots, Mr. Fishkin amuses himself and some of his Facebook friends, including Susan Margolis, another ethics lawyer who practices in Los Angeles.

Yet another example of Mr. Fishkin’ leanings is an offensive photograph posted on his Facebook page (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The photo, referred to as “REDNECK  is clearly intended to make fun of “REDNECKS” as lower-class, beer-drinking idiots.

Mr. Jerome Fishkin making fun of redneck - Copy

The photo is demeaning, and is clearly based on Mr. Fishkin’ stereotype of a group.

Not surprisingly, we were not able to locate any photos or caricatures that mock Jews as a group on Mr. Fishkin’ Facebook page (nor on the page of Susan Margolis).

See complete story @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/04/11/re-formal-ethics-complaint-against-jerome-fishkin-state-bar-no-8348516/

Amid State Bar of California Politically Motivated Selective Prosecution of Former Yolo County Assistant District Attorney Clint Parish, The Leslie Brodie Report Republishes “Meet a Son of Eve, an Illegitimate Child; a Latino; a Precocious Child; a Victim; a Homosexual; an Acclaimed Novelist; a Lawyer; a Religious Leader; a Wife; a Judicial Candidate, and AJ Carlos Moreno’s Staff-Attorney – – Meet Michael Nava” [ TLR Note: TLR ran an expose of born-twice judicial candidate Michael Nava during period of “tagging” actors in TLR’s Raison d’être- “State Bar of California 60 Days Suspension Scandal” . During the campaign, “Gay Latino” Michael Nava engaged in various acts of grave misconduct i.e. misrepresenting his name, ad nauseam attack on his opponent for being “Straight White Male Republican”, and the like. The California Bar never prosecuted Michael Nava]

* Materials for this article were obtained from Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia of GLBTQ, Michael Nava for Judge, La Bloga, and a blog titled “Ninglun Floating Life”.

“Michael Angel Nava, born September 16, 1954 in Stockton, California, is an attorney and writer. He is a third-generation Californian of Mexican descent. He was born and raised in Sacramento.” http://tinyurl.com/michaelnava

“Michael Nava is the second of six children in what he calls a “tragically unhappy” Chicano family. He was the son of a man with whom his mother, then married, had had an affair, and though he was given his stepfather’s last name, he knew from an early age that his mother was not married to his father, who in effect abandoned him. Molested by a family member at age eleven and realizing his gayness at age twelve, Nava knew that he had to escape his mother’s religiosity and his stepfather’s physical abuse.” (From “Ninglun Floating Life”)

“Nava grew up in a predominantly working-class Mexican neighborhood in Sacramento, California called Gardenland. In an essay of the same title, he wrote about his neighborhood: “The best way to think of Gardenland is not as an American suburb at all, but rather as a Mexican village, transported perhaps from Guanajuato, where my grandmother’s family originated, and set down lock, stock and chicken coop in the middle of California. Nava, a precocious child, was constantly reading.” (From Wikipedia)


Mr. Michael Nava, began writing what would become his first novel – “The Little Death” (La petite mort– A French metaphor for orgasm) while studying for the bar exam. The novel “Goldenboy” followed soon thereafter. Nava’s novels feature Henry Rios — a gay Latino criminal defense lawyer who practices in Los Angeles. According to Nava: “Judicial attorneys and law clerks can have a huge influence in shaping the direction of the law, but there are very few attorneys of color in those positions because they are mostly filled through the Old Boys Network. We need to establish our own network.”(Photo:courtesy)

“Nava began his legal career as a trial lawyer in the City Attorney’s Office where he prosecuted criminal cases and did approximately 50 jury trials. He was an associate at the appellate boutique firm of Horvitz & Levy before becoming a judicial staff attorney; since 2004 he has been a judicial attorney for Justice Carlos R. Moreno.” (From Wikipedia)

Justice Carlos Moreno - Copy
Justice Carlos Moreno, is due to leave the court by March of 2011. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Moreno would urge Governor Brown to replace him with a Latino: “If he asks for my opinion, I think he should do whatever he can that a Latino replaces me on the court”.(Photo:Courtesy)

In addition, Nava is an advocate for diversity in the legal profession and the judiciary. From 2007 to 2009, he was a member of State Bar of California’s Council on Access and Fairness, who advises the State Bar’s Board of Governor on matters relating to diversity in the legal profession. He put forth the case for judicial diversity in a 2009 law review article, “A Servant of All: Humility, Humanity and Judicial Diversity”, published by the Golden Gate University Law Review.

