archives

Open Source Application Foundation

This tag is associated with 9 posts

Ben Wong of Southern California Edison / CAUSE Linkedin Profile [TLR Note: 1. Notice connection to John Chiang 2. Wong — a Ph.D. in Cellular & Molecular Biology — yet employed as Local Public Affairs Officer at Southern California Edison 3. Wong – part of toxic and unlawful mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between utility SCE and Asian-American community in California conveniently arranged by a corn farmer from Iowa – SCE Director Ron Olson of Munger Tolles & Olson 4. Recently, California Bar Foundation Director Richard Tom of SCE — who criminally conspired with California Bar Foundation Director MTO’s Mary Ann Todd and others to knowingly press false criminal charges against YR — abruptly quit SCE ]

Ben Wong’s Overview

Current
Past
  • Regional Public Affairs Manager; Executive Director – Los Angeles County Division at League of California Cities
  • Assistant to the Boardmember at Office of Hon. John Chiang, CA State Board of Equalization, 4th District
  • City Council Member at City of West Covina
Education
  • University of Southern California
Connections
500+ connections
Websites

Ben Wong’s Experience

Local Public Affairs

Southern California Edison

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; EIX; Utilities industry

January 2010Present (3 years 3 months)

Regional Public Affairs Manager; Executive Director – Los Angeles County Division

League of California Cities

Nonprofit; 51-200 employees; Government Relations industry

January 2006January 2010 (4 years 1 month)

The League of California Cities is an association of California city officials who work together to enhance their knowledge and skills, exchange information, and combine resources so that they may influence policy decisions that affect cities.

The League’s mission statement reflects this commitment to “restore and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians”.

Assistant to the Boardmember

Office of Hon. John Chiang, CA State Board of Equalization, 4th District

July 2001January 2006 (4 years 7 months)

City Council Member

City of West Covina

April 1992December 2005 (13 years 9 months)

After being elected with nearly 65% of the vote in 1992, I was re-elected twice as the top vote getter in 1997 and 2001. Also served as Mayor in 1997-98 and 2001-02.

Ben Wong’s Education

University of Southern California

B.S. & Ph.D., Cellular & Molecular Biology

19691978

Source @:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ben-wong/6/81b/52b

+++++

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

MTO
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON: Ron Olson, Jeff Bleich, Brad Phiilips, Henry Weissmann, Robert Adler, Fred Rowley, Mary Ann Todd, and Misty Sanford

Ronald L. Olson of Munger Tolles

Southern California Edison - Ron Olson, John Bryson, Robert Adler, Richard Tom, Ben Wong

Ron Olson, John Bryson, Robert Adler, Richard Tom, and Ben Wong

Ron Olson, Mary Ann Todd, and Richard Tom

Ronald L. Olson of Munger Tolles & Olson

Ron, Jeff and Brad

Munger Tolles -- CAUSE

Ron, Fred, Ben Wong, James Hsu, Justice Ming Chin

MTO Verizon

Questions are being raised about the secretive relationship involving a utility company, a law firm, and a California judicial officer who stands united with Asian-American more so than he does for the population as a whole.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources maintain California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming Chin’s clandestine involvement with the Center for Asian-American United for Self Empowerment (“CAUSE”) is “far from over,” because new revelations now implicate Southern California Edison (“SCE”) and power-house Munger Tolles & Olson (“MTO”).


Mr Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. Ming, not a stranger to The Leslie Brodie report, partook in the “60 Days Suspension Scandal,” (See Part 1 and Part 2) wherein a lawyer with a prior criminal history engaged in a pogrom in a San Francisco synagogue, yet was only suspended for 60 days due to his political connections within the Democratic party, and courtesy of Judy Johnson, former crack-addict Mike Nisperos, and JoAnn Remke. (Photo:courtesy)

Wholly separate and apart from CaliforniaALL, at issue are funds bestowed on CAUSE by MTO and SCE while Justice Chin served as an official adviser to CAUSE during  the time period representatives of both SCE and MTO were members of CAUSE board of directors.

“For whatever reason, Ron Olson has a propensity to create those double wide loops where one person from SCE and one person from MTO would serve on the board of a non-profit that he has an interest in corrupting.  For example, at CAUSE he positioned Fred Rowley and Ben Wong  .  At the  California Bar Foundation he  positioned Mary Ann Todd and Richard Tom.  If I would be asked to speculate, I would say it is a form of an insurance, a way to ensure that SCE would stand by his side as co-defendant, say if a class-action is filed against MTO alleging that it misused a certain non-profit to bribe a CPUC commissioner for the purpose of allowing SCE to charge higher rates, for example.” a source seeking anonymity maintained.

As previously reported, Chin’s long-standing involvement with the entity which cater exclusively to Asian-American was the subject of a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance due to CAUSE’s invidious discrimination against those who are non Asian-American.   That complaint also alleged that the associate justice must be disciplined due to CAUSE involvement in the political-process, conduct that Chin is otherwise prohibited in engaging in pursuant to Canon 5.

The complaint alleged Justice Chin’s clandestine nature and undisclosed involvement is particularly troubling based on facts as they relate to Mr. James Hsu — CAUSE’s treasurer as well as a board member of a (now defunct) sham charitable entity known as CaliforniaALL –  as matters relating to CaliforniaALL would soon be considered by the California Supreme Court.

The complaint further alleged that  without the  “fortuitous discovery ” by the petitioner, he would not have known that Justice Chin and Hsu are involved with CAUSE as to seek the recusal of Justice Chin in matters relating to CaliforniaALL.

Similarly, the complaint alluded to  a State Bar of California petition in the matter of Sander vs. State Bar of California which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.  In that case, the State Bar seeks review of a decision that established a common law right of access to data concerning minorities which the State Bar possesses.  Hence, the complaint alleges, there is an impression that Justice Chin may exercise his power in such a way which would benefit minorities, much like his involvement with CAUSE conclusively establishes that he stands united with APA.

The latest allegations came as racial minorities in position of trust are routinely accused of intentional misrepresentation by failing to fulfill their duties to avoid any and all appearance of, let alone real, improprieties, and usually involving entities which are on the receiving end of money from large corporations, and usually utility companies. Most notable of which are “Shakedown Artist” Gwen Moore, Judy Johnson, Leslie Hatamiya, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Maria Lucy Armendariz-Antonio Villaraigosa, Alec Chang, Lawrence Yee, former crack-addict Mike Nisperos. Pat McElroy, and U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England. “

+++++

Fred Rowley –  As the wide network of Asian Pacific Islanders (“API”) operatives allegedly involved in myriad financial schemes on behalf of utility companies and their law firms continue to grow, a new wrinkle was recently added as California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin’s tenure has been shaken by revelations of alleged bribery by Edison International (“EIX”), Southern California Edison (“SCE”), and the law firm which represents them — Munger Tolles & Olson (“MTO”).


Fred Rowley of Munger Tolles & Olson who allegedly served as the middleman and conduit of bribes in his capacity as director of CAUSE. Once caught, Rowley conspired with Justice Chin, MTO, SCE, and others to defraud and mislead the California Commission on Judicial Performance. According to MTO, Rowley is a member of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council and the Pacific Council on International Policy. He also serves on the boards of directors of CAUSE, a non-profit that promotes Asian-Americans in politics. (image: courtesy of MTO)

A source familiar with the situation, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintain that “overwhelming and undisputed” evidence shows that for a period of several years, both SCE and MTO poured large amounts of money into a questionable non-profit entity for which Justice Chin served as an official adviser, albeit secretly so.

The non-profit at issue is Pasadena-based Center for Asian-American United for Self Empowerment (“CAUSE”), which allegedly spends the money it collects for the purpose of voter-registration of API, as well as to lobby for furthering the appointments of APIs to various governmental positions.

While Justice Chin’s clandestine involvement with CAUSE began in approximately 2004, the source maintain the inquiry is focused on the years prior to the recent election by which Justice Chin was up for re-election, and during the time period one alleged wrongdoer – API Fred Rowley of MTO – served as the middleman and conduit of bribes in his capacity as director of CAUSE.

This, according to the source, creates not only the appearance of improprieties but actual misconduct as bestowing anything of value on a judicial officer by SEC and MTO to sponsor an entity which will register as many as APIs as possible who would, in turn, vote for the retention of Chin in the upcoming election, is prohibited.

As mentioned earlier, Justice Chin abruptly quit CAUSE in the midst of an inquiry by the California Commission on Judicial Performance subsequent to a complaint which alleged that Chin’s long-standing involvement with the entity — which caters exclusively to APIs — is prohibitive due to CAUSE’s invidious discrimination against those who are non-API. At that time, those were the only allegations lodged, and no mention was made of alleged improprieties by EIX, SCE, or MTO.

Please continue @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/09/03/amid-allegations-of-bribery-call-fo…

—————————————————————————–

The Man Behind the Curtain — Director of Southern California Edison Ron Olson of Munger Tolles & Olson

GOOD Ol’ BOYS

Ronald Leroy Olson is a man proud of his humble Iowa background. Like his two close friends and business partners from across the Missouri River in Omaha, Nebraska — Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger –Olson prefers to not flash his wealth and engage in conspicuous consumption.

Ronald L. Olson of Munger Tolles & Olson
Ronald L. Olson (image:courtesy)

Given the opportunity, Olson will boast about his upbringing in Iowa, which he claims instilled in him an honest work ethic. To hear him talk, one would often believe that Olson is a good-ol’ country farmer who sweats profusely while tilling the land and fears the limelight lest it fade his suit, rather than the shrewd, well-connected attorney who sits on the board of Berkshire Hathaway, Edison International, Southern California Edison, City National Corporation, The Washington Post Company, Western Asset Trusts, RAND Corporation, the Mayo Clinic, and the Council of Foreign Relations, or the attorney who in his spare time practices law out of Los Angeles-based Munger Tolles Olson on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway, Edison International, Southern California Edison, Western Asset Trust, and many other entities such as The Yucaipa Company, Hollywood studios, and other major banks and utility companies.

A similar tactic is used by Warren Buffett, who portrays himself as the harmless average Joe who drinks 5 cans of Cherry Coke a day and spends his time playing bridge. Gold? That’s for Jews to sew into their garments, Charlie Munger declared recently. We are into value investing in productive and honest businesses. Greed ? Speculation? Hollywood? Churning ? Control and influence over banks, monetary policies, the media, utilities, and the government? Not us, no sirree Bob.

WAR STORY TIME

The second-in-command at Berkshire Hathaway — Charlie Munger — is not currently actively practicing law, although he holds the position of “of counsel” at Munger Tolles & Olson — a firm previously described by various media outlets as the best law firm in the country with an army of lawyers ready to wage war, and whose client list includes Berkshire Hathaway, Verizon Communication, and Southern California Edison.

Those warring lawyers often win various awards and designations by major California legal newspapers such as the “Los Angeles Daily Journal” and “San Francisco Daily Journal,” coincidentally owned by Charlie Munger, one of the founding fathers of Munger Tolles & Olson.

Other corporate law firms operating in California with large books of business from major utility companies include Northern California-based Morrison & Foerster (PG&E, El Paso), Keker & Van Nest (PG&E), DLA Piper (Sempra Energy, owner of San Diego Electricity ), and now-defunct Howard Rice (PG&E), which is now part of Arnold & Porter.

Beginning in 2000, these law firms were busy defending utility companies in the countless lawsuits and monumental proceedings stemming from California’s energy crisis. A unique features of those law firms is a tendency to obscure their corporate practices (i.e. defending tobacco companies, banks, utilities, mortgage companies) from public view. Instead, they would rather publicize their effort to promote diversity, and their alleged contributions to equal rights for all. For example, in the “Prop 8 marriage cases” Keker & Van Nest, Munger Tolles & Olson, Howard Rice, and Morrison & Foerster played pivotal roles. However, and although I may be mistaken, a quick review of Morrison & Foerster’s website listings for its California offices does not show even one male, African-American attorney working in California; moreover, Howard Rice has been sued for rescinding an offer of employment to a Latina attorney on the grounds of downsizing, only to continue to hire white men.

Those firms which represented the utility companies during California energy crisis, and the class-action plaintiffs’ firms who sued on behalf of consumers (such as Girardi & Keese and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy) developed a penchant for congregating around the State Bar of California, and more specifically the California Bar Foundation. At times, strange though it may seem, two representatives from the same firms would serve as directors of the California Bar Foundation, as was the case in 2007-2008 when Jeff Bleich and Bradley Phillips of Munger Tolles & Olson served as directors, or currently where there are two directors from Arnold Porter.

A GOLDEN CAPED SUPERMAN

In 2007, Jeffrey Bleich was a ready-to-wage-war attorney working for Ronald Leroy Olson at Munger Tolles & Olson who was dubbed by some media outlets as Superman.

Bleich (if you believe Charlie Munger, while he had gold sewed into his cape) launched and co-chaired the national finance committee of Obama for America. Other attorneys from law firms representing utility companies seeking to place Obama in office because they hoped he would support the Smart-Grid and clean energy initiatives followed suit. Steven Churchwell of DLA Piper in Sacramento , James Brosnahan, Tony West and Chris Young of Morrison & Foerster, Kamala Harris (a protege of Willie Brown – a lackey of PG&E), and Doug Scrivner (who served as chief legal counsel of Accenture- a relatively unknown yet powerful entity) organized to push for the election of Barack Obama on behalf of those seeking to promote green energy.

At that time, Bleich was on a mission to put Obama in office on behalf of utility companies. The cover story was that Bleich and Obama are “good friends” ever since Bleich was asked to recruit Obama as clerk for appellate court Justice Abner Mikva.

Bleich — while serving as member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors and as director of the California Bar Foundation (alongside another war ready, gold sewing attorney from Munger Tolles, Bradley Phillips) — was a man on a mission.

SMART GREED

While an officer at the State Bar of California, Jeffrey Bleich and James Brosnahan were instrumental in pushing for the urgent creation of a non-profit entity known as CaliforniaALL.

My inquiry into CaliforniaALL began close to one year ago when I stumbled upon unusually large and highly peculiar financial transactions in conjunction with what appeared to me to be clear attempts to conceal and mislead. In order to deflect potential allegations that I am motivated by politics, I wish to assure the readers that my inquiry into these issues was not and is not motivated by politics. In fact, the only actor that I have ever met is James Brosnahan, who I met once for a short period of time while a volunteer with BASF – VLSP, a volunteer organization that awarded me a volunteer of the year award.

In 2010, the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit issued its final ruling in the disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi by imposing close to $500,000 in sanctions on Walter Lack of Engstrom Lispcomb & Lack and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese stemming from an attempt to defraud the court and cause injury to Dole Food Company in the underlying litigation. You may have heard of Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi as they are the lawyers who were featured in the movie “Erin Brokovich” involving utility company PG&E.

The court ruled that Walter Lack (who stipulated to special prosecutor Rory Little that his prolonged acts of misconduct were intentional) and Thomas Girardi intentionally and recklessly resorted to the use of known falsehoods for years. The Ninth Circuit ordered Girardi and Lack to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California.

The State Bar of California disqualified itself from handling the matter since Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) served at that time as its president, and had also made the decision to hire then-chief prosecutor, James Towery.

Mr. Towery, in turn, appointed Jerome Falk of Howard Rice (now Arnold & Porter) as outside “special prosecutor” to determine whether or not to bring charges against Girardi and Lack. (Mr. Falk is a colleague of Douglas Winthrop, and both represented PG&E in its massive bankruptcy proceedings.)

Mr. Falk, in turn, exercised prosecutorial discretion and concluded that he did not believe Lack acted intentionally and that no charges will be brought against the two attorneys.

