archives

Yolo County Grand Jury

This tag is associated with 20 posts

Alliance of California Judges on Auditing AOC; Copy of YR communication to Jeff Reisig Re Plan to Contact Dave Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, Yolo County Grand Jury President Barbara Sommer of Progress Ranch

March 27, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

We attach an editorial penned by Bill Girdner of the Courthouse News. Suffice it to say, our branch leaders have gotten the attention of those in the media who report on court cases and who believe in open government. The author voices a concern that we share — some of the reporting on the “$10 pay for view” proposal has appeared to cast blame on the Governor or his Department of Finance for this assault on the First Amendment and open government. That could not be further from the truth.

A Report to the Judicial Council dated December 14, 2012, lays out the council’s legislative priorities for 2013. On page 12 you will find language drafted by AOC staff amending the Government Code to charge the public $10 to view a “name, file, or other information for which a search is requested.” Our branch leaders standing by silently while the Governor and his Department of Finance are unfairly criticized for this gaffe hearkens back to the last time the AOC was caught attempting to gut Government Code sections concerning the management of the local trial courts. Then AOC staff affirmatively blamed the Department of Finance. Now, they seem content to allow a misleading impression to be made regarding the authorship of this misguided proposal.

We encourage you to read this report in its entirety, as it sheds additional light on what our handpicked leaders believe is essential in this year’s legislative session. We will point out only one additional item. On pages 7 and 8, the AOC proposes to defer audits for compliance with the Public Contracting Code unless specific funding is provided to the judicial branch to offset the cost for these audits.

As you know, the State Auditor recently released her audit findings of the first six local courts that were chosen to be audited. We learned from this audit that the AOC was up to its old tricks by providing incorrect data and excluding information required by the auditors. The six local courts were found to be substantially in compliance with the code. Ending the audits now would stop the State Auditor from auditing the “AOC and other judicial branch entities” as is required by December 15 of this year. It appears that the six local courts had the funds to pay for audits last year, but this year the central office appears to be broke and unable to afford an audit unless the General Fund provides the resources to do so. How convenient.
The Alliance believes that auditing the AOC is not a luxury that should only occur if extra funding is secured. Rather we believe it is of utmost importance that respected State Auditor Elaine Howle undertake this audit immediately. For those on the Judicial Council who champion and repeatedly claim that a new regime has embraced “greater transparency,” this proposal to kill off an audit speaks to their definition of transparency when it comes to their own operations.

As always, we will continue to keep you informed on matters concerning our branch.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges

Source @:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/03/27/pay-for-view-was-an-aoc-plan-from-the-start/

++++++
In that suspicious transactions involving Judge David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg (“Rosenbergs”), Treasurer Victor Bucher, Cache Creek Casino and Barbara Sommer (President of Yolo County Grand Jury ; Progress Ranch) were recently unearthed, this will serve to place your office on notice of my plans to directly contact those individuals in furtherance of the inquiry.

The above will be contacted in their capacity as officers of various non-profit entities ( Davis Odd Fellows, Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Progress Ranch) for the purpose of obtaining documents, dates, amounts, as well as other relevant information.

Specifically, a noticeable surge has been detected in the level of enthusiasm (i.e. fundraising, donations)  on the part of  Cache Creek Casino and Rosenbergs to benefit “foster youth” and/or “emancipated foster youth” in Yolo County.”

For example, Rosenbergs (at times, with the assistance of Judge Dave Reed, Treasurer Victor Bucher) raised funds to support foster youth by mobilizing Davis Odd Fellows (“Breakfast with Santa”), Soroptimist International of Davis (“Texas Hold ‘Em” ) and Davis Rebekah Lodge (“Crab Feed” ).

Subsequently, those funds were forwarded directly to Progress Ranch and/or  Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services – The Homeless and Foster Youth Services of Yolo County,  which in turns forward sums to Progress Ranch pursuant to contractual agreement with Yolo County totaling around $800,000 per annum.

Likewise, Cache Creek Casino’s sudden interest in foster youth manifested itself with a  $48,500 donation.

Please observe that the inquiry is in its infancy, and stem from the fact that Progress Ranch President Barbara Sommer is also the President of Yolo County Grand Jury, as well as  the role of Victor Bucher as treasurer in various judicial elections.

Advertisements

Profile of “Progress Ranch” in Yolo County [ TLR Note: A) It appears Progress Ranch reluctant to share names of board of directors as no data available on web-site B) Madam Lea Rosenberg actively raising funds vis-a-vis 1) Davis Odd Fellows – Breakfast with Santa, 2) Soroptimist International of Davis – Texas Hold ‘Em 3) Davis Rebekah Lodge — Crab Feed . C) President of Progress Ranch — Barbara Sommer of UC Davis — also President of Yolo County Grand Jury

In operation since 1976, Progress Ranch promotes the hope, health, and well-being of boys between the ages of 6 and 12 by helping them develop the self-confidence, competence, and positive feelings that result from living in a nurturing setting within a supportive community.

Our facility has six beds. We are located in a residential neighborhood in the city of Davis, and boys are eligible to attend Davis public schools. Our Executive Director, Wendi Counta, a long-time Davis resident, has over twenty years of experience working with children. She was the Residential Director at Families First for the past fifteen years. Her educational background is in Human Services management.

The Board of Directors is comprised of local residents who recognize the need for caring, community-based programs for children at risk. They meet monthly in Davis. A packet of material to describe board service opportunities is available upon request.

License and financial support

Progress Ranch is a nonprofit public benefit, 501(c) agency providing residential treatment services for the emotionally-troubled child. We are licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division.

Children are placed by social service case workers from Yolo and other regional counties. Residential care is paid from government funds according to rates set by the State of California.

 

 

Webms: Barbara Sommer basommer@ucdavis.edu
Progress Ranch logo by Lisa Wood Design

Source @:

http://www.progressranch.org/index.html

Addendum to Profile of Madam Lea Rosenberg (wife of Dave Rosenberg) — Extensive Contribution to Community Also Include Raising Funds to House Emancipated Foster Young Adults [ TLR Note: 1) Notice date of 2010 2) “About 80 percent of the profits collected were donated to the local housing program, the group’s primary project for the next couple years. ” — refer to Progress Ranch ? Reminder, in 2010 Progress Ranch’s Barbara Sommer — Yolo County Grand Jury Foreperson — investigate Cache Creek Casino ]

Written by Samantha Bosio
Staff Writer
Published on March 10, 2010
Filed under City News

Yolo County relieves foster youth’s transition to independence

Most teenagers anxiously await the day they turn 18, but not every young adult shares this same excitement. For foster youth, becoming a legal adult carries new responsibilities to lead an independent life.