Michael Nava recently ran for a judicial position in San Francisco. The following was stated on Nava for judge’s web site:
“Michael is also involved in the community as an active parishioner at Most Holy Redeemer and was a member of the board of directors of the GLBT Historical Society. In October 2008, just before Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage, Justice Moreno married Michael and his partner, George Herzog.”

According to the Legal Pad, a blog published by the Recorder, Nava’s husband, George Herzog, loaned the campaign $50,000.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/10/ulmers-got-the-cash-navas-got-the-chinese-surname.html

On “La Bloga” ( http://tinyurl.com/labloga1 ),the following was posted:
“Michael Nava isn’t qualified to be a judge. In my view, he also lacks integrity. Like Nava, I am also a judicial staff attorney, openly gay, and a Democrat. Consider this: On the Chinese language ballot, he translated his name as “Fairness and Justice Lee,” a blatant attempt to misrepresent his identity. If you are okay with that, vote for Nava. Nothing I could say could convince you otherwise. Maybe I’m being paranoid: what do you think? Do you think this Chinese name come from a place of truth or clever marketing.?”

Original publication, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/01/29/meet-a-son-of-eve-an-illegitimate-child-a-latino-a-precocious-child-a-victim-a-homosexual-an-acclaimed-novelist-a-lawyer-a-religious-leader-a-wif-10458126/

 

Clint Parish

public

Uploaded on:
2013-02-18
Views:
805

Politically motivated selective prosecution of Clint Parish, please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2013/02/18/in-re-state-bar-of-california-v-respondent-clinton-edward-parish-tlr-s-coverage-of-selective-political-prosecution-of-former-yolo-county-deputy-d-15545531/

Photo source @:

http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_item.php?item_ID=6891232

Davis Vanguard’s David Greenwald Commentary on State Bar of California Prosecution of Clint Parish ; More on Background Data on Judge Dave Rosenberg and Wife Lea Rosenberg ; Errata Re Judge Rosenberg [TLR Note: Data in re Judge Rosenberg and distinguished wife Lea Rosenberg for background purposes and cross-reference of information only i.e. to ascertain whether any wrongdoer may be “pulling a Werdegar” i.e. various parties bestowed benefits on spouse of AJ Kathryn Werdegar (David Werdegar’s Institute on Aging). In re Rosenbergs, an “intense” inquiry is being re-conducted, again, by YR especially due to 1) recent revelations implicating UC Davis MIND Institute’s Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property in CalALL scheme 2) re-examining Judge Rosenberg’s connection to UC Davis, Cruz Reynoso. Generally speaking, since CalALL financial scheme involved UC Irvine Foundation’s Joe Dunn and Mark Robinson — entire UC system is presumed hostile to YR. Otherwise, ceteris paribus, Rosenbergs first-class citizens with unparalleled contributions to Yolo County)

Clinton Parish showed appallingly poor judgment last year in authorizing attacks against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire.  Even if those attacks had been accurate, it is questionable for one to play that sort of politics in a judicial race that is supposed to be about experience and neutrality, not politics.

How easily the charges were systematically dismantled under the least amount of inquiry, however, casts the situation in a very different light.  It calls into question Mr. Parish’s ability not only to be a judge, but also to be a prosecuting attorney.  After all, if you cast baseless charges against your political opponent, why would you not cast the same charges against a poor, defenseless defendant?

It is for those reasons, I think, that most people think Clinton Parish deserves whatever punishment befalls him by the State Bar.  And, while disbarment is unlikely, it is not necessarily unwarranted.

Please continue @:

http://davisvanguard.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6137:commentary-making-an-example-of-clinton-parish&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100

 

Errata– Judge Rosenberg No Longer Presiding Judge of Yolo County

The Yolo Superior Court announced that the Steven M. Basha has been elected to serve as presiding judge upon the completion by current presiding judge David R. Rosenberg of his term on September 15, 2012.