Within days of Mr. Falk’s decision, I filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of California against Jerome Falk, James Towery, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop (managing partner of Howard Rice and then-elected president of the Foundation), alleging that it was improper for Mr. Towery to appoint Mr. Falk given the close personal relationship between Howard Miller and Douglas Winthrop. Specifically, Howard Miller — in his capacity as president of the State Bar — had appointed Douglas Winthrop as president of the California Bar Foundation, a foundation maintained and controlled by the State Bar. (Much later I also discovered that Jerome Falk is actually the personal attorney of Thomas Girardi, and that Howard Rice and Jerome Falk represented Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, Engstrom Lispcomb & Lack, and Girardi & Keese in approximately 2007, and for a period of 2 years, in a malpractice action.)

As such, while at the time I was not familiar with those individuals, I reviewed the Foundation’s annual reports to familiarize myself with the names of the Foundation’s board of directors, and to try to resolve various inconsistencies regarding who was serving as the Foundation’s president and why Robert Scott Wylie appeared to be the president when data showed that he had relocated to Indiana in 2006. I checked the Foundation’s tax returns and it was then that I fortuitously stumbled upon the fact that the Foundation ended 2008 close to $500,000 in the negative. Specifically, the Foundation reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES in 2007 equaled plus +$373.842.00. However, in 2008, the Foundation reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES equaled minus -$537,712.

In its 2008 Annual Report (See page 9 : http://www.scribd.com/doc/48712884/3-2008-Annual-Report-of-Foundation-of-the-State-Bar-of-California-Foundation-AKA-California-Bar-Foundation ), the Foundation alludes to CaliforniaALL by stating:

“In 2007-2008, the Foundation supported the launching of CaliforniaALL and, as the project filed for incorporation and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, served as CaliforniaALL’s fiscal sponsor. A collaboration between the California Public Employment Retirement System, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Department of Insurance, and the State Bar of California, CaliforniaALL was created in an effort to close the achievement gap among California students from preschool to the profession and, specifically, to bolster the pipeline of young people of diverse backgrounds headed for careers in law, financial services, and technology. Once CaliforniaALL obtained its tax-exempt status and was able to function as a fully independent nonprofit organization, the foundation granted the balance of funds raised for the project – totaling $769,247 – to the new entity.”

Also cleverly buried in the California Bar Foundation’s 2008 annual report was the following sentence :

“We thank the following corporations for their gifts in support of CaliforniaALL:

AT & T

Edison International

PG & E Corporation Foundation

Verizon”

See page 24 : http://www.scribd.com/doc/48712884/3-2008-Annual-Report-of-Foundation-of-the-State-Bar-of-California-Foundation-AKA-California-Bar-Foundation
***

While I was able to ascertain from Foundation’s tax records an “exit” of the $774,247 in 2008 (the apparent source of which was allegedly the above-referenced 4 utility companies), I was unable to ascertain when and where the Foundation reported to the IRS — either in 2008 or 2007 or 2006 or 2005 — an “entry” of those funds which it allegedly held in trust for CaliforniaALL.

(Later, Jill Sperber of the State Bar of California, in a letter she sent to me dated July 28, 2011 claimed that “….No State Bar or California Bar Foundation funds were used for CaliforniaALL creation…The California Bar Foundation served as CaliforniaALL’s escrow holder only to hold fundraising funds before its formal incorporation… Once CaliforniaALL was formed as a non-profit entity, the funds were paid over to it…”

Most troubling, however, is the fact that Verizon did not report to the IRS either in 2007 or 2008 that it had contributed any money to the California Bar Foundation or CaliforniaALL. See :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102325087/Verizon-Foundation-IRS-990-Year-2007
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102325330/Verizon-Foundation-IRS-990-Year-2008

Ultimately, by conducting further research into the actors and events surrounding the Foundation, CaliforniaALL, and related entities, individuals, and events, I unearthed what appears to be a lengthy trail of attempts to mislead and defraud.

CaliforniaALL – Obama for America

In approximately 2007, Ruthe Catolico Ashley — an attorney from Sacramento and a member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors — was employed by Cal PERS as a “Diversity Officer.” Jeffrey Bleich of Munger Tolles & Olson was serving as President of the State Bar. Both Bleich and Ashley are politically active, and were supporting the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama for President. Ruthe Ashley was involved in the Asian-Americans for Obama branch in Sacramento.

In April 2007, Chief of Staff to CPUC’s President Michael Peevey, Peter Arth, Jr. urged Ruthe Catolico Ashley to meet him at a restaurant in San Francisco. During that meeting, the idea to create CaliforniaALL (initially named CaAAL or CaALL) was conceived.

In its brief existence, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra, Southern California Edison), including a sub-rosa “hush -hush”contribution of $769,247.00 from the California Bar Foundation — –CaliforniaALL appears to have been be a sham, phantom entity.

CaliforniaALL was conveniently housed free of charge at the offices of DLA Piper in Sacramento, alongside the draft committee of OBAMA FOR AMERICA . Steve Churchwell of DLA Piper in Sacramento served as Treasurer of the draft committee of OBAMA FOR AMERICA.

Subsequent to the election of Barack Obama, CaliforniaALL was dissolved.

As matters presently stand, my inquiry leads me to suspect 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)

Annette Carnegie (former director with the California Bar Foundation

In conjunction with:

Kamala Harris (Co-Chair, Obama for America ; member of CaliforniaALL)

Jeffrey Bleich (Munger Tolles & Olson, president of the State Bar of California, director with the California Bar Foundation, founding member and Chair of Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee)

Steven Churchwell ( DLA Piper, Treasurer, draft committee of OBAMA FOR AMERICA)

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 — CaliforniaALL.

CaliforniaALL – The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)

Given the above suspicious circumstantial evidence surrounding CaliforniaALL, due to recent wide media coverage dealing with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), I begun to also entertain thoughts that the owner of SONGS (Edison International and Sempra Energy) as well as the law firms which represent Edison International and Sempra Energy (Munger Tolles & Olson and DLA Piper, respectively) may have also taken the opportunity to misuse the California Bar Foundation / CaliforniaALL to bribe CPUC officials in matters relating to SONGS.

Specifically, serving alongside Jeffrey Bleich and Bradley Phillips as director of the California Bar Foundation was also CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown, cousin of California Governor Jerry Brown.

See bottom page: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48712884/3-2008-Annual-Report-of-Foundation-of-the-State-Bar-of-California-Foundation-AKA-California-Bar-Foundation

As a reminder, while Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips and CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown served as director of the California Bar Foundation an unusually large and unexplained sum of money (courtesy of utility companies) was allocated to be transferred to CaliforniaALL — an entity created through the urging of Peter Arth of the CPUC.

Incidentally, during the same time period, Geoffrey Brown was the assigned commissioner in the application Edison International/ Southern California Edison submitted to the CPUC for authorization: (1) to replace SONGS 2 & 3 steam generators; (2) establish ratemaking for cost recovery; and (3) address other related steam generator replacement issues.

To contact the author: yoloanrabbi@gmail.com

Source @: http://tinyurl.com/9ypyes7

Advertisements

Monica Walsh — Owner of Manika Jewelry and Friend of Bettina Neuefeind — Hereby Asked to Comment on Matters Relating to Peculiar Involvement with Two Non-Profit Entities Known as Democracy Fund, Inc.

Manika
Monica Walsh
Joe Trippi Lester LessigAaron Swartz
In March 2008, Larry Lessig, Joe Trippi, Aaron Swartz, and Manika Jewelry’s Monica Walsh launched a Section 501(C)(4) non-profit entity known as “Change Congress.” Simultaneously, they also launched a Section 501(C)(3) non-profit entity known as “Change V2 Foundation,” the purpose of which was to fund-raise on behalf of and financially support “Change Congress.” Prior to the 2009 relocation to Manika Jewelry’s store, both Change Congress and Change V2 Foundation were conveniently housed at The Kapor Center, located at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco. From left are Monica Walsh, Joe Trippi, Larry Lessig, and Aaron Swartz. (image: courtesy photo)

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 while affording those involved the opportunity to comment, Manika Jewelry’s Monica Walsh of Change Congress / Change V2 Foundation hereby asked to comment on peculiar phenomenon by which she was concurrently involved with two separate non-profit entities known as Democracy Fund, Inc.

In 2010 Larry Lessig,  Manika Jewelry’s Monica Walsh, and others launched a whole new Section 501(C) non-profit entity known as “Democracy Fund, Inc.”  — EIN 27-2439840

Larry Lessig and Monica Walsh Democracy Fund Inc of MA

 

Strangely, on 6/6/2011 Larry Lessig, Manika Jewelry’s Monica Walsh, and others caused Change V2 Foundation (which was launched in 2008) to also operate under the name “Democracy Fund, Inc.” — EIN 26-3088283

Chane V2 Foundation Name Change to Democracy Fund Inc

 

 

 

Mitch Kapor
Mitchell Kapor, the spouse of CaliforniaALL’s Freada Klein Kapor and overseer of the many foundations and businesses housed at The Kapor Center, located at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco. Although other potential explanations certainly exist, as matters presently stand, it appears that operatives participated in what appears to be a sophisticated financial scheme to misuse the California Bar Foundation and non-profit entity CaliforniaALL as a vehicle to embezzle and launder funds originated from major utility companies and the California Bar Foundation to push for the election of Barack Obama in general, and on behalf of those seeking to promote green energy in particular.  Presently, viewed as potential wrongdoers are Jeffrey Bleich, Ron Olson, Brad Phillips (of Munger Tolles & Olson) John Roos and Mark Parnes (of Wilson Sonsini) James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, Annette Carnegie (of Morrison & Foerster) Steven Churchwell (of DLA Piper in Sacramento) Kamala Harris and Freada Klein Kapor of CaliforniaALL.(Image:courtesy photo)

Bettina NeuefeindMitch Kapor's Open Source Applications Foundation Phone Banking to Swing States for Obama
Bettina Neuefeind (on right) — spouse of Larry Lessig and office manager of OBAMA FOR AMERICA in San Francisco — shown above at The Kapor Center, located at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco. During the 2008 presidential election, the phone banks situated at The Kapor Center and generally used to fund-raise on behalf of the many foundations located there, were additionally used to contact potential voters and encourage them to vote for then candidate Barack Obama.(image: courtesy)

Please feel free to comment @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/10/07/lawrence-larry-lessig-in-the-myster…

 

Dateline 2009: Asian Americans for Obama Gather at Manika Jewelry (TLR Note: store owned by friend of Bettina Neuefeind — Monica Walsh of Change Congress

Please Join: Vida Benavides, Monica Walsh, Laura Efurd, Maria Echeveste, Yoko Nakagawa, Keith Kamisugi, Gene Benavides, Bouapha Toommaly, Trina Villanueva, Hector Preciado, Emi Gusukuma, Tessie Guillermo, Daphne Kwok in a Conversation with Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in American Came To Be.”

 Tuesday, February 17, 2009
12 Noon-2:00 PM

Manika Jewelry
11 Maiden Lane
San Francisco, Ca 94108

(Light Refreshments Served)

RSVP to vidab64@gmail.com

Please see @:  http://www.asianamericansforobama.com/progressive-revolution-conversation-boo…

 

La información académica también quiere ser libre.

Aaron Swartz (image: courtesy)

As was reported earlier, last year Aaron Swartz was indicted on four felony counts for allegedly stealing millions of academic journal articles from JSTOR. Today, Federal prosecutors piled on nine additional felony charges. The charges (PDF) are mostly covered under the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and are likely to test the legislation’s limits. According to Wired, “The indictment accuses Swartz of repeatedly spoofing the MAC address — an identifier that is usually static — of his computer after MIT blocked his computer based on that number. The grand jury indictment also notes that Swartz didn’t provide a real e-mail address when registering on the network. Swartz also allegedly snuck an Acer laptop bought just for the downloading into a closet at MIT in order to get a persistent connection to the network. Swartz allegedly hid his face from surveillance cameras by holding his bike helmet up to his face and looking through the ventilation holes when going in to swap out an external drive used to store the documents. Swartz also allegedly named his guest account ‘Gary Host,’ with the nickname ‘Ghost.’”  Please continue @: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony/

Separately, the various civil and journalistic inquiries into events surrounding CaliforniaALL / Obama for America / Mitch and Freada Kapor / Bettina Neuefeind (as well as derevative inquiries into the countless foundations and businesses located at The Kapor Center at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco) are still underway to determine the journey and final identities of  Change Congress / Change V2 Foundation with special attention being paid to Larry Lessig, Bettina Neuefeind, Monica Walsh, and David Swartz in connection with the following:

change-congress.org
THE DEMOCRACY FUND, INC
THE DEMOCRACY EDUCATION FUND, INC.
fixcongressfirst.org
http://www.rootstrikers.org/who_we_are
http://unitedrepublic.org/about/team
United Republic Education Fund
http://fundfortherepublic.org/about/board/

Larry Lessig
Larry Lessig. In March 2008, Joe Trippi and Larry Lessig launched a Section 501(C)(4) non-profit entity known as “Change Congress.” Simultaneously, Trippy and Lessig launched a Section 501(C)(3) non-profit entity known as “Change V2 Foundation,” the purpose of which was to fund-raise on behalf of and financially support “Change Congress.” Both Change Congress and Change V2 Foundation were conveniently housed at The Kapor Center, located at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco.(image: courtesy photo)

 

Change Congress, Larry Lessig, Joe Trippi, Monica Walsh, Adam Swartz

 

 

 

Mitch Kapor
Mitchell Kapor, the spouse of CaliforniaALL’s Freada Klein Kapor and overseer of the many foundations and businesses housed at The Kapor Center, located at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco. Although other potential explanations certainly exist, as matters presently stand, it appears that operatives participated in what appears to be a sophisticated financial scheme to misuse the California Bar Foundation and non-profit entity CaliforniaALL as a vehicle to embezzle and launder funds originated from major utility companies and the California Bar Foundation to push for the election of Barack Obama in general, and on behalf of those seeking to promote green energy in particular.  Presently, viewed as potential wrongdoers are Jeffrey Bleich, Ron Olson, Brad Phillips (of Munger Tolles & Olson) John Roos and Mark Parnes (of Wilson Sonsini) James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, Annette Carnegie (of Morrison & Foerster) Steven Churchwell (of DLA Piper in Sacramento) Kamala Harris and Freada Klein Kapor of CaliforniaALL.(Image:courtesy photo)

Bettina NeuefeindMitch Kapor's Open Source Applications Foundation Phone Banking to Swing States for Obama
Bettina Neuefeind (on right) — spouse of Larry Lessig and office manager of OBAMA FOR AMERICA in San Francisco — shown above at The Kapor Center, located at 543 Howard St., 5th. Floor, in San Francisco. During the 2008 presidential election, the phone banks situated at The Kapor Center and generally used to fund-raise on behalf of the many foundations located there, were additionally used to contact potential voters and encourage them to vote for then candidate Barack Obama.(image: courtesy)

 

END OF REPORT

Ben and Shauna Pilgreen of San Francisco’s Epic Church at 543 Howard Revisited — Church Launched on Barack Obama’s Inaaguration Day — YR Alleges to Mask Fingerprints of Kapor/OSAP/CaliforniaALL/Obama for America

ben could be still only so long –

 

i could for too long.
so together, we went out on the boats

 

our favorite meal? sushi.

Ben Pilgreen

Lead Pastor
ben@epicsf.com

Tim Milner

Executive Pastor
tim@epicsf.com

Brad Keel

Worship Pastor
brad@epicsf.com

Lindsey Lee

Director of City Life
lindsey@epicsf.com

Ben Lee

Director of Media
ben.lee@epicsf.com

Source:  http://epicsf.com/about-us/epic-team/

=======

Furnishing Epic’s New Space at 543 Howard  source: http://epicsf.com/543howard/

We are so excited about moving into our new space.  To make our space ready, we are going to have to buy quite a few things we haven’t needed before.  This is due to the fact that the W Hotel provided many of the things that we must now provide ourselves.  It is also due to the fact that our new space was set up for office use, not so much for a church.  I would love for you to consider giving towards the 543 Howard Fund.  Listed below, you will see the categories of things we’re going to have to purchase and what each area will cost.  You can see giving instructions at the bottom of this page.  Thanks so much for making an investment in Epic Church.