In an effort to aid in the transition from out-of-home residencies to independent living, the Transitional Housing Placement Plus (THP-Plus) program helps emancipated foster children in 52 counties. The THP-Plus program offers affordable housing, furniture, assistance with enrollment in school and help finding a job to former foster children ages 18 to 24.

“It is the only program in the state that works to address homelessness in former foster youth,” said Amy Lemley, policy director for the John Burton Foundation. “I think it’s very scary for these teens. You can imagine the kind of panic and frustration that this creates for them. We need to fulfill our commitment to these young people the way a parent would support their child in this transition.”

The California Department of Social Services, John Burton Foundation and the Corporation for Supportive Housing established the statewide project in 2001. Yolo County implemented the THP-Plus program in 2008, providing affordable housing for foster youth in a subsidized, communal home in the city of Davis.

Youth in the 24-month program are given housing, furniture, food allotment, counseling, assistance with earning their GED if needed, a $50 monthly stipend and a trust account to help them save money for life after the program.

“Approximately 15 youth emancipate out of foster care in Yolo County each year,” said Nancy O’Hara, assistant director of Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services in an e-mail interview. “Most have no where to live and no means of support at the time they are emancipated. The youth seem receptive and appreciative [of the THP-Plus].”

On July 1, however, the benefits of the program may be in danger if the state decreases its $172,000 allocation for Yolo County’s THP-Plus due to the California budget crisis.

“What little security they have had has been undermined by the recession,” Lemley said. “When we need it [the THP-Plus] most we see a proposal to eliminate it. As counties are more seriously affected by the recession, we see a kind of trickle down effect where counties have to decide what they do or do not want to do. It’s a tough decision for everyone.”

According to a 2002 study by the California Department of Social Services, every year in California over 4,200 young adults are dismissed from foster care, and two out of three end up homeless. Since its formation, the THP-Plus has been relatively successful – 85 percent of its participants retain housing and employment for at least one year after completing the program.

To help Yolo County’s local foster care, Soroptimist International of Davis held its annual poker tournament on March 6 at the Veterans’ Memorial Center.

“This type of issue isn’t on everyone’s radar,” said Lea Roseberg, president of Soroptimist International of Davis. “We wanted to bring it forth a little bit. I hope that these young adults know that there is a group out there that is supportive of their futures and that we care. Most of us have a mom or dad to help us get through college and pay for rent, but hopefully we can come in and help that Yolo County agency.”

About 80 percent of the profits collected were donated to the local housing program, the group’s primary project for the next couple years. Soroptimist will distribute the rest of the proceeds amongst other community projects.

Source @:

http://www.theaggie.org/2010/03/10/yolo-county-relieves-foster-youths-transition-to-independence/

++++++++++

“Each year, thousands of 18-year-olds find themselves totally on their own because they have aged out of the foster care system,” says Lea Rosenberg, a member of Soroptimist International of Davis.

“Suddenly, they must figure out how to live on their own, work out transportation issues, and find a job or enter college without the help of a trusted adult adviser. So, our club wants to make sure that the youth who age out of the foster care system in Yolo County know that there are adults who care about them and want to help them become self-sufficient.”

Soroptimists invite the public to help out by attending their annual “Spirit of the West” fundraiser on Saturday, Feb. 25, beginning at 5:30 p.m. at the Veterans’ Memorial Center, 203 E. 14th St. All proceeds raised through this annual event are used to support and assist young adults who age out of foster care.

Source @:http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/fundraiser-benefits-former-foster-kids/

+++++++++++

The Davis Rebekah Lodge invites the public to its Second Rebekah Lodge Crab Feed to be held on Saturday, Feb. 2, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Odd Fellows Lodge Hall, 415 Second St., Davis. The crab feed is a charitable fundraiser, open to the general public.

Only 160 tickets were printed for the crab feed, and less than 30 tickets remain. Tickets are only sold at the Avid Reader Active bookstore on Second Street. It is not anticipated that any tickets will remain to be sold at the door.

Tickets are $40 per person and participants will get lots of fresh cracked crab, pasta, salad, bread and drawn butter. The Rebekah Crab Feed also features a silent auction and a full no-host bar.

A raffle will also be conducted featuring a 24-bottle wine locker, including 24 bottles of fine wine.

All proceeds from the Rebekah Lodge Crab Feed will be used for the benefit of at-risk and foster youth in the Yolo County community.

Source @:

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22460858/crab-feed-hosted-by-davis-rebekahs-aid-yolo

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

Want to whisper your Christmas wishes in Santa’s ear early this holiday season? Then be sure to buy tickets for Breakfast with Santa, which go on sale Monday.

This year’s event, which features three seatings, will take place Saturday, Dec. 10, at the Odd Fellows Hall, 415 Second St. in downtown Davis.

Tickets are $8 per person and must be purchased in advance, at The Avid Reader, 617 Second St. in downtown Davis, and Common Grounds, 2171 Cowell Blvd. in South Davis. Seatings are at 8, 9:30 and 11 a.m.

“Only 120 tickets are available for each seating and they go really fast,” said event co-chair Barbara Geisler. In 2010, tickets sold out in 10 days.

Breakfast with Santa includes pancakes, sausage, orange slices and cinna-bread, a goodie bag for each child and an opportunity to take a photo with Santa.

Parents are encouraged to bring their own cameras to record their child’s moment with Santa and his elves.

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

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

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

Source @:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/breakfast-with-santa-tickets-go-on-sale-monday/

TIMELINE May 2011 – Davis Vanguard’s David Greenwald lashes out at Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dave Rosenberg for nominating wife Lea Rosenberg (aka Lea Pepper) for Civic Award [ TLR Note: award bestowed, in part, for fundraising on behalf of “Elderly Nutrition Program” (“ENP”) in Yolo County — known widely as “Meals on Wheels” and operated by People Resources, Inc. where Vic Bucher serves as director]

Humanitarian Award
Winner: Lea Rosenberg
Nominated By: Dave RosenbergThe Humanitarian Award recognizes significant efforts in improving the quality of life for Davis residents by directly addressing the needs of specific groups within the community in the areas of health, human services, housing or employment.Although Lea Rosenberg has volunteered in countless capacities throughout the community over the past quarter century, she was nominated to receive the Humanitarian Award because of her recent efforts with foster youth and emancipated foster youth. Her nominator Dave Rosenberg writes, “Lea…has raised a considerable amount in donations to provide funds for these foster kids to stay in school, to purchase bus passes and books, as well as clothing and school supplies. She has raised money so that the kids can live in apartments after they become adults. She has taken a personal interest in Davis’ own Progress Ranch – a home for 6 very hard to place foster boys – bringing them games and toys, and supplying the home with gifts when the kids have birthdays.”

Ms. Rosenberg has also worked to support the Yolo Food Closet, Meals on Wheels and All Things Right and Relevant.