Rosenberg has served for more than four years as presiding fudge with his term extended to permit him to fulfill his statewide responsibilities as Chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee. Those responsibilities end on September 15.

Basha is the current assistant presiding judge and has been responsible for the day-to-day judicial oversight of the Yolo Superior Court since January 1, 2012. In addition to the election of Basha as presiding judge, the Yolo Superior Court judges elected Kathleen M. White to be the assistant presiding judge, also effective September 15, 2012.

Source @:

http://woodlandrecord.com/basha-elected-as-presiding-judge-p2814-128.htm

 

Lea Rosenberg is a community activist currently serving as Co-President of Soroptimist International of Davis, Noble Grand (President) of the Davis Rebekah Lodge, and as a member of the Board of the Yolo County SPCA. Lea has opened her home to innumerable arts, education, political, charitable, and community events over the years.

Lea Rosenberg formerly served as President of the University Farm Circle, President of the Davis Art Center, President of the Davis PTA Council, President of the Davis School Arts Foundation, and Treasurer for numerous successful local political campaigns. She has been honored as Davis Citizen of the Year (the Covell Award). Lea Rosenberg has been chosen four times in an annual poll of readers of the Davis Enterprise as “Most Dedicated Community Volunteer.” She is a member of the Davis Odd Fellows Lodge, previously having served as Treasurer and as a Trustee of the Lodge, and having been chosen in 2006 as the “Member of the Year.” Currently, she serves as one of the three Trustees of the Davis Rebekah Lodge, and also serves as one of six board members of the Hall Board Association of the Odd Fellows and Rebekah Lodges, managing all property of the two Lodges. She has served as a long-time member of the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee. She also served for five years as a member of the Yolo County Fair Board of Directors, having been appointed to that position by the Governor of California.

She is married to Judge David Rosenberg, has two adult children (Jason and Janis) and one grandson (Jonathon). Lea is also Davis’ foremost Avon Lady, having been selected to the Avon President’s Club for over 26 years.

Lea is also an Avon Representative

Source @:

http://daviswiki.org/Lea_Rosenberg

State Bar Of California Accuses Former Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clint Parish of Misconduct During Judicial Campaign Against Judge Dan Maguire

According to a press-release dated Feb. 14, 2013:

“The State Bar of California has filed disciplinary charges against a Yolo County attorney for allegedly failing to comply with ethical rules while seeking judicial office. Clinton E. Parish, 41, is accused of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.

Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience.

Canon 5B(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Supreme Court in 1995 states: “A candidate for election or appointment to judicial office shall not…knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or any other fact concerning the candidate or his or her opponent.” Failure to comply with Canon 5 is a disciplinary offense under rule 1-700(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Parish was admitted to the State Bar in 2000 and has no public record of discipline.

The case is being prosecuted by Deputy Trial Counsel Robert A. Henderson.”

Source @: http://calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/ThisYearsNewsReleases/201305.aspx

###

According to the Sacramento Bee, “If the allegations are proved true, Parish could face penalties that range from a reprimand to disbarment, said Robert Hawley, State Bar deputy executive director.

“This is a serious charge. The important message is … to respect the system,” Hawley said.

Those making false statements, he said, are “impugning the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.”

For more, please see @:

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6119:state-bar-files-complaint-against-clinton-parish&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100

AND @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/15/5192522/state-bar-accuses-yolo-deputy.html

Richard Hirschfield’s Defense Attorney Linda Parisi Challenge DNA Evidence; Clinton Parish Out of Yolo County DA’s Jeff Reisig’s Office? (TLR Note:Parish May Soon Vindicated In Re Maguire/Rosenberg/Dickstein/Schwarzenegger Casino Connection)

Richard Joseph Hirschfield’s defense lawyers on Thursday strongly challenged the meaning and importance of the DNA evidence that prosecutors say put the 63-year-old defendant at the scene of rape and murder.

Defense attorney Linda Parisi, shown during her opening statement with defendant Richard Hirschfield, right, focused Thursday on four suspects cleared in 1993 during her closing arguments to the jury.