Chairs: $14,533.75

This includes the manufacturing and shipping costs for 230 chairs.  Each chair comes out to a little over $60.  The W Hotel gave us chairs to use while we were meeting there.  We must provide our own chairs in this new space.

Staging: $6,575.00

The W Hotel provided a stage to use while we were meeting there.  We must provide our own stage in this new space.

Audio/Visual: $17,620.00

To turn this office space into church space, we have to convert the current lighting system in the main room.  Because this space has different dimensions than our space we have been using, we must also order new display screens.  We must provide sound panels to help out with the acoustics in the room.

Epic Kids: $3,500.00

We are purchasing a video monitor system for security purposes for our kids ministry.  We are also purchasing TV screens for two of the kids rooms in which we will be using DVD curriculum.  We will also be adding whiteboards for each room, a changing table, storage shelves, and other items to make these rooms kid-friendly.

Supplies/Signage: $2,000.00

Because we have our own space now, there are certain supplies we’ll have to buy for the first time (vacuum cleaner, other cleaning supplies, plunger, coffee maker, trash cans, etc.).  We will also be ordering new signage that will help direct people where to go.  This also includes a wall sign in our new lobby that indicates the space belongs to Epic Church.

Giving Instructions

Giving by Check: Please be sure to put what it’s for in the memo line. Make checks payable to Epic Church and mail to:

Epic Church
PO Box 77604
San Francisco, CA 94107

Source:  http://epicsf.com/543howard/

=====

BEN AND SHAUNA TRIP TO HAWAII 

Source:

http://www.shaunapilgreen.com/2012/05/island.html

Saturday, May 19, 2012

 

 

island

how to enjoy the island of oahu all while encouraging a future church planting family:

 

say goodbye to routine as you know it.

 

 

say aloha to an island and culture where being laid back isn’t viewed as negative, 
rather viewed as a value.

 

see the island from a local’s point of view, rather than a tourist’s point of view.
henry’s place has been moved around as commercialism has taken over waikiki. yet he still makes homemade fresh fruit ice cream served in styrofoam cups in the back room of his small store tucked in the shadow of donald trump’s hotel. 

 

 

stay on your time zone and wake up long before the rest of the island. this gives you the beaches and the roads to your exploring. 

 

rent a jeep online before you go. it’s the same rate as a midsize car, but way more fun. we both were happy. ben got to tour the island with the top off and i got my sun that way instead of laying dormant on the beach. 

 

 

 

we were told to hike diamondhead but it was closed the week we were there. so we drove along the windward side of the island. 

 

walk along sandy beach park where the waves crash against the mighty rock.

 

drive to the north shore where the surfers hang and wait for the perfect wave. they say they’re much higher in january. 

 

collect sea glass. that’s the only treasure from the beach you can legally bring home. 

 

every few minutes, stand still wherever you find yourself on the island and take in His creation. every mountain, every wave, every coral reef is alive and under His submission.

 

A Little About our Adoption

 

Source:

http://www.shaunapilgreen.com/p/a-little-about-our-adoption.html

 

 

the timeline as it happens:

 

November 2011-January 2012: Praying and seeking about our family’s involvement with adoption

 

April 4.2012: Filled out international adoption registration online

 

April 12.2012: Filled out AWAA paperwork; paid $300 application fee

 

April 24.2012: Called and had questions answered by AWAA

 

May 4.2012: Approved for India adoption program with AWAA

 

May 5.2012: Paid initial placement fee of $2200

 

May 4-6.2012: We share with our family about this great news

 

May 13.2012: We share with our church family about our adoption

 

May 19.2012: Wrote our 2-4 page autobiographies

May 19.2012: Signed international adoption disclaimer
May 19.2012: Signed adoption agreement
May 19.2012: Signed duty of candor
May 19.2012: Signed financial disclosure statement
May 19.2012: Signed clearance questionnaire, each of us
May 19.2012: Filled out verification of residency

 

May 20.2012: Filled out and signed letter of guardianship

 

May 21.2012: Sent off for birth certificates (ordering Ben’s BC $47.95, Shauna’s BC $22)

May 21.2012: Sent off for marriage certificate ($41.36)
May 21.2012: Obtained employment verification letter from Epic Church.

 

May 22.2012: Accomplished live scan fingerprinting ($178)

 

May 25.2012: Received Ben’s birth certificate

 

May 28.2012: Signed reading agreement after choosing 5 books we         will read.

 

May 28.2012: Ordered 3 books from our list from amazon. Checked one out from the local library. Borrowed one from friend.

 

May 29.2012: Paid $2889 for home study and travel fee
May 29.2012: Gathered copy of marriage license, insurance cards, most recent tax documents (for past two years – first and last pages) and birth certificates

 

June 1.2012: Physicals complete and form notarized (Shauna $789; Ben $699; notary $20)

 

June 4.2012: Received letter of guardianship from family 

 

June 11.2012: Received our marriage certificate

 

June 30.2012: Completed the first home study – a walk around the house and get-to-know you with social worker

 

July 5.2012: Paid $195 for Hague online training

 

July 6.2012: Started watching the 10 hours of Hague online training videos

 

July 11.2012: Boys had their physicals

 

July 14.2012: Completed the second home study – interview with us and the kids by same social worker

 

July 15.2012: Wow! Finished our 10 hours of Hague online training

 

July 21.2012: Completed the third and final home study 

 

July 27.2012: Received finalized and approved home study from AWAA

August 1.2012: AWAA sought to register us with CARA (India’s adoption authority). We were one of the 100 applicants they received this month.

August 6.2012: Mailed USCIS I-800A form through Fed EX ($890+ $36)

August 8.2012: Mailed birth certificates, marriage certificates to be apostilled ($62.90)

August 13-15.2012: Mailed adoption packets; Posted adoption fundraising on blog ($250 for postage and printing)

August 22.2012: It’s official! We are registered and approved to adopt in India.

September 4.2012: We received our orphanage match! Northwest India.

September 5.2012: 12 documents notarized ($120); Overnighted marriage certificate to GA ($38.17); Police Clearance Letters/Mobile Notary ($50).

September 10.2012: We received apostilled marriage license in from Secretary of State in GA.

September 10.2012: USCIS biometrics (fingerprinting) appointment for us here in our city.

September 11.2012: Ben drove to Sacramento to get all of our documents (17) apostilled (state seal by the Secretary of State of California). ($382)

September 11.2012: Shauna made 365 copies of the completed dossier. ($38)

September 12.2012: Mailed dossier to AWAA, overnighted through FedEx. (dossier submission = $7,335)


_________________________________________________________________________________

 

our family – me, ben, elijah, sam, and asher have the capacity to love another. 

 

two of our said purposes as a family are to share our joy-filled home and to embark daily on this faith adventure.

 

so once again, hand in hand, all five of us, step out in faith to pursue the heartbeat of God. 
His heart beats passionately for the orphans.
mine and ben’s hearts are heavy and stirring.
in prayerful obedience we pursue adoption.
with our three boys at our side we trust God.

 


india.
a girl.
american world adoption.

 

we seek to do for this child what God has done through Christ for us all – He calls us His very own.

 

we seek to pour into her life, to invest in her life.

 

we seek to love her as our own. 

 

we seek to give her a home within our home. 
to invite her in as family. as our daughter.

 

for me, i long to embrace the honor of nurturing this precious girl to know her value and worth in Jesus Christ.

 

for ben, he looks forward to seeing her respond to being loved to pieces by all 5 of us. he can’t wait to be a dad to this sweet princess.

 

for our boys, they are happy to have another sibling. to have a Pilgreen girl. to teach her baseball. to demonstrate kindness delicately.

 

many uncertainties encompass this journey.
many what ifs. 
we’ve never pursued adoption. this is a first.
india is a pilot program for awaa. 
they have unanswered questions.
how long?
how old will she be?
what is her story as of now?

 

our story together is infused with faith.
faith that she has someone who loves her deeply and is coming for her.
faith that we will pursue God’s heart daily as He directs our steps towards her.
we live on different continents today.
but soon, our lives will be shared under one roof. 

 

until then, we invite you into the story.
you’ve walked with us in prayer and support to start a church in san francisco. 
He’s been faithful.
walk with us some more. to india and back.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Mitchell KaporFreada Kapor Klein 

(L) Mitch Kapor, confederate of FBI’s Shrimpscam Gwen Moore and Judy Johnson, recently dubbed “Michael Shames of Northern California” because of a propensity to operate through a foundation, and than some. For example, in 2008, the Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)– a non-profit organization founded in 2002 by Mitch Kapor whose purpose was to effect widespread adoption of free software/open-source software — was purposefully used to effect political propaganda on behalf of “OBAMA FOR AMERICA.” Presently, both he and his spouse, CaliforniaALL director Freada Kapor Klein(R), are under extreme scrutiny in connection with the unsettling financial transactions involving the California Bar Foundation and CaliforniaALL. (image:courtesy)

Mitch Kapor's Open Source Applications Foundation Phone Banking to Swing States for Obama

 

CaliforniaALL’s Kamala Harris of OBAMA FOR AMERICA visits the Kapor Center located at 543 Howard Street in San Francisco.

 

Bettina Neuefeind
In 2008, serving as San Francisco “office-manager” of OBAMA FOR AMERICA was Bettina Neuefeind, shown above at “The Kapor Center.” Neuefeind is married to Larry Lessig — a known confederate of Mitch Kapor. (image:courtesy)

———————————————————————–

 

 

Ben and Shauna Pilgreen of San Francisco’s Epic Church at 543 Howard Revisited — Church Launched on Barack Obama’s Inaaguration Day — YR Alleges to Mask Fingerprints of Kapor/OSAP/CaliforniaALL/Obama for America

ben could be still only so long –

 

i could for too long.
so together, we went out on the boats

 

our favorite meal? sushi.

Ben Pilgreen

Lead Pastor
ben@epicsf.com

Tim Milner

Executive Pastor
tim@epicsf.com

Brad Keel

Worship Pastor
brad@epicsf.com

Lindsey Lee

Director of City Life
lindsey@epicsf.com

Ben Lee

Director of Media
ben.lee@epicsf.com

Source:  http://epicsf.com/about-us/epic-team/

=======

Furnishing Epic’s New Space at 543 Howard  source: http://epicsf.com/543howard/

We are so excited about moving into our new space.  To make our space ready, we are going to have to buy quite a few things we haven’t needed before.  This is due to the fact that the W Hotel provided many of the things that we must now provide ourselves.  It is also due to the fact that our new space was set up for office use, not so much for a church.  I would love for you to consider giving towards the 543 Howard Fund.  Listed below, you will see the categories of things we’re going to have to purchase and what each area will cost.  You can see giving instructions at the bottom of this page.  Thanks so much for making an investment in Epic Church.

Chairs: $14,533.75

This includes the manufacturing and shipping costs for 230 chairs.  Each chair comes out to a little over $60.  The W Hotel gave us chairs to use while we were meeting there.  We must provide our own chairs in this new space.

Staging: $6,575.00

The W Hotel provided a stage to use while we were meeting there.  We must provide our own stage in this new space.

Audio/Visual: $17,620.00

To turn this office space into church space, we have to convert the current lighting system in the main room.  Because this space has different dimensions than our space we have been using, we must also order new display screens.  We must provide sound panels to help out with the acoustics in the room.

Epic Kids: $3,500.00

We are purchasing a video monitor system for security purposes for our kids ministry.  We are also purchasing TV screens for two of the kids rooms in which we will be using DVD curriculum.  We will also be adding whiteboards for each room, a changing table, storage shelves, and other items to make these rooms kid-friendly.

Supplies/Signage: $2,000.00

Because we have our own space now, there are certain supplies we’ll have to buy for the first time (vacuum cleaner, other cleaning supplies, plunger, coffee maker, trash cans, etc.).  We will also be ordering new signage that will help direct people where to go.  This also includes a wall sign in our new lobby that indicates the space belongs to Epic Church.

Giving Instructions

Giving by Check: Please be sure to put what it’s for in the memo line. Make checks payable to Epic Church and mail to:

Epic Church
PO Box 77604
San Francisco, CA 94107

Source:  http://epicsf.com/543howard/

=====

BEN AND SHAUNA TRIP TO HAWAII 

Source:

http://www.shaunapilgreen.com/2012/05/island.html

Saturday, May 19, 2012

 

 

island

how to enjoy the island of oahu all while encouraging a future church planting family:

 

say goodbye to routine as you know it.

 

 

say aloha to an island and culture where being laid back isn’t viewed as negative, 
rather viewed as a value.

 

see the island from a local’s point of view, rather than a tourist’s point of view.
henry’s place has been moved around as commercialism has taken over waikiki. yet he still makes homemade fresh fruit ice cream served in styrofoam cups in the back room of his small store tucked in the shadow of donald trump’s hotel. 

 

 

stay on your time zone and wake up long before the rest of the island. this gives you the beaches and the roads to your exploring. 

 

rent a jeep online before you go. it’s the same rate as a midsize car, but way more fun. we both were happy. ben got to tour the island with the top off and i got my sun that way instead of laying dormant on the beach. 

 

 

 

we were told to hike diamondhead but it was closed the week we were there. so we drove along the windward side of the island. 

 

walk along sandy beach park where the waves crash against the mighty rock.

 

drive to the north shore where the surfers hang and wait for the perfect wave. they say they’re much higher in january. 

 

collect sea glass. that’s the only treasure from the beach you can legally bring home. 

 

every few minutes, stand still wherever you find yourself on the island and take in His creation. every mountain, every wave, every coral reef is alive and under His submission.

 

A Little About our Adoption

 

Source:

http://www.shaunapilgreen.com/p/a-little-about-our-adoption.html

 

 

the timeline as it happens:

 

November 2011-January 2012: Praying and seeking about our family’s involvement with adoption

 

April 4.2012: Filled out international adoption registration online

 

April 12.2012: Filled out AWAA paperwork; paid $300 application fee

 

April 24.2012: Called and had questions answered by AWAA

 

May 4.2012: Approved for India adoption program with AWAA

 

May 5.2012: Paid initial placement fee of $2200

 

May 4-6.2012: We share with our family about this great news

 

May 13.2012: We share with our church family about our adoption

 

May 19.2012: Wrote our 2-4 page autobiographies

May 19.2012: Signed international adoption disclaimer
May 19.2012: Signed adoption agreement
May 19.2012: Signed duty of candor
May 19.2012: Signed financial disclosure statement
May 19.2012: Signed clearance questionnaire, each of us
May 19.2012: Filled out verification of residency

 

May 20.2012: Filled out and signed letter of guardianship

 

May 21.2012: Sent off for birth certificates (ordering Ben’s BC $47.95, Shauna’s BC $22)

May 21.2012: Sent off for marriage certificate ($41.36)
May 21.2012: Obtained employment verification letter from Epic Church.

 

May 22.2012: Accomplished live scan fingerprinting ($178)

 

May 25.2012: Received Ben’s birth certificate

 

May 28.2012: Signed reading agreement after choosing 5 books we         will read.

 

May 28.2012: Ordered 3 books from our list from amazon. Checked one out from the local library. Borrowed one from friend.