Source @:
http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?index_php?view=article&id=4398&tmpl=component&print=1&task=printblog&option=com_myblog&Itemid=171
+++++++++++++++
Davis Vanguard’s David Greenwald:

When I first saw the list of Thon Hy Hunh award nominees, and saw that Lea Rosenberg had won the award for Humanitarian, I thought very little about it.  After all, anyone who knows Lea, understand and appreciates the years of work she has done in our community.

She is a longtime volunteer who works very hard and is totally devoted to many non-profits who do humanitarian work.

It was only when I saw that her husband, a former Mayor but a sitting Judge, had nominated her, that I got an unsettling knot in the pit of my stomach.

It is inappropriate for a husband to nominate his wife for an award.  It would be like nominating oneself.  It is a conflict of interest and strikes of self-promotion if not more.

What makes this worse is that dozens in this community would gladly have stepped in to nominate Mrs. Rosenberg, who is a very appropriate nominee, but for judge Rosenberg to do so looks self-serving.  And it cheapens the award which, has a distinguished history in this community, honoring people for public service and commitment to civil rights in our community.

Moreover, as a sitting Judge, in fact the presiding Judge, David Rosenberg ought to stay out of such trivial matters.  This would be like Judge Mock nominating his wife Ann Hurd for Prosecutor of the Year.  She may well be deserving of it, but family should not be nominating family.

What is amazing is the disconnect between Judge David Rosenberg who sits on the bench in Yolo County and the one who, for whatever reason, gets bogged down in these sort of self-promoting activities.

Judge Rosenberg, if I should have the misfortune of being accused of a crime, would be the judge I would want to preside over my case.  He is fair-minded, he is caring, he knows the law and he treats people with respect and decency.

He is a good and decent person and has often used his positions to help people in need.  He shows a level of compassion and decency that is often missing in our judicial system.

Many of our judges do not even pay lip-service to compassion.  Judge Rosenberg has demonstrated it on a consistent basis from the bench in a way that not only brings humanity to the courtroom, but also a sense of fair play.

At the same time, for whatever reason, he is prone to enormous lapses in judgment.  The building of the new courthouse is a good example.

Few people who utilize the current courthouse would doubt that the Yolo County Court facilities are badly in need upgrading, either through a remodel or a new building that would enable all of the courts to operate within a single building, without exposing the public and staff to the security risks of marching in-custody defendants through common-use hallways that the public inhabit.

Unfortunately, we have talked to many in the community who are just appalled that, at a time when public employees are being laid off and people are jobless, such a grandiose courthouse is being proposed.

Sadly, the court itself is not immune to such cutbacks.  Court staff have been laid off.  There are furlough days.  And recently many of the law enforcement officers who provided security through the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department had to be laid off as well.

When such financing schemes were called into question by people like Davis City Councilmember Sue Greenwald,  Davis Enterprise Columnist Rich Rifkin and myself, Judge Rosenberg took it upon himself to respond in an op-ed.

Please continue @:

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4399:sunday-an-inappropriate-nomination&Itemid=81

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

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

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

Public Utilities Code that applies to this call

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

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

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

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

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

Source @:

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

++++++++++

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related story, please see HERE

For more about :

Judge Rosenberg, please see HERE and HERE

Judge Dan Maguire, please see HERE

Jeff Reisig, please see HERE

++++++++++

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

Joe Dunn


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Judge Dave Rosenberg as Potential Accessory After the Fact ?

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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


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

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


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

California Bar Journal

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

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

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

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

GRANDA v STATE BAR DOCKET

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

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

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

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

 

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

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter 1

May 31, 2011

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter Jill Sperber State Bar of CaliforniaJill Sperber to Complainant 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sara E. Redfield SAL

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

Work CALALL SAL

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

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

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

SAL Visit to Allen Matkins

 

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

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

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

Allen Matkins Web Page Re Saturday Law Academy

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 1

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 2


VI. YR’S VIEW OF EVENTS SURROUNDING CaliforniaALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

2

3

5

4

+++++++++++

Letterhead Logo Smaller

March 18, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Directors, Alliance of California Judges

Source @:

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

Timeline 2010 – Stand Up for California: Cache Creek Casino: Traffic, crime, but oh the money [ TLR Note: 1- Practically speaking, Cache Creek Casino – controlled by Howard Dickstein and UC Davis Foundation’s Tribal Chairman Marshall McKay of Beverly Hills — pays salaries of Bruce Naliboff, Michael Cabral and RICO Defendant Jeff Reisig 2- If tribe a sovereign entity — what, if any, constitutional provision gives Yolo County power to seek payments in mitigation? 3- Are payments reason Bruce Naliboff / Jeff Reisig did not criminally charge fraternity members for hate crimes / attempted extortion of Ryan Clifford — attempted extortion in re subsequent alleged threat of violence against Ryan Clifford if will not remain quiet]

Cache Creek Casino: Traffic, crime, but oh the money

Cache Creek Casino has brought some prosperity to the region, but the grand jury noted the negatives in its report. By ERIN TRACY / Daily Democrat 07/09/2010

The Cache Creek Casino Resort attracted patrons who fueled the economy, which led to improved emergency services, but ultimately traffic congestion, noise, and crime beyond remediation, according to a 2009-10 Yolo County grand jury report.

The grand jury, which released its report last week, found better communication between Yolo County and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, as well as stronger oversight of tribal mitigation dollars, would likely improve the situation.
It’s hard to deny the economic impact of the 414,110 square-foot facility, which is the county’s largest employer. The tribe annually awards $200 million in vendor contracts, $40 million in payments to the county and state, and $3 million in donations to local civic organizations, the report stated.
The casino’s annual earnings, which go to YDWN members, are kept confidential by the sovereign nation but the grand jury estimated the reservation is home to fewer than 25 members and their children.
“These individuals are the direct and highly-compensated beneficiaries of the profits from the casino,” the report states.
Representatives of the Tribe declined to be interviewed or answer written questions submitted by the grand jury, citing sovereignty rights. Representatives also did not respond to inquires about the report before deadline.