Facing odds of 240 trillion to one, the defendant’s attorneys questioned the veracity of the testing that established the overwhelming likelihood that the genetic material found on a semen-stained blanket linked to the killings belonged to Hirschfield.

Please continue @:http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/02/4956044/hirschfields-defense-attorneys.html

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

Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish has apparently been on leave since his failed bid to win a judgeship seat from Dan Maguire this past June.  According to several sources, Mr. Parish has not returned to work since the June election.

He has been placed on paid leave, according to those sources, and has interviewed at multiple DA offices in the Sacramento Valley.

parish-clint

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The County Human Resources Department could only confirm that he is a current employee for the county, and could not reveal whether or not he is on leave.

Clinton Parish ran for judge against Judge Dan Maguire, appointed in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He did so initially with the backing of key law enforcement figures, DA Jeff Reisig and Sheriff Ed Prieto.

However, after a series of misleading attack mailers against his opponent, many of his key endorsers would pull their support.  With the controversy, Mr. Parish was handily trounced at the polls, receiving just over 7000 votes to the more than 24,000 (77%) by Judge Maguire.

Even before the mailer controversy, Mr. Parish was a controversial candidate, opposed by defense attorneys, the bar associations and the entire Yolo County Bench.

Clinton Parish ran for judge against Judge Dan Maguire, appointed in 2010 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He did so initially with the backing of key law enforcement figures, DA Jeff Reisig and Sheriff Ed Prieto.

However, after a series of misleading attack mailers against his opponent, many of his key endorsers would pull their support.  With the controversy, Mr. Parish was handily trounced at the polls, receiving just over 7000 votes to the more than 24,000 (77%) by Judge Maguire.

Even before the mailer controversy, Mr. Parish was a controversial candidate, opposed by defense attorneys, the bar associations and the entire Yolo County Bench.

Please continue @: http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id…:clinton-parish-out-of-yolo-county-das-office&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100

 

Green Bay bishop urges parishioners to vote against candidates who support abortion, gay marriage

GPG n Feast Day - Shrine 0816

Green Bay Bishop David Ricken is shown here at the outdoor mass for the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary in August. In a letter to parishoners this week, Ricken addressed the issues Catholics should consider when voting Nov. 6.

David Greenwald of Davis Vanguard on Controversial Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig: “DA’s office often shoots first and asks questions later, and they have made truth secondary to getting the win”

Reisig-2010_copy

The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window into the operations of his office.  You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney’s office; he’s simply the most bombastic and transparent.

Mr. Reisig’s moves this week, and his words, show the conflict.  At first his reaction was simply that he did not approve of the means or manner of attack, but he was not inclined to pull his endorsement.

That was before he recognized that this was a potential liability on him.  When the Bee‘s scrutiny landed on Mr. Reisig too, it was enough.

The Bee editorial, entitled, “Parish Shows He’s Unfit to Be a Judge,” properly linked the employer to the conduct of the employee: “District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish.  By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig’s embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again.”

That was enough for Mr. Reisig to pull his endorsement, realizing that the judgeship race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish under the bus could save his proverbial skin.

Later he would tell the Enterprise, “It’s not only the type of piece, but what appears to be an absolute failure to confirm what was in the piece.  I can’t endorse that kind of candidate.”

He would add: “I endorsed (Parish) early on. He’s a good lawyer, and I thought he’d make a good judge.  But this mail piece was a major blunder politically. A candidacy that doesn’t fact-check is counter to everything the DA stands for, and that’s pursuing the truth.”

The problem for Mr. Reisig is that the mailer hits a lot closer to him than he’s comfortable thinking.  While he argues that fact-checking is everything the DA stands for in his “pursuit of truth,” in point of fact this DA’s office often shoots first and asks questions later, and they have made truth secondary to getting the win – everything that Mr. Parish did in approving this mailer.

Mr. Reisig wants to distance himself now from Mr. Parish, but the Vanguard learned that week that he should not have been so surprised.  Mr. Parish, with the approval of Jeff Reisig, was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports.

Despite this indiscretion, Mr. Reisig thought that Mr. Parish would make a good judge?