 

May 29.2012: Paid $2889 for home study and travel fee
May 29.2012: Gathered copy of marriage license, insurance cards, most recent tax documents (for past two years – first and last pages) and birth certificates

 

June 1.2012: Physicals complete and form notarized (Shauna $789; Ben $699; notary $20)

 

June 4.2012: Received letter of guardianship from family 

 

June 11.2012: Received our marriage certificate

 

June 30.2012: Completed the first home study – a walk around the house and get-to-know you with social worker

 

July 5.2012: Paid $195 for Hague online training

 

July 6.2012: Started watching the 10 hours of Hague online training videos

 

July 11.2012: Boys had their physicals

 

July 14.2012: Completed the second home study – interview with us and the kids by same social worker

 

July 15.2012: Wow! Finished our 10 hours of Hague online training

 

July 21.2012: Completed the third and final home study 

 

July 27.2012: Received finalized and approved home study from AWAA

August 1.2012: AWAA sought to register us with CARA (India’s adoption authority). We were one of the 100 applicants they received this month.

August 6.2012: Mailed USCIS I-800A form through Fed EX ($890+ $36)

August 8.2012: Mailed birth certificates, marriage certificates to be apostilled ($62.90)

August 13-15.2012: Mailed adoption packets; Posted adoption fundraising on blog ($250 for postage and printing)

August 22.2012: It’s official! We are registered and approved to adopt in India.

September 4.2012: We received our orphanage match! Northwest India.

September 5.2012: 12 documents notarized ($120); Overnighted marriage certificate to GA ($38.17); Police Clearance Letters/Mobile Notary ($50).

September 10.2012: We received apostilled marriage license in from Secretary of State in GA.

September 10.2012: USCIS biometrics (fingerprinting) appointment for us here in our city.

September 11.2012: Ben drove to Sacramento to get all of our documents (17) apostilled (state seal by the Secretary of State of California). ($382)

September 11.2012: Shauna made 365 copies of the completed dossier. ($38)

September 12.2012: Mailed dossier to AWAA, overnighted through FedEx. (dossier submission = $7,335)


_________________________________________________________________________________

 

our family – me, ben, elijah, sam, and asher have the capacity to love another. 

 

two of our said purposes as a family are to share our joy-filled home and to embark daily on this faith adventure.

 

so once again, hand in hand, all five of us, step out in faith to pursue the heartbeat of God. 
His heart beats passionately for the orphans.
mine and ben’s hearts are heavy and stirring.
in prayerful obedience we pursue adoption.
with our three boys at our side we trust God.

 


india.
a girl.
american world adoption.

 

we seek to do for this child what God has done through Christ for us all – He calls us His very own.

 

we seek to pour into her life, to invest in her life.

 

we seek to love her as our own. 

 

we seek to give her a home within our home. 
to invite her in as family. as our daughter.

 

for me, i long to embrace the honor of nurturing this precious girl to know her value and worth in Jesus Christ.

 

for ben, he looks forward to seeing her respond to being loved to pieces by all 5 of us. he can’t wait to be a dad to this sweet princess.

 

for our boys, they are happy to have another sibling. to have a Pilgreen girl. to teach her baseball. to demonstrate kindness delicately.

 

many uncertainties encompass this journey.
many what ifs. 
we’ve never pursued adoption. this is a first.
india is a pilot program for awaa. 
they have unanswered questions.
how long?
how old will she be?
what is her story as of now?

 

our story together is infused with faith.
faith that she has someone who loves her deeply and is coming for her.
faith that we will pursue God’s heart daily as He directs our steps towards her.
we live on different continents today.
but soon, our lives will be shared under one roof. 

 

until then, we invite you into the story.
you’ve walked with us in prayer and support to start a church in san francisco. 
He’s been faithful.
walk with us some more. to india and back.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Mitchell KaporFreada Kapor Klein 

(L) Mitch Kapor, confederate of FBI’s Shrimpscam Gwen Moore and Judy Johnson, recently dubbed “Michael Shames of Northern California” because of a propensity to operate through a foundation, and than some. For example, in 2008, the Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)– a non-profit organization founded in 2002 by Mitch Kapor whose purpose was to effect widespread adoption of free software/open-source software — was purposefully used to effect political propaganda on behalf of “OBAMA FOR AMERICA.” Presently, both he and his spouse, CaliforniaALL director Freada Kapor Klein(R), are under extreme scrutiny in connection with the unsettling financial transactions involving the California Bar Foundation and CaliforniaALL. (image:courtesy)

Mitch Kapor's Open Source Applications Foundation Phone Banking to Swing States for Obama

 

CaliforniaALL’s Kamala Harris of OBAMA FOR AMERICA visits the Kapor Center located at 543 Howard Street in San Francisco.

 

Bettina Neuefeind
In 2008, serving as San Francisco “office-manager” of OBAMA FOR AMERICA was Bettina Neuefeind, shown above at “The Kapor Center.” Neuefeind is married to Larry Lessig — a known confederate of Mitch Kapor. (image:courtesy)

———————————————————————–

 

 

Meet Defunct Chandler Project — Developed by Kapor’s Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF) (TLR Note: Used Unlawfully to Promote Barack Obama in 2008 — Dissolved Once Obama Took Office — Whereupon “Ben and Shauna Pilgreen” Launched Epic Church at

Chandler is a personal information management software suite described by its developers as a “Note-to-Self Organizer”[citation needed] designed for personal and small-group task management and calendaring. It is free software, previously released under the GNU General Public License, and now released under the Apache License 2.0. It is inspired by a PIM from the 1980s called Lotus Agenda, notable because of its “free-form” approach to information management. Lead developer of Agenda, Mitch Kapor, was also involved in the vision and management of Chandler.

————————————————————————————–

Mitchell KaporFreada Kapor Klein 

(L) Mitch Kapor, confederate of FBI’s Shrimpscam Gwen Moore and Judy Johnson, recently dubbed “Michael Shames of Northern California” because of a propensity to operate through a foundation, and than some. For example, in 2008, the Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)– a non-profit organization founded in 2002 by Mitch Kapor whose purpose was to effect widespread adoption of free software/open-source software — was purposefully used to effect political propaganda on behalf of “OBAMA FOR AMERICA.” Presently, both he and his spouse, CaliforniaALL director Freada Kapor Klein(R), are under extreme scrutiny in connection with the unsettling financial transactions involving the California Bar Foundation and CaliforniaALL. (image:courtesy)

Mitch Kapor's Open Source Applications Foundation Phone Banking to Swing States for Obama

 

CaliforniaALL’s Kamala Harris of OBAMA FOR AMERICA visits the Kapor Center located at 543 Howard Street in San Francisco.

 

Bettina Neuefeind
In 2008, serving as San Francisco “office-manager” of OBAMA FOR AMERICA was Bettina Neuefeind, shown above at “The Kapor Center.” Neuefeind is married to Larry Lessig — a known confederate of Mitch Kapor. (image:courtesy)

———————————————————————–

Chandler consists of a cross-platform desktop application (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux), the Chandler Hub Sharing Service, Chandler Server, Chandler Quick Entry for iPhone, Chandler Quick Entry for Android and Chandler iGoogle widget. Version 1.0 of the software was released on August 8, 2008.

Chandler is being developed by the Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF). The main programming language is Python, and it runs under Windows, Linux, and Macintosh. It is named after the mystery novelist Raymond Chandler.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_%28software%29

———————————————————————-

Years ago, Mitch Kapor invested large sums of money into the OSAF – Open Source Applications Foundation – to come up with a new personal information manager called Chandler. Having burned through the $8 million they got via various means ($5M from Kapor originally), most (all?) of their developers were cut loose early in 2009 as I understand it, leaving the Chandler project – and associated projects – somewhat in limbo.

On a whim, I decided to have a look at the current state of play: turns out Chandler 1.0 is pretty much dead

Source@:

http://www.alexhudson.com/2009/11/04/whatever-happened-to-the-chandler-project/

Director, Alliance of California Judges — Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard Urges Justice Miller to Open Meeting to Public; Copy of Superseding Ethics Complaint Against John Keker; Behold

JCW Commentary – On Thursday, August 9th 2012 the Executive & Planning committee of the Judicial Council, the people who make the decisions about the council agenda, what they vote upon and act upon, will meet behind closed doors to consider the SEC comments and the SEC report. It is widely believed that based on public statements and statements made to AOC managers and supervisors, that Mr. Miller intends to use his committee to either gut the report or study it to death,  placing it on a long road to its demise.

It is our position and the position of our various media partners that since about 250 managers and supervisors have a really solid idea of where the bodies of impropriety are buried, the last thing the power brokers want to do is make these people unemployed. They would prefer to pay these people between 125K-205K in hush money jobs.  Since the Executive & Planning committee meetings usually happen behind closed doors, Judge Marianne Gilliard has requested that this meeting be opened so that we can all learn the general direction they intend to go with this report in the interests of transparency and accountability. We agree.

At minimum, this meetings audio should be streamed out to the public with a video broadcast over the Ministry Of Truth web site.

_______________________________________________________

August 7, 2012

 

Dear Justice Miller,

 

On behalf of the well over 400 members of the Alliance of California Judges, I respectfully request that you exercise your discretion under CRC 10.10 (d) and permit your Executive and Planning Committee meeting on August 9th to be open to the public. The Alliance makes this request because you have indicated that the issue of the Chief Justice’s SEC report and its recommendations will be discussed at that meeting.

Justice Miller, well over 400 judges responded to your call for public comments. These judges did so knowing full well that they were identifying themselves with reform. We suspect that had you provided a process that would have conferred confidentiality there would have been many more responses. There is obviously great public interest in the decisions to be made on August 9, as well as those to be made by the full Council. As you have seen from the comments, there exists a huge lack of trust that the will of this state’s judges will be respected.

 

The Alliance has listened carefully to the many pronouncements made by Council members that transparency and accountability are goals for the branch. In fact, the Strategic Evaluation Committee highlighted these issues throughout its report. By way of example, on page six the report states: “The AOC has not been credible or transparent concerning such important matters as budgeting, staffing levels, hiring freezes and furloughs, large-scale projects, and other areas of importance.” Still on page six the SEC notes: “Moreover, the commitment to increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency — and the tone and attitude of the organization — ultimately rests with the Judicial Council.”  We agree.

 

Justice Miller, in the interests of transparency and accountability please open up your meeting to the judges of this state, and to the public.  No good reason exists to discuss in private what has been publicly posted. The days of closed door meetings must be the exception and not the rule if we are to restore the credibility of the Judicial Council.

 

Please know that the Alliance will distribute this request and your response to our members and other interested individuals.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard

Director, Alliance of California Judges

 

Source:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/justice-miller-in-the-…

 

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

VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS (FED-EX TRK# —)

RE: SUPERSEDING ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST KEKER & VAN NEST; STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA MEMBERS CHRIS YOUNG #239518;JON STREETER #101970; JOHN KEKER #49092

Dear Ms. Kim:

Enclosed below is a superseding ethics complaint against the law offices of Keker & Van Nest, Chris Young #239518,Jon Streeter #101970,and John Keker #49092 for attempting to defraud myself and others through a failed attempt to conceal Chris Young’s current employment with Keker & Van Nest.

INTRODUCTION:

Close to one year ago I stumbled upon unusually large and highly peculiar financial transactions in conjunction with the California Bar Foundation (the “Foundation) and 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.

INTRODUCTION OF MAIN ACTORS:

1. AMBASSADOR JEFFREY BLEICH — Mr. Bleich served as a director with the Foundation in approximately 2007-2008, as well as president of the State Bar of California.

In 2007, Mr. Bleich established Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee and served as its Chair.

He is a personal friend of President Obama, who served as President Obama’s personal attorney and subsequently was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Australia. Prior to joining the Obama administration, Mr. Bleich was a partner with the San Francisco office of Munger Tolles & Olson, which represents client Verizon Wireless.

Out of close to 230,000 lawyers in California, also serving as a director with the Foundation in approximately 2007-2008 was another attorney from Munger Tulles Olsen, Mr. Bradley Phillips. Presently, Ms. Mary Ann Todd (also of Munger Tolles & Olson) is a director with the Foundation.

2. DEREK ANTHONY WEST OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — Mr. West, who goes by the name “Tony West,” presently serves as third in command within the Department of Justice below Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer.

Around 2007-2008, Mr. Tony West also served as Chair of the “California Finance Committee” of “Obama for America.”

Prior to joining the DOJ, Mr. West was a partner at the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster, the law firm which assisted with the legal aspects of creating CaliforniaALL.

Along with attorneys Raj Chaterjee and Susan Mac Cormac, Mr. West was part of senior partner James Brosnahan’s clique. For example, it was Brosnahan, West, and Chaterjee who defended John Walker Lindh, who is more widely known as the “American Taliban.” (It should be noted that it was actually Mr. Brosnahan who initially agreed to the representation since he knows Lindh’s father — Frank Lindh — who served as in-house Chief Legal Counsel at PG&E; Mr. Lindh is presently the Chief Legal Counsel of the CPUC.)

Mr. West is married to Maya Harris, sister of Kamala Harris, who was part of CaliforniaALL.

3. JAMES J. BROSNAHAN OF MORRISON & FOERSTER – Mr. Brosnahan is presently a senior partner at the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster.

He considers himself to be the “mastermind behind the Democratic Party.” CaliforniaALL was created by Morrison & Foerster, under the supervision of Mr. Brosnahan (known as the prosecutor of Caspar Weinberger). Specifically Susan Mac Cormac and Eric Tate assisted with the legal aspects of creating the entity. Mr. Brosnahan represented utility companies during California’s energy crisis (which Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, and Geoffrey Brown were investigating) opposite Thomas Girardi.

Later, Dunn, Escutia, Brosnahan, and Girardi launched the online publication known as Voice of OC.

4. CHRISTOPHER JACOB YOUNG OF KEKER & VAN NEST — Mr. Young, commonly known as “Chris Young,” is currently listed on the State Bar of California’s database as an associate with Keker & Van Nest. Around 2007-2008, Mr. Young was an associate at Morrison & Foerster.

Around 2007-2008, Mr. Young served as “Northern California Deputy Finance Director” for “Obama for America.”

State Bar of California records still show that Chris Young is an employee of Keker & Van Nest. However, very recently, Keker & Van Nest ( at the direction of partners John Keker and Jon Streeter, who also worked on the 2008 campaign as a “bundler” and is presently a director with the Foundation) abruptly removed Chris Young’s name from its web-site in order to mislead my self and others.

5. ANNETTE CARNEGIE — Ms. Carnegie is presently employed at the Kaiser Foundation. Around 2007-2008, she was a partner at Morrison & Foerster and served as a director of the Foundation. In 2008, the Foundation poured into CaliforniaALL the large sum of $774,247; by comparison, most other donations were around $10,000 to $20,000. As shown below, the transfer of said money appears to be imbued with fraud and secrecy, especially in connection with four utility companies (Verizon, PG&E, Edison, and AT&T).

6. KAMALA HARRIS — In around 2007-2008, Ms. Harris served as the District Attorney in San Francisco while at the same time she was also Co-Chair of “Obama for America.” Ms. Harris was part of CaliforniaALL’s “Advisory Council.” She is the sister of Maya Harris, who is married to Tony West. Media reports provide that parliamentarian Willie Brown served as mentor to both Tony West and Kamala Harris, and was Ms. Harris’s paramour. John Keker of Keker & Van Nest (known as the prosecutor of Oliver North) is also considered to be a “mentor” of Kamala Harris. (Incidentally, State Bar of California Board of Governor member Gwen Moore — also a “mentee” of Willie Brown — was honored by CaliforniaALL at a lavish dinner in a Sacramento hotel. Parliamentarian Moore is no stranger to controversy, having been the target of an FBI sting operation known as Shrimpscam.)