IMAGES  AND NARRATIVES — NOT PART OF ORIGINAL ARTICLE

UC Davis Foundation

UC Davis MIND Institute

Chris Young -- Mark Friedman, Kim Mack,  Kevin Johnson
Sacramento Mayoral Campaign: Chris Young, Mark Friedman, Kim Mack, Kevin Johnson

Chris Young, Mark Friedman, Alison Turner, CaliforniaALL
CaliforniaALL: Chris Young, Mark Friedman, Alison Turner, 1600H / F65

Chris Young . McGeorge School of Law
McGeorge School of Law – “Pacific Pathways” – Make Believe Launching of SAL – Manoa Law School Hawaii Summit June 2007: Chris Young, Kevin Johnson, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah E. Redfield, CaliforniaALL’s Judge Morrison England, CaliforniaALL’s Torie Flournoy-England, CaliforniaALL’s Ruthe Catolico Ashley, CaliforniaALL’s Larissa Parecki.
See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE . Manoa Law School Hawaii Summit See HERE (Judy Johnson – not shown)


Chris Young - Mark Friedman, Kim Mack, Sacramento for Obama

OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Chris Young, Mark Friedman, and Kim Mack

kvn 3cm
Three-Card-Monte: John Keker, Elliot Peters, Jan Little, Matt Werdegar, Jon Streeter, Chris Young.  Hoping to conceal the identity and past actions of Chris Young , Keker & Van Nest removed Chris Young’s attorney profile from its website.  Only after YR managed to unearth Young’s identity and only after YR filed an ethics complaint against John Keker, Jon Streeter, and Chris Young in connection with the attempt to defraud the public by concealing Young’s association with Keker & Van Nest, Young’s attorney profile has been restored to the firm’s site. See story HERE

KVN - YDCA
John Keker, Jon Streeter, District Attorney of Yolo County Jeff Reisig, Twice Rico defendant Jeannine English.   Hoping to retaliate against Yolo County’s YR and to otherwise sabotage his inquiry into CaliforniaALL, subsequent to the removal of Chris Young’s attorney profile from Keker & Van Nest website —  and allegedly acting in their capacity as members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors  — Jon Streeter, Jeannine English, Gwen Moore, Dennis Mangers, Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn, as well as others conspired to press false criminal charges against YR with the District Attorney of Yolo County. See story HERE

IMAGES  AND NARRATIVES — NOT PART OF ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Increased road use

Perhaps the biggest complaint among residents in the Capay Valley is the increase in traffic along Highway 16. Saturdays are the busiest day for travel, with more than 13,000 travelers heading to the casino, the report stated, which is a 69 percent increase between 2002 and 2006.
All casino feeder roads meet capacity limits established by the state and county and studies conducted for the 2030 General Plan and by the citizens group, Capay Valley Vision, expect traffic on the roads will exceed capacity by 2013.
In a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding between the tribe and county, YDWN promised to implement a shuttle service to mitigate traffic issues. The tribe agreed to pay the county to construct a park and rides facility for patrons and employees, and make the use of its service mandatory for workers. Neither the service nor the policy has been implemented and only 18 percent of employees currently use public transportation, according to the report.
The influx of casino visitors yielded a doubling of Sheriff’s deputies in the area, but the majority of casino related crimes continue to increase. According to the report, between 2002 and 2006 DUI arrests increased 1,050 percent, assaults and weapons arrests increased 2,900 percent and Felony Burglary increased 900 percent.
How the cash is divided

The sheriff’s department has received the lion’s share of mitigation funding to county department, with $3.46 million since 2002. Despite this majority funding, the county estimates its law enforcement related workload — comprised of efforts from the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney and Public Defender’s office — is under-funded by about $600,000.
In total, the tribe has paid $32.9 million to the county: $10.6 million has gone to specific departments, $15.5 million to the general fund, $6.4 million to community residents and specified projects along the Highway 16 corridor, and $.4 million to reserves. The department allocations also include $1.2 million for negotiations and arbitration over the tribes proposed 2008 expansion, which was abandoned in October 2009.

The distribution and oversight of those funds for community projects were called into question by the Yolo County grand jury.
The Advisory Committee on Tribal Matters was established by the Board of Supervisors to recommend applications for tribal mitigation. The grand jury found questionable spending and conflicts of interest among its nine members.
At least two of the board members voted on proposals either because they, or their spouse, “held a leadership role in a recipient organization.”
The Board of Supervisors also took recommendations that limited funding to residents between Interstate 505 and the casino, precluding mitigation for many other towns along the Highway 16 corridor, including Woodland. The majority, 38 percent, of the funds went to Esparto and the were increasingly used for economic and community development rather than mitigation like road repair.
According to the report, the committee’s board minutes reflect that its members, “inaccurately believe ACTM funds are theirs to control … ignoring other county priorities or other casino-related mitigation needs outside the valley.”
County Tribe Coordinator Christopher Lee said, “The county is taking the findings of the grand jury seriously and will respond the them in full and we will have more information at that time.”

Please continue @:

http://www.standupca.org/tribes/Rumsey%20Rancheria/cache-creek-casino-traffic-crime-but-oh-the-money/

++++++

Jeff Reisig:

In an almost unprecedented turn of events and somewhat ironically, a local official in the State of California who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offenses is now accused of criminal conduct.

Jeff Reisig
Shown above is Mr. Jeff Reisig — an alleged “accomplice” to both a criminal and civil conspiracy who cooperated, jointly and severally, in the commission of two or more RICO activities (image: courtesy photo)

Court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that the highly controversial District Attorney of Yolo County Jeff Reisig is accused of violating the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

RICO is a federal law that authorizes a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be held civilly liable for the crimes that they ordered others to commit or which they assisted in committing.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based legal scholar Daniel Dydzak, alleges that Jeff Reisig and his deputies/investigators engaged in an “unlawful search and seizure” and that Mr. Reisig and State Bar of California employee Tom Layton (who according to sources is part of an ongoing “ambulance chasing” scheme the Girardi Syndicate operates in San Bernardino County vis-a-vis a satellite office located in San Bernardino and managed by Thomas Girardi’s son-in-law, David Lira) shared with third parties materials obtained during the search.

The suit further alleges that Reisig conspired to participate in a RICO enterprise, as well as participated in the commission of two or more racketeering activities acting as “accomplice.”

Bruce Naliboff:

* The Leslie Brodie Report urges the readers to exercise caution and not jump to conclusions regarding misconduct by anyone.

A big red flag has been reluctantly raised over Yolo County District Attorney Chief Investigator, Bruce David Naliboff.

The rapidly expanding multi-prong civil inquiry, conducted by Yolo County’s YR, views Naliboff  —  an Ex-Lieutenant  of  UC Davis Police Department — as someone who may potentially have a played a greater role than had been perceived up to now.

Bruce Naliboff and Jeff Reisig of Yolo County District Attorney
Yolo County District Attorney Chief Investigator Bruce Naliboff and Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig — an alleged “accomplice” to both a criminal and civil conspiracy who cooperated, jointly and severally, in the commission of two or more RICO activities according to court documents filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (image:courtesy Daily Democrat)

YR maintains that one aspect of the inquiry into CaliforniaALL /  University of California  involves 4 subparts:

1) Circumstances surrounding events relating to UC Davis / UC Davis Foundation operatives Cruz Reynoso, Mark Friedman , Gilles Attia.

2) Circumstances surrounding events relating to UC Irvine / UC Irvine Foundation operatives Joe Dunn of Cal Bar/ Voice of OC, Judicial Council’s Mark Robinson, Erwin Chemerinsky of Voice of OC, Michael Drake, and Karina Hamilton.