 

Please continue @:

http://tinyurl.com/cnjp56s

Davis Vanguard’s David Greenwald Avers Yolo County Judge Dave Rosenberg ‘Phlegm Comment’ Not Towards Clint Parish

Replying to TLR previously published article which stated:

“A recent controversy concerning a mailer sent by the Clint Parish’s campaign which sought to portray Judge Maguire as Arnold Schwarzenegger “bagman,” and being part of Schwarzenegger’s “inner circle” which recommended the release of convicted murderer Esteban Nunez, the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez — a highly perturbed Judge Rosenberg launched an unprecedented attack on Parish.  This, despite knowing full well that California Canons of Judicial Ethics permit a judicial officers to only “endorse” candidates for judicial office.

Specifically, and consistent with his new role, Judge Rosenberg resorted to sending a robocall out to many voters “to set the record straight” of what he called, “a nasty political hit piece” which “contains flat out lies and deceptions about a highly respected Judge here in Yolo County, Judge Dan Maguire.”

Judge Rosenberg also promised to retaliate against Parish and issued a thinly veiled threat against him. “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant,” Rosenberg stated.”

David Greenwald of online publication DavisVanguard wrote to us with the following comment:

I was the reporter who first got that statement out of Judge Rosenberg.
In context, it was not a threat to retaliate but rather a comment that
the attack piece would backfire with respect to the electorate.  A
comment that proved very accurate.

David

The Leslie Brodie Report thanks Mr. Greenwald for his comment — content of which is in desperate need of clarification.

While during an interview with Greenwald, Judge David Rosenberg uttered the following:

 “Frankly, I’m saddened to see a hit piece like this in a non-partisan judicial race,” Judge Rosenberg told the Vanguard.  “The mailer by Mr. Parish is full of falsehoods and distortions.  It doesn’t deal with any issue of relevance to the judicial race.”  He said, “It’s just phlegm aimed at a decent, hard-working and honorable man – Judge Dan Maguire.  This is disturbing conduct by someone who wants to be a Judge.”

See source @

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id…:presiding-judge-rosenberg-laments-the-change-in-tenor-of-judicial-race&catid

In a separate interview with Sacramento Bee’s Darrell Smith , Judge Dave Rosenberg uttered the  thinly veiled threat against Parish– alluded to in TLR’s original story —  to wit:

“This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant,” Rosenberg said. “It’s beneath the dignity of a candidate for judge.”

Please see @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/16/4492885/candidates-mailer-in-yolo-judges.html

Correction: Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dave Rosenberg / Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dan Maguire / Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish

In TLR’s recently published article concering Yolo County Judge Dave Rosenberg inappropriate conduct (see http://tinyurl.com/cbx26cb ), we erroneously stated  “Judge Rosenberg also promised to retaliate against Parish and issued a thinly veiled threat against him. This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.”

In fact, what we should have written is  “Judge Rosenberg also promised to retaliate against Parish by issuing a thinly veiled threat against him, to wit: This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.”

 

Clint Parish — Yolo County Deputy District Attorney — Hereby Asked to Opine On Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg Inappropriate Role As Political Advocate of Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dan Maguire

Consistent with The Leslie Brodie Report’s commitment to integrity and adherence to the highest level of ethical journalism, and in order to report on both sides of a controversy, Mr. Clint Parish — Yolo County Deputy District Attorney — is hereby being  asked to opine whether Yolo County Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg highly inappropriate role as spokesperson/political advocate of Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dan Maguire — may be in violation of California’s  Cannon of Judicial Ethics

Specifically, in response to a recent controversy concerning a mailer sent by the Clint Parish’s campaign which sought to portray Judge Maguire as Arnold Schwarzenegger “bagman,” and being part of Schwarzenegger’s “inner circle” which recommended the release of convicted murderer Esteban Nunez, the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez — a highly perturbed Judge Rosenberg launched an unprecedented attack on Parish.  This, despite knowing full well that California Canons of Judicial Ethics permit a judicial officers to only “endorse” candidates for judicial office.