7. OPHELIA BASGAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (“HUD”) — In around 2007-2008 , Ms. Basgal was Vice President of Civic Partnership and Community Initiatives at PG&E, where she managed the company’s $18 million charitable contributions program, and oversaw its community engagement programs and partnerships with community-based organizations. Separately, around that time she surprisingly served as “Treasurer” with the “California Supreme Court Historical Society.” In that role, she presumably had contact with many judges, including those who were handling matters dealing with PG&E, such as Justice (Ret.) Joseph Grodin who acted as the mediator in a case Attorney General Bill Lockyer advanced against PG&E, which Jerry Brown (cousin of Geoffrey Brown) later dismissed in his capacity as the new Attorney General for California.

Ms. Basgal served as a director of CaliforniaALL.

8. VICTOR MIRMAONTES — Mr. Victor Miramontes, a resident of San Antonio, TX and business partner of former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros in an entity known as CityView, was the chairman of CaliforniaALL.

Mr. Miramontes has various connections to Orange County, and is otherwise familiar with its various legal circles.

9. SARAH E. REDFIELD — Ms. Redfield is presently a professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law, and served as the interim director of CaliforniaALL. Events surrounding Redfield, as shown below, also 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”), Ms. Redfield pretended to have engaged in Requests for Proposals (“RFP”), as well as falsely claiming that she “launched” SALUCI. For her services as interim executive director and an alleged consultant of CaliforniaALL, Professor Redfield was paid approximately $160,000 as an “independent contractor.” She gave very little, if anything, in return for the $160,000 she was paid. In fact, she took credit for the extremely hard work of others, especially that of Rob Vacario of Santa Ana who co-founded SALUCI several years earlier.

10. JUDY JOHNSON – Ms. Johnson is the former Executive Director of the State Bar of California. Ms. Johnson (along with Robert Hawley and Starr Babcock) is no stranger to financial schemes. For the past 8 years, she has been quietly serving as the president of an entity with a misleading name (California Consumer Protection Foundation AKA “CCPF”). This entity absorbed close to $30 million in class action cy pres awards, as well as fines and settlements imposed by the CPUC on utility companies. CCPF forwarded those funds to mostly questionable ACORN-like entities in South Los Angeles or to an entity headed by Michael Shames known as UCAN — presently under federal grand jury investigation in San Diego. It appears that Ms. Johnson used her position as executive director of the State Bar of California (which is supposed to supervise and discipline lawyers) as “clout” to obtain cy pres awards from the settlement of class actions prosecuted and defended by various law firms in courts and before the CPUC. In addition, while never prosecuted for the scheme, some have speculated that Johnson and cohorts Hawley (whom Johnson labeled the “Wizard of OZ”) and Babcock were “in” on a financial scheme perpetrated by former State Bar employee Sharon Pearl, who was lightly prosecuted by then-attorney general Jerry Brown, cousin of Geoffrey Brown.

Ms. Johnson was part of CaliforniaALL’s Advisory Council and was responsible for maintaining secrecy over the project by misleading the public, including a quadriplegic law-student, litigant Sara Granda.

11. RUTHE CATOLICO ASHLEY — Ms. Ashley is a former employee of McGeorge School of Law who later served as a “Diversity Officer” at Cal PERS. Ms. Ashley also served as member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors alongside Mr. Bleich, and came up with the idea to create CaliforniaALL during a meeting with Sarah Redfield and Peter Arth, Jr. (the assistant to CPUC President Michael Peevey). After CaliforniaALL came into existence, Ms. Ashley, after a simulated search, was selected to serve as CaliforniaALL’s executive director.

12. SONIA GONZALES — Ms. Gonzales presently serves as the Foundation’s executive director as of earlier this year, after the former executive director (Ms. Leslie Hatamyia) suddenly quit. Ms. Gonzales is a close friend and confidante of Ms. Maya Harris, the wife of Mr. Tony West.

She presently serves the same function as current Foundation directors Mary Ann Todd of Munger Tolles & Olson, Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice, Richard Tom of Edison, and Raj Chatterjee of Morrison & Foerster.

FORTUITOUS DISCOVERY OF CaliforniaALL

In order to deflect potential allegations that I am motivated by politics, I wish to assure you and the agency that my inquiry into these issues was not and is not motivated by politics. In fact, the only actor referenced above that I have ever met is James Brosnahan, who I met once for a short period of time while a volunteer with BASF – VLSP, a volunteer organization that awarded me a volunteer of the year award. In fact, I initially suspected the misconduct described herein was committed primarily by various other people (i.e. Holly Fujie, Leslie Hatamiya, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Robert Hawley, Starr Babcock, and Judy Johnson). However, the facts eventually led me to Mr. Brosnahan. Following is a brief overview describing how I stumbled upon this information.

In 2010, the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit issued its final ruling in the disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi by imposing close to $500,000 in sanctions on Walter Lack of Engstrom Lispcomb & Lack and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese stemming from an attempt to defraud the court and cause injury to Dole Food Company in the underlying litigation. You may have heard of Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi as they are the lawyers who were featured in the movie “Erin Brokovich” involving utility company PG&E.

The court ruled that Walter Lack (who stipulated to special prosecutor Rory Little that his prolonged acts of misconduct were intentional) and Thomas Girardi intentionally and recklessly resorted to the use of known falsehoods for years. The Ninth Circuit ordered Girardi and Lack to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California.

The State Bar of California disqualified itself from handling the matter since Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) served at that time as its president, and had also made the decision to hire then-chief prosecutor, James Towery.

Mr. Towery, in turn, appointed Jerome Falk of Howard Rice (now Arnold & Porter) as outside “special prosecutor” to determine whether or not to bring charges against Girardi and Lack. (Mr. Falk is a colleague of Douglas Winthrop, and both represented PG&E in its massive bankruptcy proceedings.)

Mr. Falk, in turn, exercised prosecutorial discretion and concluded that he did not believe Lack acted intentionally and that no charges will be brought against the two attorneys.

Within days of Mr. Falk’s decision, I filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of California against Jerome Falk, James Towery, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop (managing partner of Howard Rice and then-elected president of the Foundation), alleging that it was improper for Mr. Towery to appoint Mr. Falk given the close personal relationship between Howard Miller and Douglas Winthrop. Specifically, Howard Miller — in his capacity as president of the State Bar — had appointed Douglas Winthrop as president of the California Bar Foundation, a foundation maintained and controlled by the State Bar. (Much later I also discovered that Jerome Falk is actually the personal attorney of Thomas Girardi, and that Howard Rice and Jerome Falk represented Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, Engstrom Lispcomb & Lack, and Girardi & Keese in approximately 2007, and for a period of 2 years, in a malpractice action.)

As such, while at the time I was not familiar with those individuals, I reviewed the Foundation’s annual reports to familiarize myself with the names of the Foundation’s board of directors, and to try to resolve various inconsistencies regarding who was serving as the Foundation’s president and why Robert Scott Wylie appeared to be the president when data showed that he had relocated to Indiana in 2006. I checked the Foundation’s tax returns and it was then that I fortuitously stumbled upon the fact that the Foundation ended 2008 close to $500,000 in the negative. Specifically, the Foundation reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES in 2007 equaled plus +$373.842.00. However, in 2008, the Foundation reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES equaled minus -$537,712.

I was also troubled by the fact that the 2008 California Bar Journal Annual Report noted that the Foundation was the “fiscal sponsor” of CaliforniaALL, while the same report also mentioned that the source of the money was 4 utility companies.

In its 2008 Annual Report ( See http://www.scribd.com/doc/48712884/3-2008-Annual-Report-of-Foundation-of-the-State-Bar-of-California-Foundation-AKA-California-Bar-Foundation ), the Foundation alludes to CaliforniaALL by stating:

“In 2007-2008, the Foundation supported the launching of CaliforniaALL and, as the project filed for incorporation and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, served as CaliforniaALL’s fiscal sponsor. A collaboration between the California Public Employment Retirement System, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Department of Insurance, and the State Bar of California, CaliforniaALL was created in an effort to close the achievement gap among California students from preschool to the profession and, specifically, to bolster the pipeline of young people of diverse backgrounds headed for careers in law, financial services, and technology. Once CaliforniaALL obtained its tax-exempt status and was able to function as a fully independent nonprofit organization, the foundation granted the balance of funds raised for the project – totaling $769,247 – to the new entity.”

Also cleverly buried in the California Bar Foundation’s 2008 annual report was the following sentence :

“We thank the following corporations for their gifts in support of CaliforniaALL:

AT & T

Edison International

PG & E Corporation Foundation

Verizon”

***

I believe that the statement that the Foundation granted “the balance” of funds raised for the project most likely refers to a previous $5000 sum which the Foundation awarded to CaliforniaALL for “research,” also in 2008. As such, $769,247 plus $5000 equals $774,247, which is the sum the Foundation reported to the IRS.

However, I find mildly problematic the claim that the Foundation raised funds specifically for “the project” in 2007 (per the sentence “granted the balance of funds raised for the project”), especially in conjunction with a separate disclosure by which the Foundation thanks four utility companies (which are incidentally clients of Morrison & Foerster, Howard Rice, and Munger Tolles Olsen). In my opinion, this may reflect an attempt to engage in financial shenanigans through the Foundation — otherwise, why wouldn’t the four utility companies just give the funds to CaliforniaALL directly?

Even more troubling, while I was able to ascertain from Foundation’s tax records an “exit” of the $774,247 in 2008 (the apparent source of which was allegedly the above-referenced 4 utility companies), I was unable to ascertain when and where the Foundation reported to the IRS — either in 2008 or 2007 or 2006 or 2005 — an “entry” of those funds which it allegedly held in trust for CaliforniaALL.

(Later, Jill Sperber of the State Bar of California, in a letter she sent to me dated July 28, 2011 claimed that “….No State Bar or California Bar Foundation funds were used for CaliforniaALL creation…The California Bar Foundation served as CaliforniaALL’s escrow holder only to hold fundraising funds before its formal incorporation… Once CaliforniaALL was formed as a non-profit entity, the funds were paid over to it…”

Most troubling, however, is the fact that Verizon did not report to the IRS either in 2007 or 2008 that it had contributed any money to the California Bar Foundation or CaliforniaALL. See :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102325087/Verizon-Foundation-IRS-990-Year-2007
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102325330/Verizon-Foundation-IRS-990-Year-2008

Ultimately, by conducting further research into the actors and events surrounding the Foundation, CaliforniaALL, and related entities, individuals, and events, I unearthed what appears to be a lengthy trail of attempts to mislead and defraud.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

In approximately 2007, Ruthe Catolico Ashley — an attorney from Sacramento and a member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors — was employed by Cal PERS as a “Diversity Officer.” Prior to her employment with Cal PERS, Ms. Ashley was employed as a career counsel at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. While at McGeorge, Ms. Ashley met diversity expert Sarah Redfield. At that time, Jeffrey Bleich of Munger Tolles & Olson was serving as President of the State Bar. Both Bleich and Ashley are politically active, and were supporting the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama for President. Ruthe Ashley was involved in the Asian-Americans for Obama branch in Sacramento.

In April 2007, Ashley and Sarah Redfield were urged to meet Peter Arth, Jr. of the California Public Utilities Commission at a restaurant in San Francisco. During that meeting, the idea to create CaliforniaALL (initially named CaAAL or CaALL) was conceived. Eventually, Cal PERS, the CPUC, and the State Bar of California endorsed in principle the creation of CaliforniaALL – a Section 501(c)(3) entity that would raise funds to be used to support a more diverse workforce in California.

At that time, both Ashley and Redfield were also part of the State Bar of California’s Council on Fairness and Access, as well as a separate project by the State Bar of California known as The Diversity Pipeline Task Force, through which both presumably amassed vast amounts of data and information on the topic of diversity pipeline projects.

Subsequent to the meeting with Peter Arth, on June 26, 2007 State Bar BOG member Ruthe Catolico Ashley and Patricia Lee presented to the entire BOG a proposal (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/48713393/1-In-June-26-2007-Member-of-State-Bar-Board-of-Governors-Ruthe-Ashley-Presents-to-the-State-Bar-Board-the-Concept-of-CaliforniaALL ) urging the BOG to support the creation of California Aspire Achieve Lead Pipeline Project (CaAAL), later named CaliforniaALL.

Eventually, Cal PERS (Ashley’s employer), the CPUC, and the State Bar of California endorsed in principle the creation of CaAAL. For reasons that are not clear to me, CaAAL was apparently a secret project since the California Bar Journal never bothered to report about it, and a press release issued by the State Bar of California was only delivered to CaAAL. Specifically, on August 1, 2007, California Bar Journal’s editor Diane Curtis issued a very limited press release on behalf of the State Bar ( See http://www.scribd.com/doc/102373322/State-Bar-of-California-August-2007-CaliforniaALL-Press-Release ) stating:

“STATE BAR JOINS DIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

San Francisco, August 01, 2007 — The State Bar of California is joining forces with the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Public Retirement System and the state Department of Insurance in a united effort to promote diversity in the workplace.

California Aspire Achieve Lead Pipeline Project (CaAAL Pipeline Project) will focus on education and mentoring, starting as early as pre-school, to provide skills and instill motivation in young people who are not well represented in the legal, financial and information technology professions.

“The real winners are the young people of California who will advance from these programs and the entire populace of California that will have the benefit of a diverse and vibrant pool of bright young people from all sectors of our diverse population,” said State Bar President Sheldon Sloan. Sloan beefed up a bar diversity pipeline project put in place by his predecessors that has been embraced by lawyers and jurists statewide.

Bar Vice President Ruthe Ashley, who chairs the bar’s Pipeline Task Force and recently became Cal PERS’ Diversity Officer for External Affairs, “has done a fantastic job of moving this initiative forward,” added Sloan. “Now that she has brought in Cal PERS and CAL PUC, this program is here to stay for the foreseeable future.”

In large part because of the bar’s experience and success in identifying programs that help young people move on to successful careers in law, CaAAL’s first-year focus will be on diversifying the legal profession. “We have relationships in place. We have best practices. We have done the research,” said Ashley. The second-year focus will be on financial institutions and the third year on information technology. Funding for the new nonprofit is expected to come from private partners and public sector grants.

Ashley said the nonprofit will be the umbrella organization that will coordinate activities in five different geographic “centers of excellence.” She is hoping that the board for the new nonprofit will promote replication proven programs, such as Street Law, Pacific Pathways and the Council on Legal Education Opportunity, and that the new entity “will be a model for other states.”

“The vision is that it will change the face of the future in the workplace and of our leaders,” said Ashley.”

**

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

Despite the fact that she served as interim executive director, and despite the fact that it was a given that Ruthe Catolico Ashley would be hired as the permanent CEO, Sarah Redfield nevertheless apparently engaged in an RFP (request for proposal) which was closed just as quickly as it started even before Ms. Ashley was hired as the permanent CEO.

CaliforniaALL’s web site (www.calall.org) stated:

“Saturday Law Academy RFP

PLEASE NOTE:

The application process for this RFP is closed. Please contact Sarah Redfield at sarah.redfield@gmail.com or (207) 752-1721.

RFP PROPOSAL INFORMATION

California ALL seeks proposals to implement its law career pathway starting with the 2008-09 academic year (AY).

The following and attached document describes a program area in which California ALL has particular interest based on its initial research. An additional RFP will follow for college level prelaw work. Self generated proposal for other parts of the pipeline will also be considered, and another round of RFPs is possible. California ALL has not attached a specific dollar amount to the RFP, though cost effectiveness and the presence of a competitive match will be part of its consideration. California ALL has some funding in hand from a generous grant from Verizon for the Saturday Academy and intends to seek additional funding as needed to support programs selected. It is anticipated that funding will be provided for year one of the (3 year) proposal, with following years contingent on successful completion of the prior year(s). “

**

The California Attorney General RCT reflects that CaliforniaALL obtained its “Charity” status on March 14, 2008 (FEIN Number 510656213). The address for CaliforniaALL is listed as 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400, Sacramento, California. This is actually the address of the law firm of DLA Piper, where CaliforniaALL resided free of charge courtesy of partner Gilles Attia — an attorney specialized in the representation of wi-fi companies.