3) Circumstances surrounding events relating UC Berkeley / UC Berkeley Foundation operatives Freada Kapor Klein and Gibor Basri.

4) Circumstances surrounding prima-facie evidence of criminal conduct by Bruce Naliboff, Michael Cabral, and Jeff Reisig.

In connection with Sub-Part  #4, special attention is being paid to the examination of fraud on the court, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of justice, and related irregularities.

Per YR, Sub-Part #4 is being carefully reviewed because it involves “Public Corruption,” which poses a fundamental threat to our way of life. Such wrongdoing impacts everything from how well our community is protected to verdicts handed down in courts, as well as the quality of governmental services. This, YR maintains, can take a significant toll on the American way of life.

Sources: Ryan Clifford May Wish to Consider Asking Yolo County Grand Jury to Investigate Myriad Alleged Misconduct by Various Governmental Officials — Yolo County Grand Jury Contact Information

What Is The Grand Jury?

The Constitution of California requires that every county impanel a Grand Jury each year. The Grand Jury is an arm of the judicial system, but acts as an entirely independent body. In Yolo County, the Superior Court impanels nineteen jurors. California grand juries are unique as their primary responsibility is to investigate civil matters. Juries act as oversight bodies for county and city governments and also have responsibilities in certain criminal matters. Superior Court Judges, the District Attorney, County Counsel and the State Attorney General act as advisors to the Grand Jury.

Much of the Grand Jury’s effectiveness comes from the viewpoint of its members, fresh and unencumbered by prior conceptions about government. Jurors enjoy a uniquely sensitive position. This enables them to not only gain considerable knowledge about government functions, but to recommend constructive action to improve the quality and effectiveness of local government.

The Grand Jury studies the workings of city and county governments including special districts, groups and/or organizations that receive public funds. The Grand Jury is an investigative body; it has the power to subpoena and indict, but does not have the power to prosecute. Investigations may lead to criminal indictments.

Criminal investigations are a smaller part of the Grand Jury’s work in California. In some states all persons accused of felonies must be indicted by a Grand Jury before being tried. In California, the vast majority of criminal cases are presented directly to the court. A California District Attorney may choose to bring certain criminal cases before the Grand Jury. In such cases, the Grand Jury does not determine guilt or innocence, but whether the evidence is such as to warrant charging the person with a triable offense. The case then goes to the court. The Grand Jury does not have the power to issue injunctions or punish by way of fines or jail terms.

Grand Jury Service

Candidates are screened by the Yolo Superior Court. Grand jurors are selected by random draw just prior to July 1.

To qualify for Grand Jury service, you must meet the following requirements:

You are a citizen of the United States;
You are at least 18 years of age;
You have been a Yolo County resident for at least one year immediately before selection;
You are in possession of your natural faculties, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and of fair character;
You possess sufficient knowledge of the English language;
You are not serving as a trial juror in any court of this state;
You have not been discharged as a grand juror in any court of this state within one year; and
You have not been convicted of malfeasance in office or any other felony or other high crime.

Grand jury service is important work and a considerable responsibility. It is also an exciting opportunity to serve your community and learn more about local government. It can be an incredibly rewarding and satisfying experience.

Grand Jurors serve for a one-year term, from July 1 through June 30. Grand jurors should be committed to serving the entire term. The estimated time commitment is approximately 25 – 40 hours per month. Generally, two grand jury meetings are conducted per month, usually in the evening. Additional committee meetings may sometimes be scheduled during business hours. There are two training opportunities for Grand Jury service. One half-day session takes place in Woodland just before the new term begins. Another one to two-day seminar, sponsored by the California Grand Jurors’ Association takes place in the Sacramento area soon after the new term begins.

Link here for a Grand Jury Application, or write to this address:

Jury Services
725 Court Street, Room 303
Woodland, CA 95695
530 406-6828

Grand Jury Reports

At the completion of the one-year term, the Grand Jury submits a final report that details its investigations. The final report is usually made public on the last day of June. The Grand Jury may submit additional reports throughout the year. Reports contain findings and recommendations, and lists those who are expected to respond to each of the recommendations.

Elected officials must respond within 60 days; all other boards and officials must respond within 90 days. Copies of the Grand Jury Final Report are made available to all public libraries, county and city officials and the news media. Reports are often inserted in the local newspapers. The report and its distribution serve to inform the community about Grand Jury activities and findings.

Requesting a Grand Jury Investigation

Grand Juries make their own determinations about which governmental departments to review, although the law requires that some departments be reviewed annually. In addition, citizens, local government officials and government employees may submit complaints about the action or performance of public officials and public agencies.

When sufficient information is submitted, these complaints may be investigated. The name of the person filing the complaint and the nature of the complaint itself are kept strictly confidential unless a waiver of confidentiality is signed by the person filing the complaint. Grand Jurors are sworn to secrecy and, except in very rare circumstances, neither minutes nor records of its meetings may be subpoenaed.
Grand Jury Complaint Form
Link here for a Grand Jury Compaint Form, or write to this address:

Yolo County Grand Jury
PO Box 2142
Woodland, CA 95776-2142
(530) 406-5088

Jury Services
725 Court Street, Room 303
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 406-6828

Source @:

http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=786#Requesting%20a%20Grand%20Jury%20Investigation

 

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

David Greenwald of People’s Vanguard of Davis Hereby Asked to Disclose Reason Your Publication VANGUARD COURT WATCH Did Not- Does Not Cover Matter of Ryan Clifford v. UC Davis [TLR Note: VANGUARD COURT WATCH lack of coverage in matters of Clifford v. UC Davis and separate events dealing with unlawful pretextual search of home of YR and seizure of all CaliforniaALL financial scheme related materials by armed posse from Yolo County District Attorney is viewed by The Leslie Brodie Report as strong circumstantial evidence David Greenwald reporting is suspect, compromised! ; Greenwald connections to UC Davis and/or Judge Dave Rosenberg?]

The Leslie Brodie Report obtained the following search results from Google:

Reisig site:http://davisvanguard.org

About 1,710 results

+++++

Rosenberg site:http://davisvanguard.org

About 818 results

+++++

Naliboff site:http://davisvanguard.org

About 38 results

+++++

Ryan Clifford  site:http://davisvanguard.org

Your search – Ryan Clifford site:http://davisvanguard.org – did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

  • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
  • Try different keywords.
  • Try more general keywords.
  • Try fewer keywords.