Specifically, and consistent with his new role, Judge Rosenberg resorted to sending a robocall out to many voters “to set the record straight” of what he called, “a nasty political hit piece” which “contains flat out lies and deceptions about a highly respected Judge here in Yolo County, Judge Dan Maguire.”

Judge Rosenberg also promised to retaliate against Parish and issued a thinly veiled threat against him. “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant,” Rosenberg stated.

Please observe that, rather than contacting Mr. Parish directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

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

Yoloan Judge Rosenberg: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire” (Note: Part of CJC, as is Angela Davis, Joe Dunn’s Mark Robinson, CCJ Tani Cantil – Sakayue; Confederate of Dickstein; Ample Motive to Retaliate Agaist YR ; Do-Gooder MO Similar to Bet Tzedek

 Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish , running for Yolo Superior Court judge against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire, called Prieto’s reversal “unfortunate” and suggested the sheriff withdrew his endorsement under pressure from the Yolo bench.

The Parish mailer also prompted strong reaction from Dave Rosenberg, Yolo County’s presiding Superior Court judge.

“This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant,” Rosenberg said. “It’s beneath the dignity of a candidate for judge.”

Prieto’s defection is a potentially damaging blow for Parish, a criminal prosecutor in the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.

Parish has portrayed himself as the law-and-order candidate in the race for the bench, receiving endorsements from victims groups, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig and the police officer associations of West Sacramento, Woodland and Winters.

Please see entire story @:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/16/4492885/candidates-mailer-in-yolo-judges.htm…

Motor City’s perishing parishes: Haunting pictures of abandoned Detroit churches paint desperate picture of life in America | Mail Online

How Many Brady Violations Does It Take to Make a Pattern? – Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Last March the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an $14 million award to John Thompson, a Louisiana man who spent 18 years in prison, 14 of them on death row, because prosecutors in the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office deliberately withheld crucial exculpatory blood evidence.n.com

Should judges come under fire for charitable work?

By Carol Hopkins
For the Daily Tribune

Is it fair to go after judges who request donations to help people impacted by a natural disaster?

That is a question some are asking after reports circulated that the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission might be checking into Waterford District Court Judge Jodi Debbrecht.

Debbrecht, a Missouri native, announced June 1 that she and the Main Street Oakland County program were collecting items to help the city of Joplin devastated by the May 22 twister.

Debbrecht, along with Main Street Oakland County, said she helped launch a relief effort for Joplin, originally tying her name to the effort.

“The devastation is just simply too great,” she said. “We are going to accompany a convoy. We hope to load up some supplies, we have a specific list.

“What is getting lost in this is the real point of this effort,” Debbrecht said.

“The Judicial Canons allow for a judge to make an appeal and allows us to speak on behalf of an organization. I did just that. Main Street Oakland County has done the rest. L. Brooks Patterson and his staff at Main Street are remarkable individuals! They initiated a zealous humanitarian effort — as they have done before — for a former Main Street Community, and I serve only to draw attention to their task (that is, speak on behalf of the organization). Furthermore, nothing precludes a judge from going to unload a convoy of trucks, deliver supplies, hand out children’s books and dry some tears.

“This is not simply some random effort. Missouri was my home for over 30 years! I have walked the streets of Joplin, sung hymns with their parishioners, floated in their streams and shared laughter with their citizenry. My family still resides in Missouri. My friends live and work very near to Joplin.

“When tornadoes struck just north of Columbia, Mo.

Categories

RSS .

  • Yet Another Unlicensed Contractor Debacle 2017/07/10
    This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Another Clifford Ham boondoggle in San Diego 2017/04/19
    More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval. What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Writing our obit is a bit premature… 2017/04/06
    Welcome to 2017! Yeah, we know, a bit of time has passed since we’ve been hyperactive here. We’ve been a bit busy frying other fish.  If you consider yourself a progressive, you’ve already read and possibly even recognized our work elsewhere. We will be continuing those projects and check in here as not to neglect […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Welcome to the first business day of our reinvigorated 10 year run! 2017/01/02
    Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels. Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is […]
    Judicial Council Watcher
  • Working for the Judicial Council and a pattern of racketeering activity 2016/10/31
    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]
    Judicial Council Watcher

RSS Drudge Report Feed

.