CaliforniaALL’s 2008 tax-return shows an expense of around $16,000 for “occupancy.” See http://www.scribd.com/doc/48714110/6-CaliforniaALL-2008-Tax-Return

In June 2008, after a nationwide search and aided by a pro bono head-hunting firm in its search for a permanent CEO, CaliforniaALL not surprisingly hired Ruthe Catolico Ashley as its chief executive officer. (See Press Release http://www.scribd.com/doc/48717715/5-California-ALL-Announces-Hiring-of-Ruthe-Ashley-as-CEO-on-June-4-2008 )

As the purpose of CaliforniaALL was to transfer funds forward, it did so by awarding small grants to the UCI Foundation (FEIN Number 952540117), where State Bar of California executive director Joe Dunn serves as trustee and chair of the Audit Committee, for the purported purpose of establishing a Saturday Law Academy at UC Irvine known as SALUCI.

Sarah Redfield’s CV, which states (falsely) that she launched SALUCI, can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48772426/10-Resume-CV-of-University-of-New-Hampshire-School-of-Law-Professor-Sarah-E-Redfield

In September 2009, Ruthe Catolico Ashley exited CaliforniaALL (http://www.scribd.com/doc/48713268/7-Ruthe-Ashley-Announces-Departure-from-Ca… ), the entity which she previously proclaimed to Diane Curtis that it “will change the face of the future in the workplace and of our leaders,” “will be a model for other states,” and “is here to stay for the foreseeable future.”

Ultimately, the following events prompted me to ask Voice of OC to make its tax returns available for my review, as required by IRS regulations: the sham RFP by Sarah Redfield, who pre-selected the UCI Foundation as the only recipient of funds from CaliforniaALL; Joe Dunn served as chair of the UCI Foundation audit committee; in September 2009 Ruthe Ashley abruptly exited CaliforniaALL; in September 2009 Joe Dunn (together with his business partner Martha Escutia, James Brosnahan — who created CaliforniaALL, and Thomas Girardi of In Re Girardi, Erin Brokovich, and the one who James Towery appointed his personal attorney (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) to act as special prosecutor against him) launched an online “news agency” known as Voice of OC. I also suspected that James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster (who represented various utility companies during California’s energy crisis) may have engaged in a scheme with Joe Dunn, as Dunn was the person investigating those utility companies and California’s energy crisis. In fact, Dunn was discredited by the media for claiming that he was the one who “cracked” Enron.

KEKER & VAN NEST:
Several month ago, when Tony West was appointed third in command at the DOJ, I learned of his identity due to wide media coverage and his association with Morrison & Forester and James Brosnahan. From there, it became harder to ignore the common denominator of “Obama for America” involving Morrison & Foerster’s James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, Annette Carnegie, and Susan Mac Cormac, in conjunction with Geoffrey Bleich and Ruthe Ashley — which is that money was misappropriated or laundered through the Foundation to unlawfully benefit “Obama for America.”

Around 2007-2008, while an associate at Morrison & Foerster, Chris Young served as “Northern California Deputy Finance Director” for “Obama for America.” Presently, State Bar of California records show that Young is an employee of Keker & Van Nest. However, very recently, Keker & Van Nest abruptly removed Young’s name from its web-site.

In seeking to conceal Young’s present association with Keker & Van Nest, respondents sought to protect their own pecuniary interests and were clearly motivated by the totality of the circumstances surrounding Young, especially around 2007-8.

In addition, respondents’ zeal in seeking to conceal Young’s present association with Keker & Van Nest was also motivated by the totality of the circumstances surrounding a conspiracy by which members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (including president Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest) knowingly agreed to press false criminal charges against me with the Yolo County District Attorney alleging, among others, that an ethics complaint I had filed against Judy Johnson, Holly Fujie, Mark Torres-Gil, Larry Yee, and Rachel Grunberg (dealing with CaliforniaALL – UC Davis law student Sara Granda) was “false and malicious.”

Since at the time members of the board of governors conspired to knowingly file false criminal charges (around January of 2012), they were operating under the assumption that my inquiry into CaliforniaALL was headed in the wrong direction (which it was), the identity and past actions of Chris Young were irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I myself was unaware of Chris Young, or his past involvements.

However, once I managed to unearth the identity of West, respondents and members of the Board of Governors sought to further mislead myself and others in hope none would be able to unearth the identity of Young, including his past involvement with Morrison & Foerster (and by extension, CaliforniaALL), his involvement with Obama for America, his current association with Keker & Van Nest, as well as his association with Jon Streeter (also a 2008 “bundler” for Obama for America). As such, Young’s profile was abruptly removed from KVN.COM for the additional purpose of covering-up members of the Board of Governors’ own misconduct.

Moreover, respondents’ zeal in seeking to conceal Young’s present association with Keker & Van Nest was also motivated by a desire conceal various acts of grave misconduct Jon Streeter had committed in his capacity as director of the California Bar Foundation (either on behalf of himself, on behalf of Keker & Van Nest, or in concert with Cal Bar Foundation directors Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice, Holly Fujie, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, Sonia Gonzales, Richard Tom of Southern California Edison, Mary Ann Todd of Munger Tolles & Olson, Raj Chatterjee of Morrison & Foerster, and others.)

In summary, respondents’ conspiracy to defraud by seeking to conceal Young’s association with Keker & Van Nest was motivated by:

1. An overall motive by Keker & Van Nest and respondents to suppress the truth concerning Young’s past involvement with Obama for America, Morrison & Foerster, and CaliforniaALL.

2. A motive to conceal various acts of grave misconduct Jon Streeter had committed in his capacity as member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors.

3. A motive to conceal various acts of grave misconduct Jon Streeter had committed in his capacity as director of the California Bar Foundation.

I urge you to investigate this matter to determine whether any of the respondents violated California Rules of Professional Conduct and/or the State Bar Act. I ask that you levy appropriate sanctions against any and all of the attorneys involved, if supported by the results of your investigation.

I look forward to your response. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Please note that due to your disinclination to process complaints submitted via e-mail, this superseding signed complaint will also be delivered via Federal Express.

 

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

Behold! The members of the Executive and planning committee

 

Source:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/justice-miller-in-the-…

Hon. Douglas P. Miller, Chair    (long time insider crony, wants no change in the overall structure of the AOC and has stated as much)(Huffman’s clone) 
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
3389 Twelfth Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 782-2667
Fax (951) 248-0346
douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov

Hon. Kenneth K. So, Vice-Chair  (also a long time insider crony whose most notable accomplishment is what he doesn’t say)
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 450-5055
Fax (619) 450-5716
kenneth.so@sdcourt.ca.gov

Hon. Stephen H. Baker  (also a long time insider crony, known for going along to get along and has had Jack Halpin assigned to his court for 19 years)(tainted voice)
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Shasta
1500 Court Street
Redding, CA 96001-1685
(530) 245-6761
Fax (530) 225-5339
sbaker@shastacourts.com

Ms. Edith R. Matthai (this attorney works for an insider crony and has been a reliable producer of inaction
Attorney at Law
Robie & Matthai
500 South Grand Avenue, #1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2609
(213) 706-8000
Fax (213) 706-9913
ematthai@romalaw.com

Hon. David Rosenberg (A judicial council brown-nosing rising star that has carefully tried to play both sides of the fence. Due to his direct involvement in unlawful activity, he is a malleable tool and a reliable producer pushed forth as a periodic spokesperson for the death star) (tainted voice) 
Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court of California,
County of Yolo
725 Court Street, Dept. 4
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 406-6741
Fax (530) 406-6962
drosenberg@yolo.courts.ca.gov

Hon. David S. Wesley ( the only clean one of the bunch
Assistant Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Room 204
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-5550
Fax (213) 680-1263
DWesley@LASuperiorCourt.org

Mr. David H. Yamasaki (the highest paid court executive officer in California is a reliable producer for the cronies, thereby earning his 332K per year
Court Executive Officer
Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 882-2714
Fax (408) 882-2296
dyamasaki@scscourt.org

AOC LIAISON
Ms. Jody Patel (canon fodder: A hysterical, irrational tyrant respected by few, loathed by many brings her pet spot with her on every promotion she gets)
Interim Administrative Director of the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
(415) 865-4235

 

State Bar of Texas Result Analyses by Gender and Race ; White 85% , Asian 75% , Hispanic 60%, Black 40%

 

ANALYSIS OF JULY 2004 TEXAS BAR EXAM RESULTS BY GENDER AND RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP

Stephen P. Klein, Ph.D. and Roger Bolus, Ph.D.
GANSK & Associates
 

(This analysis was updated in June 2006.  Click here for details.)

December 15, 2004

Texas Government Code Sec. 82.0291 directed the Texas Board of Law Examiners to “compile a report indicating the number of applicants who fail the July 2004 bar examination. The data shall be aggregated by gender, ethnicity, and race. The report shall also include an analysis of the identifiable causes of failure and recommendations, if any, to address the causes of failure.”

The analyses described below were conducted to respond to this legislation. As background for what follows, we begin by summarizing the major features of the Texas bar exam and how the scores on it are computed and pass/fail decisions are made. We then describe the procedures that were used to gather and process the data for our analyses. Finally, we provide information about the size and nature of the differences in bar exam scores and passing rates among gender and racial/ethnic groups as well as the results of our analyses of certain factors that are and are not related to these differences. The specific questions we address in our analyses are as follows:

1. Do men and women have comparable bar exam passing rates and test scores?  Findings

2. Do different racial/ethnic groups have comparable bar exam passing rates and scores?  Findings

3. Do the differences in bar exam passing rates and scores among racial/ethnic group correspond to the differences in their admissions credentials and law school grades?  Findings

4. Were some bar exam preparation activities associated with higher scores?  Findings

5. As a group, do the students at some law schools generally score higher or lower on the bar exam than what would be expected on the basis of their mean LSAT scores?  Findings

Texas Bar Exam Components

The Texas Bar Exam is a two and a half-day test. There is one day for the Texas essay section, one day for the Multistate Bar Exam, and a half-day for the combination of the Multistate Performance Test and the Texas Procedure and Evidence test. The major features of these four components are as follows:

Multistate Bar Exam (MBE). The MBE is a six-hour, 200-question, multiple-choice test. MBE questions (or “items”) are prepared and scored by American College Testing (ACT) under the general direction of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. The MBE has an approximately equal number of items in each of the following six subjects: Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law, Evidence, Property, and Torts. An applicant’s MBE “raw” score is the number of questions answered correctly.

Roughly 30 percent of the MBE questions that are asked on one administration (such as July 2004) have been used previously. ACT uses the data on these repeated items to adjust MBE raw scores for possible differences in average question difficulty across administrations. As a result of this calibration process (which is called “equating” or “scaling”), a given MBE “scale” score indicates about the same level of proficiency regardless of the administration on which it was earned.

Multistate Performance Test (MPT). Texas administers one 90-minute MPT question or “task”, consisting of a legal analysis and writing assignment. This task is developed under the direction of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. There is a new task for each administration. Texas readers grade the answers on a 1 to 6 scale in half-point intervals.

An MPT task assesses certain practice oriented legal research, analysis, and writing skills. A task consists of a File that looks like a typical lawyer file (e.g., letters, memos, reports, and the like) and includes relevant and irrelevant materials and a Library with all the case law, statutes, and secondary materials needed to deal with various matters in a hypothetical case. Candidates use the File and Library to complete a realistic task, such as drafting a memo to a senior lawyer, a letter to a client or opposing counsel, or a brief to be filed with a court.

Texas Essay Test. The six-hour essay portion of the Texas exam consists of 12 questions in such areas as Business Associations, Wills, Real Property, and Family Law. Members of the Texas Board of Law Examiners, with the assistance of professional editors, draft the questions. Board members and experienced attorney graders then score the answers to each question on a 1 to 25-point scale. The maximum possible essay raw score is 12 x 25 = 300 points.

Texas Procedure and Evidence (P&E) Test. The 90-minute P&E test contains 20 short- answer civil questions and 20 short-answer criminal questions. The Texas Board of Law Examiners is responsible for creating these questions and they and their associates grade the responses to each question on a 0 to 5 scale. Texas divides the total P&E raw score on each section by 2 (and rounds the result to a whole number) so that the maximum possible total P&E raw score across the two sections is 100 points.

Total Scores and Pass/Fail Decisions

Texas converts total essay raw scores to the same scale of measurement as that used for the MBE. This is done to adjust the essay scores for possible differences in average question difficulty across administrations. Scaling involves assigning the highest total essay raw score the same value as the highest MBE scale score in Texas, the second highest total essay raw score the same value as the second highest MBE scale score, and so on until the lowest total essay raw score is the assigned the same value as the lowest MBE scale score. The converted scores are called essay “scale” scores. This same procedure is used to convert MPT and P&E raw scores to scale scores.

Texas uses the following formula to compute each applicant’s total scale score so that the weights assigned to the MBE, Essay, MPT, and P&E tests are 40, 40, 10, and 10 percent, respectively:

Total scale = 2(MBE Scale) + 2(Essay Scale) + (MPT Scale)/2 + (P&E Scale)/2

Applicants with total scale scores of 675 or higher pass. All others fail. This pass/fail standard (which corresponds to a 135 on the MBE scale of measurement) is comparable to the standards used by most other states.

Analysis Sample Data

The application form for the July 2004 exam contained a section in which candidates indicated their gender and racial/ethnic group. Almost all of those taking the exam also completed a questionnaire that was distributed during a break in the test session, although everyone did not answer every question. A copy of this survey is attached to the end of this report.

The 2003 applicants whose data are used in this report graduated from the nine law schools in Texas that are accredited by the American Bar Association. These schools provided us with the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores, undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs), and law school grade point averages (LGPAs) for their graduates who took the July 2004 Texas bar exam. None of the data furnished by the law schools has been disclosed to the Texas Board of Law Examiners. Such data are considered the property of the individual law schools and will not be disclosed at any time. The Texas Board of Law Examiners provided us with these applicants’ bar exam scores and repeater status data. All data reported by the Texas Board of Law Examiners has been disclosed to the law schools pursuant to Texas Government Code Sec. 82.029 and cannot be further disclosed in accordance with that statute.

All data were furnished to us without revealing the identity of any candidate and have been linked through a common study ID number for each candidate. The confidentiality of these data was preserved by employing procedures that prevented us from having access to applicant names and prevented the Texas Board from having access to the data provided by the law schools.

Preliminary Analyses

It is well recognized that grading standards vary across law schools. A 3.00 LGPA at one school may correspond to a substantially higher or lower level of proficiency than a 3.00 at another school. However, several analyses require combining LGPAs across schools. Thus, to adjust for possible differences in grading standards among schools, we converted the LGPAs within a school to a score distribution that had the same mean and standard deviation as the distribution of the LSAT scores at that school. This conversion is used throughout this report.

Applicants indicated their gender and racial/ethnic group on their application form. The analysis sample contained applicants from 19 racial/ethnic groups, but there were only a few candidates in some of these groups. This led us to form the following five clusters for our analyses:

Asian = Asian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Pacific Islander, Polynesian, and Vietnamese
Black = African American, African, and Black
Hispanic = Hispanic, Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin, and Central/South American
White = Caucasian and White
Other = All others (includes 5 Native Americans and racial/ethnic group omitted)

Research Questions and Answers

1) Do men and women have comparable bar exam passing rates and test scores?

Yes. Men and women had virtually identical passing rates (74.73 percent and 74.85 percent, respectively). There also were nearly identical numbers of men and women in our nine-school sample (1005 and 998, respectively). Table 1a shows that men had a slightly higher mean LSAT score than women whereas the reverse was true on UGPA. Men and women had very similar mean LGPAs.