+++++For myriad injustices inflicted on Chrisitan-American Ryan Clifford, please see @:

https://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com//?s=Ryan+Clifford+++++

In Re CaliforniaALL financial scheme, Yolo DA, YR, below:

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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


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

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


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

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

 

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

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

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

 


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

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

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

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

 

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

California Bar Journal

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

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

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

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

GRANDA v STATE BAR DOCKET

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

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

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

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

 

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

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter 1

May 31, 2011

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Letter Jill Sperber State Bar of CaliforniaJill Sperber to Complainant 2

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Sara E. Redfield SAL

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

Work CALALL SAL

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

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

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

SAL Visit to Allen Matkins

 

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

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

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

Allen Matkins Web Page Re Saturday Law Academy

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

 

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 1

 

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 2


VI. YR’S VIEW OF EVENTS SURROUNDING CaliforniaALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

2

3

5

4

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

 

 

Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon & Reindel Partial Wikipedia Profile [ TLR Note: Abrams hired Keker & Van Nest (“KVN”) and John Keker to oppose dubious suits filed by USDOJ’s Tony West and California Attorney General Kamala Harris against S&P. YR is about to be dispatch a letter to S&P/ Abrams informing 1) John Keker is a mentor/ attorney-in-fact of Kamla Harris, per sources 2) events surrounding grave misconduct by Kamala Harris / Tony West – formerly of MoFo / Keker & Van Nest’s Chris Young – Formerly of MoFo In Re CaliforniaALL financial scheme / subsequent 3-card-monte by KVN/ KVN’s Jon Streeter conspiring to press false criminal charges against YR for purposes of seizing all Cal ALL materials — in order to disqualify KVN in all cases involving West-Harris since KVN in a position to potentially blackmail West / Harris – similar to the concerns involving Lance Armstrong]


Floyd Abrams in 2006.
Born July 9, 1936 (age 76)
Nationality United States
Alma mater Cornell University
Yale Law School
Occupation Attorney
Employer Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Known for Several First Amendment cases

Floyd Abrams (born July 9, 1936) is an American attorney at Cahill Gordon & Reindel. He is an expert on constitutional law, and many arguments in the briefs he has written before the United States Supreme Court have been adopted as United States Constitutional interpretative law as it relates to the First Amendment and free speech. He is the William J. Brennan Jr. Visiting Professor at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. Abrams argued for The New York Times and Judith Miller in the CIA leak grand jury investigation. Abrams joined Cahill Gordon & Reindel in 1963, and became a partner in 1970.

Contents

Personal

Abrams earned his undergraduate degree from Cornell University in 1956, and his Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 1960. He is Jewish[1] and lives in New York City with wife Efrat. Together they have a son, Dan Abrams of ABC, and a daughter, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.[2] He is a member of the Constitution Project‘s Liberty and Security Committee[3] and a patron of the Media Legal Defence Initiative.

Early career and legal scholarship

From 1961-63, Abrams clerked for Judge Paul Leahy of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He returned to Yale as a Visiting Lecturer from 1974–80, and again from 1986-89. He was also a Visiting Lecturer at Columbia Law School from 1981-85.

Important First Amendment Cases

Main article: List of prominent cases argued by Floyd Abrams

Abrams appearance before the Supreme Court as an advocate of the First Amendment has put him in a class of prominent and still-working legal scholars who have shaped American understanding of their fundamental rights under the United States Constitution. In his 2005 book Speaking Freely, he outlines his knowledge of and perspective on these influential cases (listed in the main article above). Abrams said these cases showcase the work that has been done on free speech in the United States.[4] Fellow Supreme Court attorney Lee Levine[disambiguation needed], in a book review, wrote that “the modern history of the freedom of the press in this country is intimately associated with the career and work of Floyd Abrams.” His career matured in the late 1960s, right after the Supreme Court decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). He has worked on the Pentagon Papers and Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), to Landmark Communications v. Virginia (1978) and Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979), to Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976). He has defended numerous clients, including the Brooklyn Museum of Art from Rudolph Giuliani over the Sensation exhibition, NBC from Wayne Newton, and Al Franken from a trademark lawsuit brought by Fox News Channel over the use of the phrase “Fair and Balanced” in the title of his book.[5] He is currently representing five tobacco companies including R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco in their lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration over graphic warning labels on cigarette packs,[6] contending that requiring graphic warning labels on a lawful product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.[7] The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation have also filed a brief in the suit.[8] In August 2012, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. upheld a lower court ruling that the federal government’s warning labels violated the First Amendment.[9] He also led a successful challenge to a New York City Board of Health regulation that required retailers at “points of sale” to display graphics on the hazards of tobacco use.[10]

Recognition

Criticism

In a column on Slate entitled Memo to Cooper and Miller: Fire Floyd Abrams. Hire Bruce Sanford, Jack Shafer felt Abrams’s First Amendment argument was weaker than others’ on behalf of the reporters in the Valerie Plame affair. In the majority opinion, Judge Sentelle found Abrams’ assertion that a First Amendment privilege protects Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller from the subpoena to lack merit. They ordered both reporters to talk to the grand jury about their confidential sources or face jail for contempt, which Miller ultimately did. “Maybe a First Amendment legend isn’t what this case called for in the first place,” said Shafer. “Maybe Cooper and Miller would have been better served by having a criminal lawyer who knows how to bargain.” Shafer thought Abrams’ expertise was not adequately enough suited for the subject matter: “…my guess is that they won’t [agree to hear the case] if it’s argued on First Amendment grounds, preferring to let their Branzburg precedent stand.”[12]

Quotes by Abrams

  • “I really believe that a lawyer – no matter how good – if he or she is really worth their weight in salt, they will lose some cases because, after all, it is not really one of those secretive things that not everything is decided by who your lawyer is.”[13]
  • “In August 1967 I spent a few days in New Delhi, visiting a friend who had been a law school classmate seven years earlier. She was a princess—a genuine one, from a still-powerful regal family. In New York, when we were studying together, I had taken her to a Yankee game. In New Delhi she reciprocated by taking me to her fortune-teller—not just hers, but that of a bevy of Indian leaders, including former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter and successor as prime minister, Indira Gandhi…. Before I was thirty-five, he said, I would go to my country’s capital to work on something that was important. The work, he said, would make me famous. It was not the sort of prediction that one entirely forgets. I was then thirty-one.”[14]
  • “I then described two of my favorite First Amendment cases, the first of which was the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Mills v. Alabama…. The other case was commenced by a Miami labor leader, Pat Tornillo, who was a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. The Miami Herald had published editorials criticizing Tornillo; the union leader had responded by demanding that the Herald publish, verbatim, replies he had written to each editorial.”[15]

Quotes about Abrams

  • “Ask someone to name a First Amendment lawyer. If they answer, one-hundred percent of the time the answer will be the same: Floyd Abrams. Then ask them to name another such lawyer. The answer: silence. It is a sign of the times that the name Floyd Abrams is synonymous with the First Amendment in a way that virtually no other name is.” First Amendment Center.[16]
  • “[Floyd Abrams is the] most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.[17]