Table 1a
Mean UGPAs, LSAT Scores, and LGPAs By Gender

Score Men  Women  All Takers
UGPA  3.15  3.29 3.22
LSAT  153.8 153.0  153.4
LGPA 152.8  154.0  153.4

Standard deviations for all takers for UGPA, LSAT, and LGPA were 0.47, 7.34, and 10.41, respectively.

On the average, men scored slightly higher than women on the MBE whereas the reverse was true on other sections (see Table 1b). This finding is consistent with the results regarding gender effects that are presented in technical reports regularly published by the California Committee of Bar Examiners. The differences in mean scores between gender groups balanced out so that overall, men and women had virtually identical mean total scale scores.

Table 1b
Mean Bar Exam Scale Scores By Gender and For All Takers

Score  Men  Women  All Takers
MBE  142.6  140.2  141.4
Essay  141.4 143.0  142.2
MPT 140.0 143.0  141.5
P&E  142.0  143.1  142.6
Total Scale  708.5  708.9  708.7

Standard deviations for the MBE, Essay, MPT, and P&E scores were all 13.0. The Total scale score standard deviation was 54.5.

2) Do different racial/ethnic groups have comparable bar exam passing rates and scores?

No. Using the racial/ethnic group designations noted above, Whites and Asians had statistically significantly higher bar exam passing rates and mean bar exam test scores than their classmates. This held for first time takers and repeaters.

Table 2a shows the number of applicants by racial/ethnic group and repeater status. Table 2b shows their passing rates. These data indicate that 75 percent of the 2003 applicants in the analysis sample passed. The passing rate for first timers (81 percent) was nearly double the rate for repeaters (42 percent). Together, Blacks and Hispanics comprised 18 percent of the first timers, but 36 percent of the repeaters.

Table 2a
Number of Takers By Racial/Ethnic Group and Repeater Status

Group  White  Asian  Hispanic  Black  Other  Total
First Timers  1290 75  162  138  35  1700
Repeaters 178 13 47 58  7 303
Total  1468  88  209  196  42  2003

Table 2b
Percent Passing By Racial/Ethnic Group And Repeater Status

Group White  Asian  Hispanic Black Other  Total
First Timers 85 80  69 53 74 81
Repeaters  49  46  30  28  29  42
Total  81  75 60  45  67 75

Table 3a (which uses the data on all 2003 of the candidates in the analysis sample) shows each group’s mean UGPA, LSAT score, and LGPA.

Table 3b shows their mean bar exam scores. These data indicate that a group’s mean scale score was very similar across the four sections of the exam. The sole exception was that Asian applicants did especially well on the MPT, but this could easily be due to chance given the comparatively low score reliability of a single MPT task. Hispanics and Blacks did about as well on the MBE as they did on the written portions of the exam. Thus, overall, exam format had no effect on the differences in mean total scores between groups.

Table 3a
Mean UGPA, LSAT, and LGPA By Racial/Ethnic Group

Score  White  Asian  Hispanic  Black  Other
UGPA 3.28  3.27  3.06  2.94  3.18
LSAT  154.6  154.9  149.5  146.6  152.5
LGPA  154.9  154.2  149.3  146.8 151.6

Table 3b
Mean Texas Bar Examination Scores By Racial/Ethnic Group

Score  White  Asian  Hispanic  Black  Other
MBE 143.3  138.0 136.2 134.0 141.9
Essay 144.1 141.5 137.6 133.6  140.8
MPT 142.9 145.3  136.7 134.9 138.7
P&E  144.0  138.9 139.9  136.9 142.0
Total Scale  717.7 700.6  685.5 670.5  705.3

3) Do the differences in bar exam passing rates and scores among racial/ethnic group correspond to the differences in their admissions credentials and law school grades?

Yes. We found that on the average, the applicants in different racial/ethnic groups performed as well on the bar exam as would be expected on the basis of their law school admission credentials and law school grades.

We examined this matter in two ways. First, we noted that the 8-point difference in mean LGPA between Whites and Blacks was equivalent to 0.78 standard deviation units. This was nearly identical to the difference (in standard deviation units) between these groups’ mean total scale scores. The size of the difference between Whites and Hispanics on LGPA also was very similar to the difference (in standard deviation units) between these groups in total scale scores. Asians were the only group that did not do quite as well on the bar exam as would be predicted on the basis of their LGPAs.

Our second (and more statistically sophisticated and precise) approach involved constructing two “multiple regression” equations to predict an applicant’s total bar exam scale score. One of these equations included the applicant’s UGPA, LSAT score, and LGPA. The other equation contained these same variables plus the applicant’s gender and racial/ethnic group. This analysis found that racial/ethnic group had almost no relationship with bar exam scores once there is control on the applicant’s admissions credentials and law school grades.

Specifically, the first equation explained 37.2 percent of the variance in total bar exam scores whereas the second explained 37.8 percent, i.e., just 0.6 percent more. Thus, the addition of gender and racial/ethnic group to the equation did not have any practical effect on predictive accuracy. All the groups (including Asians) performed as expected. In short, minority and non-minority bar exam scores were very consistent with what would be expected given the differences in their admissions credentials and law school grades. The exam did not increase or decrease the differences between groups that were present before they sat down to take the test.

Our analyses within and across schools also indicated that there is a great deal of variance in bar exam scores that is not explained by UGPA, LSAT, LGPA, gender, and racial/ethnic group. A substantial portion of the differences in bar exam scores among candidates must therefore be due to other factors, such as how the applicants prepared for the exam.

4) Were some bar exam preparation activities associated with higher scores?

Yes. Almost all the applicants in our analysis sample reported having participated in one or more commercial bar review courses in the six months prior to taking the exam. To investigate whether some of these activities were more helpful than others, we constructed a regression equation that contained the applicant’s LSAT score, LGPA, and their response to each of the questions in the student survey (see attached copy of this questionnaire).

This analysis found that applicants tended to receive 4 to 10 more total scale score points if they did one or more of the following during the six months prior to taking the exam: attend lecture and discussion sessions, use Internet lessons, and use hard copy study guides and books. The percentage of candidates using these methods were: 85, 28, and 95, respectively (many applicants used more than one strategy).

We were surprised that the use of hard copy study materials had a statistically significant effect because almost all the candidates used them. It is evident that those who did not use them were not well served. The effect of using Internet lessons was not as strong as the effects of using the other two methods.

About 21 percent of the Black and Hispanic applicants (and 15 percent of all of the other applicants) reported that they worked 20 or more hours during the five weeks prior to taking the July 2004 exam (excluding any paid leave time they may have received from their employer to study for the exam). On the average, the applicants who worked earned about 15 total scale score points less than their classmates with comparable LSAT scores and LGPAs. To put this statistically significant 15-point difference in total scale scores in perspective, it is comparable to the unique effect (i.e., after controlling on LSAT and LGPA) of being a repeater rather than a first time taker.

5) As a group, do the students at some law schools generally score higher or lower on the bar exam than what would be expected on the basis of their mean LSAT scores?

Generally No. As noted on the Texas Board of Law Examiners’ Website (www.ble.state.tx.us), there are large differences in bar exam passing rates among schools. We found that almost all of these differences can be explained by differences in the admissions scores of the students they graduate. For example, there is a nearly perfect relationship between a law school’s mean total bar exam scale score and its mean LSAT score (the correlation is .98 out of a possible 1.00). Many of a law school’s graduates do better or worse on the bar exam than what would be expected on the basis of their own LSAT scores, but these differences almost entirely balance out when the data are analyzed by school. Nevertheless, one school’s mean total bar exam scale score was 10 points higher than what would be expected on the basis of its mean LSAT score (the odds of a difference of this size occurring by chance are less than 5 in 100).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Men score slightly higher than women on the MBE while the reverse is true on the rest of the exam so that overall, they have nearly identical total scores and passing rates on the Texas bar examination. Men and women candidates in Texas also have comparable admissions credentials.

Black and Hispanic candidates are not spread evenly across the nine Texas law schools. They are much more likely to attend some schools than others. There also are large differences in passing rates among schools. However, the large differences in passing rates among racial/ethnic groups are not related to which law schools they attend because almost all the schools do about as well on the bar exam as would be expected on the basis of the mean LSAT scores of their graduates. That is what is driving the differences in bar scores among groups.

The differences in scores among racial/ethnic groups were quite similar across the different sections of the exam. With the possible exception of Asians who did especially well on the MPT, no section stood out as being unusually easy or difficult for a particular racial/ethnic group. In addition, total bar exam scores essentially mirror the differences in these groups’ admissions credentials and law school grades. Thus, the bar exam does not appear to widen or narrow the gap in scores that was present between the groups before they sat for the exam.

We also found that a significant portion of the differences in bar exam scores between applicants is not attributable to differences in their admissions credentials, law school grades, gender, or racial/ethnic group. A small but statistically significant piece of this remaining variance is related to whether the candidate worked for more than 20 hours during the five weeks leading up to the exam. And, Black and Hispanic applicants were about 1.5 times more likely to be among those who worked during this period than were other applicants. A few other preparation factors also were related to scores, such as participation in lecture and discussion sessions presented by a commercial bar review course.

Given the findings above, we see no reason to make any changes in the nature of the exam itself. It appears to be well balanced and fair to all takers. Moreover, the results on it correspond closely to the law schools’ own evaluations of their graduates’ abilities (as reflected by the generally high correlations between law school grades and bar exam scores at each school). Nevertheless, the findings about preparation factors suggest that something might be done in this area to improve minority bar passage rates. This might involve providing funding (and perhaps scholarships to bar review courses) to students who did well in law school but may not have all the financial resources they need to prepare for the exam in the same way as their classmates.

July 2004 Texas Bar Examination Examinee Survey

Please put a checkmark (√) in the Yes or No box in response to each question below:

Question Yes No
1. Were you employed for an average of 20 hours/week or more during the five weeks preceding the July 2004 Bar Exam? (Do not count any paid leave time to study for the exam).    
2. Was English the primary language spoken in your home when you were growing up?    
3. Are you the first person in your family to receive a college degree?    
4. Are you the first person in your family to receive a graduate or professional degree?    
5. Did you take any of the following components of a commercial bar review course in the six months prior to the July 2004 bar exam?    
  a. Lecture and discussion sessions    
  b. Audio and/or video tapes or CDs    
  c. Lessons on the Internet    
  d. Hard copy study guides and books    
6. Did you participate in any law school programs designed to improve your test-taking or study skills during the following:    
  a. Pre-enrollment Summer session    
  b. 1st Year of law school    
  c. 2nd Year of law school    
  d. 3rd Year of law school    

Dr. Stephen Klein is the Senior Partner in the consulting firm of GANSK and Associates. In that capacity, he has done research and consulted on a wide range of issues for the National Conference of Bar Examiners, more than two dozen state boards of bar examiners, over a dozen law schools, and the Association of American Law Schools. He also has consulted for certification boards in accounting, acupuncture, actuarial science, dentistry, medicine, podiatry, psychology, and teaching. He has testified as an expert in state and federal courts and at legislative and administrative hearings regarding criminal justice, testing, educational, personnel, voting rights, and other matters. He served as the federal court’s appointed technical advisor on a large class-action suit involving measurement issues and consulted for the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, the Little Hoover Commission, and many other public and private agencies and organizations. Dr. Klein also is a Senior Research Scientist at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California where he has led studies on educational, health, military manpower, and criminal justice issues.

Dr. Klein received his BS from Tufts University and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial Psychology from Purdue University. Before coming to RAND in 1975, he was a Research Psychologist with the Educational Testing Service in Princeton and Associate Professor in Residence at UCLA where he chaired the Research Methods division in the Graduate School of Education. Dr. Klein has over 250 publications, he is on the editorial board of the Review of Educational Research, and he is a member of the American Statistical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.

Dr. Roger Bolus serves as Senior Partner, Research Solutions Group, a company providing technical and analytical services to research endeavors in the areas of education, healthcare and large scale testing. Roger also has an appointment as Director, Psychometrics at the Center For Neurovisceral Sciences in the Department of Medicine at UCLA. For the past 25 years, he, in collaboration with Dr. Stephen Klein, has provided statistical, psychometric and data management consultation to state bar examination boards throughout the country. Among current clients are the state bars of California, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Massachusetts, Texas, Delaware and Nevada. In this work, Roger has developed an expertise in the design, management and analysis of large, complex databases related to legal testing. Dr. Bolus’ current interests are in the areas of adaptability of the Internet to the administration and scoring of open-ended responses in high stakes testing. Dr. Bolus received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Education with a specialization in Educational Testing, Measurement and Evaluation (1981). He is the author or co-author of over 30 articles and technical reports, and has spoken at several national conferences on the topics of testing and outcome assessment.

 Hit Counter since December 20, 2004

Last modified  02/07/07 12:55 PM

A shadow syndicate shielded by judicial immunity?

A shadow syndicate shielded by judicial immunity?

watch?v=cjmv5_Op0X4&w=560&h=349

Tell me this does not describe the true purpose of CCMS deployed centrally….

The word racket is used to describe a business, syndicate or entity that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.

That sounds like the perfect description of CCMS to us. The AOC has been engaged in a ten year sale of a solution to a problem that they themselves created and have been perpetuating with the specific intent to engender the trial courts continual patronage. As illustrated by Sacramento, it includes a really expensive shift of funding from the trial courts to the AOC to support those underlying activities. The efforts of running it off a central server are about continued patronage and we’re going to surmise that when our friends at Deloitte got the full monty, the price tag for what the AOC wished to accomplish started climbing dramatically.

The AOC has perpetuated this problem for nearly ten years by discouraging all others from pursuing alternative solutions. They have perpetuated the problem further by shifting reserves that might have been utilized to pay for such an alternative system locally to pay for their grandiose pie-in-the sky that assures them a steady chunk of trial court funding for years to come.

If this is not the objective with CCMS, then the AOC should have no issue giving the application to trial courts to run the application locally. With ten years invested into this plan, they are not about to take their eye off the prize and give you, the trial courts, the application you already paid for. You must sign on to keep on paying the AOC by agreeing to centrally host CCMS or you’re not getting CCMS.

This is one area where, in the upcoming legislative session, we see an opportunity to define this application as the physical and intellectual property of the trial courts, the AOC and the Judicial Council. We believe that eventually the legislature will have to step in and kill the project or order the distribution of this application to each of the trial courts with an appropriate knowledge transfer. We gather that currently, the application trial courts paid for is either the physical and/or intellectual property of the AOC and/or the judicial council.

Demands that CCMS being hosted locally have been made by courts across the state as well as from the Alliance of California Judges. It is only the AOC and the Judicial Council, not anyone else that sees any need to run the application out of the California Courts Technology Center in Arizona. Any deviation from the AOC’s plan cripples this part of their planned syndicated racket.

The case for running the application locally are too numerous to mention. The most fundamental case for a local installation is “building from the foundation up.” The foundation being your local court. The cases that are heard in that local court and your local business processes should drive the front-end application design. The database across the entire enterprise, however should be as close to identical, field for field as possible and this could be achieved via a trial court working group and a knowledge sharing website. The theory behind an identical back-end design is that sooner or later, after all 58 of those foundations are built you can start working on merging data into a single statewide database.

The AOC perceives themselves to be that foundation via the CCTC and has been telling courts that their application drives process and that “a change in process is always difficult because it is difficult to learn something new, people resist change”

The verdict is out with the AOC now going hat-in-hand nine years too late, trying to win the support of small trial courts for central hosting, while the Judicial Council works its minions into Court Executive Officer positions to give them the power to execute on their racket in other courts regardless of impact. If they had any concern about impact, they would have solved Sacramento’s issues instead of covering them up by picking up the tab for awhile, while they closed the sale to other courts.