Please continue @:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams

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


John Keker, Kamala Harris, Maya Harris, Tony West and Willie Brown.  John Keker is a long time mentor of Kamala Harris who is the sister of Maya Harris who is married to Tony West who is  “mentee” of Willie Brown who is Kamala Harris’ former paramour. (Sources please see HERE and HERE and HERE)

Chris Young -- MoFo - CaliforniaALL
Morrison & Foerster Team: Chris Young, James Brosnahan, Tony West, Annette Carnegie, Susan Mac Cormac, and Eric Tate

Chris Young . McGeorge School of Law
McGeorge School of Law – “Pacific Pathways” – Make Believe Launching of SAL – Manoa Law School Hawaii Summit June 2007: Chris Young, Kevin Johnson, CaliforniaALL’s Sarah E. Redfield, CaliforniaALL’s Judge Morrison England, CaliforniaALL’s Torie Flournoy-England, CaliforniaALL’s Ruthe Catolico Ashley, CaliforniaALL’s Larissa Parecki.
See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE . Manoa Law School Hawaii Summit See HERE (Judy Johnson – not shown)

kvn 3cm

Three-Card-Monte: John Keker, Elliot Peters, Jan Little, Matt Werdegar, Jon Streeter, Chris Young.  Hoping to conceal the identity and past actions of Chris Young , Keker & Van Nest removed Chris Young’s attorney profile from its website.  Only after YR managed to unearth Young’s identity and only after YR filed an ethics complaint against John Keker, Jon Streeter, and Chris Young in connection with the attempt to defraud the public by concealing Young’s association with Keker & Van Nest, Young’s attorney profile has been restored to the firm’s site. See story HERE

KVN - YDCA
John Keker, Jon Streeter, District Attorney of Yolo County Jeff Reisig, Twice Rico defendant Jeannine English.   Hoping to retaliate against Yolo County’s YR and to otherwise sabotage his inquiry into CaliforniaALL, subsequent to the removal of Chris Young’s attorney profile from Keker & Van Nest website —  and allegedly acting in their capacity as members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors  — Jon Streeter, Jeannine English, Gwen Moore, Dennis Mangers, Voice of OC’s Joe Dunn, as well as others conspired to press false criminal charges against YR with the District Attorney of Yolo County. See story HERE

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original publication, please see @:

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

 

Clint Parish

public

Uploaded on:
2013-02-18
Views:
805

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

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

Photo source @:

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

Dan Dydzak — Esteemed Legal Scholar and Champion of Justice — Hereby Asked to Disclose All Facts Relating to Relationship Between Darrell Steinberg of CaliforniaALL , Steinberg’s Assistant — Prominent Gay Godfather Dennis Mangers; and Judge Dave Rosenberg of Yolo County in Context of Pressing False Criminal Charges by, Among Others , BOG Member Dennis Mangers and Subsequent Unlawful Search & Seizure of Alleged Confidential Communication Between Dydzak and YR

Darrell Steinberg

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (image: courtesy photo)

Darrell Steinberg, as part of CaliforniaALL’s Advisory Council, see below:

 California ALL Advisory Council

Dennis Mangers

Mr. Dennis Mangers (image: courtesy photo)

GGodfather Dennis Mangers of Carmichael, California is a retired senior adviser to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who made the decision to appoint Dennis Mangers as member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors in September of 2010, please see @:

http://www.calbarjournal.com/September2010/TopHeadlines/th9.aspx

 

Dennis Mangers, as co-conspirator in a scheme to file false criminal charges against Yolo County-based Rabbi, see below:

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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


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

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


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

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

 

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

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

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

 


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

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

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

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

 

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

California Bar Journal

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

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

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

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

GRANDA v STATE BAR DOCKET

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

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

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

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

 

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

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter 1

May 31, 2011

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Letter Jill Sperber State Bar of CaliforniaJill Sperber to Complainant 2

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Sara E. Redfield SAL

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

Work CALALL SAL

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

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

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

SAL Visit to Allen Matkins

 

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

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

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

Allen Matkins Web Page Re Saturday Law Academy

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

 

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 1

 

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 2


VI. YR’S VIEW OF EVENTS SURROUNDING CaliforniaALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

2

3

5

4

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

Judicial Council Watcher on Judicial Council Member Dave Rosenberg of Yolo County Superior Court as The Leslie Brodie Report Asks JCW/ Alliance of California Judges’ David Lampe to Opine on Execution of Search Warrant with No Probable Cause in Re CaliforniaALL – Part 1 (TLR Note: Part 2 will discuss Judicial Council member Mark Robinson of UCI Foundation; Part 3- Dave Rosenberg, UC Davis, and Mark Friedman’s CPA Alison Turner connection to CaliforniaALL)

Judge Dave Rosenberg – Up until this moment, Judge David Rosenberg was a shooting star on the judicial council…. but one needed only peel back a layer or two to find out how he got there. You see, Judge Rosenberg was a fraternity advisor and lifetime member of Alpha Epsilon Pi at UC Davis during the hazing of one Ryan Clifford by the fraternity. He would also be the judge that would be assigned the case of Ryan Clifford vs. Alpha Epsilon Pi wherein Ryan Clifford was brutally hazed by the fraternity members. CV 09-1282 filed May 15th 2009.  It would be Judge David Rosenberg’s involvement in this case that would sully the judiciary in Yolo County and simultaneously propel Judge Rosenberg on his path to the star chamber because it is compromising situations such as this where one might come upon a CJP action that could conceivably remove them from the bench that creates malleable tools like Rosenberg for seats in the Star Chamber. And elevated he was. This case has Judge Rosenbergs fingerprints all over it as an advisor to the fraternity. Furthermore the case was reassigned first to newly appointed Judge Reed and then to newly appointed Judge McGuire of Yolo County, a personal friend of Rosenberg. During the course of the legal action, Judge McGuire would be challenged in an election for his spot on the bench. In response, Judge David Rosenberg, a fraternity advisor to Alpha Epsilon Pi and a lifetime member of Alpha Epsilon Pi would give Judge McGuire a contribution of 1,050 and a loan of 5000.00. An attorney for the firm representing Alpha Epsilon Pi would give McGuire 300.00. None of these donations would be disclosed by McGuire to the Clifford family prior to Judge Maguire disclosing such only after being requested to recuse himself by an attorney for Ryan Clifford. Such failure to disclose these contributions at an earlier time was a violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, subdivision (a)(9)(C) When the Ryan’s family attorney found out about the sizable donations that were not disclosed, they asked Judge McGuire to recuse himself. Court documents show that Judge Maguire then struck a formal disqualification filed against him by Ryan Clifford for prejudice on April 3, 2012 and dismissed the case on April 6, 2012.

That’s how Rosenberg became a chosen one. Since then he has tried to play both sides of the fence arguing court autonomy and centralization at the same time. He claims to be a member of the ACJ but wants to re-chart their agenda. And now you know how some judicial council muppets get their strings.