The impacts of running the application out of the CCTC are currently known by everyone. It is only the JC/AOC and their vendors that are saying anything different. Again, with ten years invested into this plan, they are not about to take their eye off the prize and give you, the trial courts, the application you already paid for. You must sign on to keep on paying the AOC by agreeing to centrally host CCMS. That is the definition of racketeering by any measure. Why are they doing this? Follow the money.

________________________________________________________________

We’re not sure how far back the criminal offenses committed by AOC personnel go. According to information supplied to us the first apparent crime was an embezzlement in the HR department of more than $100,000.00 by an individual by the name of “M” who self-identified himself to other Administrative Office of the Courts Human Resources employees as a “long time friend of Mr. Fuentes”. Most of the employees who expressed knowledge of these events no longer work for the AOC by design. This includes one Paula Negley and another Merilee Fielding and many, many others. In the first hearing with the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, Mr. Vickrey was asked about this embezzlement and why no one was prosecuted. Mr. Vickrey would lie to the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review and indicate that the District Attorney, who is now Attorney General, declined to prosecute (a public corruption case involving a temp? Give me a break.)

One of the critical items required to prosecute a case is that someone must write up a crime report and someone else must submit it to the District Attorney, who at the time was Kamala Harris. Numerous parties have conducted public records searches with the San Francisco Police Deparment, the CHP, the JPU and the San Francisco Sheriff’s department looking for this crime report that Kamala Harris allegedly declined to prosecute. Not a soul has ever turned up any crime report in connection with this embezzlement of public funds. Questions about this crime report to Mr. Vickrey go unanswered.

This embezzlement and the protection racket established to ensure no prosecution for this offense took place is alleged to have intentionally been orchestrated by AOC’s senior management as to avoid any outside investigation.

The reason?

The work that “M” was hired for was to make a big hole in a budget disappear and is alleged to been worth more than double the underlying embezzlement. The difference is that this hole alleged to be needing filled in was one created by executive management and “M” was the right person to bury the discrepancy. A criminal was alleged to have been hired to conceal one crime against the state and committed another one against the state in the process. This might explain why no one was ever charged, this explains why there is no crime report, this might explain why there was neither an arrest, nor an investigation. The “first responders” at that time were the JPU who has a significant presence in the building. To better cover their proverbial butts in the future, the JC/AOC has hired “court security coordinators” to take care of matters in the manner in which they are told they will. No law enforcement agency has any record of any crime report and most of the CHP in that build ing are alleged to be avid readers of JCW. (Thanks ladies and gentlemen)

_______________________________________________________________

In somewhat about the same time frame of these events above, three contractors were selected to maintain courthouses throughout the State of California. In Southern California, it was Jacobs Facilities, Inc that was awarded the contract. From day one, Jacobs subcontracted their contract to the “licensed to clean up a construction site” company of ABM and the two entities did business together under the DBA “Team Jacobs”. In the Bay Area/ Northern California region, it was a company named EMCOR and in NCRO it was Aleut Global Solutions that were awarded maintenance contracts.

From the onset of the contracts, there was discussion amongst OCCM personnel of one party taking over the whole statewide contract. Within a short time, the AOC quietly canceled EMCOR’s contract and replaced them with Team Jacobs. The whisper was that EMCOR was being terminated by the AOC for invoicing for work never accomplished. During this same period of time however, similar complaints were rolling in from SRO about “Team Jacobs” doing the same thing. The difference was that “Team Jacobs” was alleged to be even bolder than Emcor about it. Not only were they alleged to have been submitting invoices for work never completed but the cost of that work was off the charts anything remotely considered as value. This piqued the suspicions of many other people who work for the AOC that one contractor, where relatively small cheating was being conducted, was being replaced by another contractor whose reported cheating was on a grand scale. The issues weren’t limited to cheating though. Complaints were rolling in from the courts about the vendor in SRO. The AOC facilities management people across the region were writing them up for these complaints.

It got to a point where the service was deemed so bad by the facilities management administrators in the SRO region that the facilities management administrators across the entire SRO region wanted the vendor out. There were just too many problems, too many complaints and prices that were wildly unrealistic for services rendered.

All of this activity, including the SRO vendor themselves, was being shielded first at the Facilities Management Administrator’s boss in SRO, the JFI/Team Jacobs contract manager, one Ken Kachold. He ran SRO with an Iron Fist and as far as he was concerned, JFI could do no wrong, regardless of what the reports from the field were. He knew the reports because he required weekly meetings to go over the reports in detail. Mr. Kachold developed a protectionist / apologetic attitude towards the vendor and instructed his Facilities Maintenance Administrators to downplay widespread reports of dissatisfaction. In the face of all of these complaints, the AOC mysteriously cancelled Emcor’s contract and quietly awarded the BANCRO region to Jacobs. The complaints in BANCRO would then proceed to escalate dramatically about the same issues denoted in SRO. There was a different regional manager serving BANCRO and this is where FMU’s senior management from Sacramento (Stetson, Pfab and Willoughby) began “regulating” complaints against the vendor in Northern California.

During this entire time, Aleut Global Solutions, LLC had been performing work out of the NCRO region. While there was complaints about costs, there were very few complaints about the quality of their work. Much later into the contract, management issues at AGS turned into management headaches for the AOC.

It was in late 2006 that Michael Paul started making his inquiries as to the license status of “Team Jacobs”. In December of 2006, a subcontractor to Team Jacobs on the Larson Justice Center named AirMetrx out of Walnut, California approached Michael and indicated that he was working for and accepting payments from an unlicensed contractor who was ABM. The role of “Team Jacobs” was clarified as being an unlicensed joint venture at the time, with ABM having only a license to clean up a construction site. They had no legal authority to issue AirMetrx any contract for the building management system as this would be working outside of the scope of their janitorial license. Furthermore, the joint venture, purported to be Jacobs Engineering Group of Pasadena, California and ABM – had no joint venture license whatsoever. Yet as you can tell by the business cards and proposals posted on this site, they were operating precisely in this manner.

These matters, known by the entire management staff of the Office of Court Construction and Management, went absent any resolution for three years. When the AOC did do something about it, they called upon the AG’s office to rush out and file laswuits that lacked any meat whatsoever on the allegation bones to prevent and to be able to control any outside investigation. Initially, they filed lawsuits claiming the total paid the unlicensed contractors was 14 million. Since everyone knew that to be untrue, they upped the ante to 42 million and made “Team Jacobs” vanish off the face of the earth.

The problem here is that the AOC paid the unlicensed contractors somewhere north of three hundred million dollars according to our sources within the AOC. So why is the AOC declining to pursue $258 million dollars, especially when everyone knows that all monies were a result of gross overcharging? Part of this money paid the unlicensed contractors came from the trial courts, yet the contracts for work and contract maintenance and supervision, the responsible managing entity remained the AOC.

How much would you have to be paid to look the other way at overpaying an unlicensed contractor with state funds over a three year period?

How much would you have to be paid to allow even a licensed contractor to grossly overcharge you over that same period, while protecting the entity?

In short, we believe these affairs to be part of an elaborate kickback scheme involving members of the AOC and members of the judicial council, run over a period of years and consists of yet another element that we call racketeering.

Again, follow the money. Similar to the AOC bleeding trial courts dry on CCMS funding, the AOC has been bleeding trial courts dry on building maintenance, remodeling, modifications, etc as well as services provided to the trial courts by the vendors. As illustrated by both Jon Wintermeyer and Michael Paul, beating the vendors pricing by leaps and bounds was simple, but not in the best interests of those skimming from the public trough. This is why both of these gentlemen had to go as does anyone that agrees with them and comes to the same conclusions.

________________________________________________________________

The California Courts Technology Center was founded by the AOC to provide centralized datacenter services and technical assistance to the states trial courts. It is where the AOC has chosen to host Sustain, CCMS, Phoenix, CAFM and a host of other services like e-mail. Initially, this contract was let to Siemens and they operated a datacenter in Union City, California. When the contract came up for renewal, the AOC put it back out to bid and selected SAIC. Right after the selection of SAIC, Siemens personnel attached to the old CCTC started becoming managers, senior managers and assistant directors within the AOC information services department. A reorganization conducted at about the same time as the contract renewal added an extra layer of management called “Senior Manager”, a whole bunch of people throughout the AOC were then promoted to “Senior Manager” and all of those Siemens people suddenly had jobs open up for them in the AOC that did not exist prior to their Siemen s departures. Yes, in AOC Information Services, they actually created positions for four individuals that did not previously exist, with one individual filling a slot vacated by a retirement.

Just like the prices for other services, the prices of services from the CCTC are and have always been off the charts from both Siemens and SAIC. Those people who would have known this best all got management jobs within information services. Is this just a mere coincidence that all of this happened or was giving these people high level jobs within the branch a way of keeping them quiet? As we’ve said many times before, we’re not a believer of coincidences when it comes to the AOC and their operations.

_________________________________________________________________

The destruction of court mediation records in Marin County was conducted while a BSA audit was pending to look specifically at this information as well as the case files for a certain number of cases within the courts. For nearly a year, the AOC, the Judicial Council and Court Executive Officer/ Judicial Council member Kim Turner pushed off BSA’s audit with flimsy excuses. Meanwhile they had turned on the shredders in Marin County, started removing mediation files from case files and started shredding them as these files were incriminating.

John Judnick, the resident judicial branch cleaner was sent up to Marin County to bless this destruction. And bless it he did. He chose to take the position that files that are an instrumental part of custody decisions are not part of the court case file and it was okay to destroy this incriminating evidence. This report would later be accepted by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye as the legal standard. It is okay to destroy court mediation records because they are not part of the court’s official file (even though they are instrumental in the judges decisions)

This racket is a trade of favors. Kim Turner was involved in her boss extraordinaire’s steering of contracts to a live-in girlfriend and managed to keep her mouth closed about it. This is a quality valued by the Judicial Council so this put her on the fast track to leadership.

She had been competently protecting boss extraordinaire’s butt for years so she was the perfect choice to continue to protect the Marin judges and the Judicial Council.

_______________________________________________________________

Patrick Missud is a lawyer-litigant that has a bend for a company named DR Horton that he and many others accuse of bait-and-switch mortgages. DR Horton is what we call a “frequent flyer” in legal circles. While they build houses and provide mortgages, their other calling is preserving their gains by allegedly retaining arbiter companies that consistently rule in their favor and against construction defects and mortgage fraud. Since these are settled in Arbitration, you never hear much about their activities but quite a lot of activity they have.

If these arbiter companies didn’t consistently rule in DR Horton’s favor, then DR Horton wouldn’t be choosing them, so says the allegations made in a federal RICO complaint against San Francisco Superior Court and ADR Services, Inc.

________________________________________________________________

We’re not lawyers. However, all of the activity listed above calls into question the legitimacy of California’s judicial branch of government. Most especially it calls into question the legitimacy of many acts undertaken by the Judicial Council and the AOC.

Is there a shadow syndicate at the JC/AOC hiding behind the robes of the judiciary?

Add a comment to this post

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 […]
    SiteAdmin
  • 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 […]
    SiteAdmin
  • 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 […]
    SiteAdmin
  • 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 […]
    SiteAdmin
  • 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 […]
    SiteAdmin

RSS Drudge Report Feed

  • Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground... 2018/04/22
    Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground... (Top headline, 1st story, link) Related stories:President casts doubt on legality of special counsel...Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage...Doesn't think will 'flip'...'Fixer' becomes danger...Lawsuits pile up...Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... Adv […]
  • President casts doubt on legality of special counsel... 2018/04/22
    President casts doubt on legality of special counsel... (Top headline, 2nd story, link) Related stories:Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground...Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage...Doesn't think will 'flip'...'Fixer' becomes danger...Lawsuits pile up...Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... Adv […]
  • Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage... 2018/04/22
    Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage... (Top headline, 3rd story, link) Related stories:Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground...President casts doubt on legality of special counsel...Doesn't think will 'flip'...'Fixer' becomes danger...Lawsuits pile up...Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... Adv […]
  • Doesn't think will 'flip'... 2018/04/22
    Doesn't think will 'flip'... (Top headline, 4th story, link) Related stories:Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground...President casts doubt on legality of special counsel...Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage...'Fixer' becomes danger...Lawsuits pile up...Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... Adv […]
  • 'Fixer' becomes danger... 2018/04/22
    'Fixer' becomes danger... (Top headline, 5th story, link) Related stories:Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground...President casts doubt on legality of special counsel...Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage...Doesn't think will 'flip'...Lawsuits pile up...Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... Adv […]
  • Lawsuits pile up... 2018/04/22
    Lawsuits pile up... (Top headline, 6th story, link) Related stories:Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground...President casts doubt on legality of special counsel...Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage...Doesn't think will 'flip'...'Fixer' becomes danger...Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... Adv […]
  • Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... 2018/04/22
    Sessions warns Rosenstein firing could prompt his departure... (Top headline, 7th story, link) Related stories:Under attack, FBI has become partisan battleground...President casts doubt on legality of special counsel...Lashes out at NYT over Cohen coverage...Doesn't think will 'flip'...'Fixer' becomes danger...Lawsuits pile up... Adv […]
  • IVANA: HE DOESN'T NEED TO RUN AGAIN 2018/04/22
    IVANA: HE DOESN'T NEED TO RUN AGAIN (Main headline, 1st story, link) Advertise here
  • Vive la France: Trump hosts glitzy state dinner... 2018/04/22
    Vive la France: Trump hosts glitzy state dinner... (First column, 1st story, link) Advertise here
  • Iconic French abbey evacuated after threat... 2018/04/22
    Iconic French abbey evacuated after threat... (First column, 2nd story, link) Advertise here
  • Past presidents, family and friends bid farewell to Barbara Bush... 2018/04/22
    Past presidents, family and friends bid farewell to Barbara Bush... (First column, 3rd story, link) Related stories:DOWD: Fake Pearls, Real Heart...NOONAN: Secrets of a Great First Spouse... Advertise here
  • DOWD: Fake Pearls, Real Heart... 2018/04/22
    DOWD: Fake Pearls, Real Heart... (First column, 4th story, link) Related stories:Past presidents, family and friends bid farewell to Barbara Bush...NOONAN: Secrets of a Great First Spouse... Advertise here
  • NOONAN: Secrets of a Great First Spouse... 2018/04/22
    NOONAN: Secrets of a Great First Spouse... (First column, 5th story, link) Related stories:Past presidents, family and friends bid farewell to Barbara Bush...DOWD: Fake Pearls, Real Heart... Advertise here
  • STARBUCKS under investigation over hidden camera in bathroom... 2018/04/22
    STARBUCKS under investigation over hidden camera in bathroom... (First column, 6th story, link) Advertise here
  • Health Officials Warn of Jehovah's Witness Measles Exposure... 2018/04/22
    Health Officials Warn of Jehovah's Witness Measles Exposure... (First column, 7th story, link) Advertise here
  • Boomers Embrace Luxury Van Life... 2018/04/22
    Boomers Embrace Luxury Van Life... (First column, 8th story, link) Related stories:LIST: Best suburbs for retirement... Advertise here
  • LIST: Best suburbs for retirement... 2018/04/22
    LIST: Best suburbs for retirement... (First column, 9th story, link) Related stories:Boomers Embrace Luxury Van Life... Advertise here
  • Venezuela's Maduro visits new Cuban leader... 2018/04/22
    Venezuela's Maduro visits new Cuban leader... (First column, 10th story, link) Advertise here
  • Mind-altering plant answer to addiction? 2018/04/22
    Mind-altering plant answer to addiction? (First column, 11th story, link) Advertise here
  • Mystery surrounds APPLE's TV ambitions... 2018/04/22
    Mystery surrounds APPLE's TV ambitions... (First column, 12th story, link) Advertise here
.
Advertisements