Source @:

http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/the-judicial-branch-wall-of-shame/

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

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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


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

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


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

California Bar Journal

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

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

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

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

GRANDA v STATE BAR DOCKET

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

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

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

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

 

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

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter 1

May 31, 2011

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter Jill Sperber State Bar of CaliforniaJill Sperber to Complainant 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sara E. Redfield SAL

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

Work CALALL SAL

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

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

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

SAL Visit to Allen Matkins

 

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

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

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

Allen Matkins Web Page Re Saturday Law Academy

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 1

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 2


VI. YR’S VIEW OF EVENTS SURROUNDING CaliforniaALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

2

3

5

4

TO BE CONTINUED.

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

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


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

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


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Courtesy CNN)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

II. CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL’S DISHONEST JOURNALISM

California Bar Journal

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

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

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

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

GRANDA v STATE BAR DOCKET

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

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

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

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

 

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

CalALL_Dec2008Newsletter 1

May 31, 2011

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter Jill Sperber State Bar of CaliforniaJill Sperber to Complainant 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sara E. Redfield SAL

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

Work CALALL SAL

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

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

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

SAL Visit to Allen Matkins

 

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

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

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

Allen Matkins Web Page Re Saturday Law Academy

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 1

Allen Matkins EXIF Data 2


VI. YR’S VIEW OF EVENTS SURROUNDING CaliforniaALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

2

3

5

4

TO BE CONTINUED.

Cruz Reynoso Profile from Wikipedia / California Forward

Cruz Reynoso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cruz Reynoso
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California
In office
1981–1986
Appointed by Jerry Brown
Preceded by Mathew O. Tobriner
Succeeded by Marcus Kaufman
Associate Justice of the California Courts of Appeal
In office
1976–1981
Vice-Chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
In office
19 November 1993 – 7 December 2004
Appointed by Bill Clinton
Personal details
Born 2 May 1931 (age 81)
Brea, California
Nationality American
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Jeannene H. Reynoso (passed away in 2007 after 50 years of marriage), Elaine Rowen Reynoso
Children Trina Teresa Reynoso Heter, Ranene Reynoso Royer, Len ReidReynoso, Rondall Reynoso
Alma mater Fullerton College
Pomona College
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
National University of Mexico
Occupation Lawyer
Profession Civil rights activist
Committees California Fair Political Practices Commission
California Post Secondary Education Commission
Presidential transition of Barack Obama
Military service
Allegiance United States
Service/branch Army
Years of service 1953–1955
Unit Counterintelligence Corps

Cruz Reynoso (born 2 May 1931) is a civil rights lawyer, professor emeritus of law, and the first Chicano Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court (1982–87). He also served on the California Third District Court of Appeal.[1] In 1986, along with two other members of the California Supreme Court—Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justice Joseph Grodin—Reynoso became one of only three State Supreme Court justices ever recalled and ousted by voters under California’s judicial-retention election system. He served as vice-chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from 1993 to 2004.

In 2000, Reynoso received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ highest civilian honor, for his efforts to address social inequities and his public service.

Contents

Early life and education

Reynoso was born in Brea, California.[2] He grew up as one of 11 children, and from age eight worked as an agricultural worker in orange groves.[3] His father was a farmworker.[2]

When Reynoso was seven, the family moved to a barrio outside of La Habra, California.[3] While there, he attended the Wilson Grammar School, a racially-segregated grade school for children of Mexican descent.[3][4] His junior high school was integrated, as was Fullerton Union High School, from which he graduated.[3]

The United States Postal Service refused to provide Rural Free Delivery service within the barrio, even though non-minority families living nearby received the service. Reynoso circulated a petition demanding service; the Postal Service responded to his petition and began providing mail delivery to the barrio.[5] He also challenged the local school board about the Wilson School, after which the school was desegregated.[5]

After high school, Reynoso attended Fullerton College, a community college, receiving an associate of arts degree in 1951.[6] A dean from Pomona College offered him a scholarship if he applied and was admitted to that school.[3] He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Pomona College in 1953, after which he joined the U.S. Army, serving in the Counterintelligence Corps for two years.[7] He was stationed in Washington, D.C., where his assignments included reviewing the House Un-American Activities Committee files on potential applicants for Federal jobs, a task he found distasteful.[3] He received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1958.[1][7] Under a Ford Foundation fellowship, he studied constitutional law at the National University of Mexico in 1958–59.[6]

Legal career

Reynoso began his career in private law practice in El Centro, California.[7] He served as a legislative assistant in the California State Senate (1959–60. He was an Associate General Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1967 and 1968.[8]

He then served as deputy director of California Rural Legal Assistance in 1968.[3][9] Shortly thereafter, internal problems at CRLA lead to his assuming the directorship; he was the first Latino to hold the position.[3][9] His work with CRLA gained him national recognition.[6] Reynoso recalls that, during his tenure, CRLA was “mentioned not infrequently as being the leading legal services program in the country.”[3] Then-Governor Ronald Reagan attempted to cut state funding for the CRLA during Reynoso’s tenure, but the agency successfully resisted the challenge.[10]

He was a professor of law at the University of New Mexico School of Law from 1972 to 1976.[1]

Judiciary career

In 1976, Reynoso was appointed to the California Court of Appeal as an associate justice.[1] He was the first Latino appointed to the Court.[3] In 1981, he was appointed to the California Supreme Court by outgoing Governor Jerry Brown, succeeding the retiring Mathew O. Tobriner.[10][11] George Deukmejian, then the attorney general and on the commission on judicial appointments, voted against Reynoso’s confirmation.[12]

In 1982, Reynoso was up for reconfirmation: under a measure adopted in 1934, California voters confirm a governor’s appointments, and periodic unopposed elections are held for each justice during general elections, giving voters the opportunity to vote a justice out of office.[13] Deukmejian, running as a Republican candidate for governor, urged voters to vote against justices Otto Kaus, Allen Broussard, and Reynoso; he hoped to replace them with conservative appointees, creating a new majority on the Court.[14] The Californians for Judicial Reform campaign to unseat the justices cited Reynoso’s stance joining Richardson’s majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the “Victim’s Bill of Rights”, as among the reasons the justices were “soft on crime”.[15] The campaign labelled Kaus, Broussard, and Reynoso “Jerry’s Judges”.[13] All three justices were retained; Reynoso received the lowest margin of victory, receiving the vote of only 52 percent of voters.[16] A 1988 academic study of this election suggested that, although the retention election was theoretically nonpartisan and intended to retain justices based on their merit, partisan information (such as the affiliation of the governor who appointed the justice) is used by voters to structure their decisions in such elections.[16]

Also during the 1980s, Reynoso was a member of the Congressional Select Commission on Immigrant and Refugee Policy.[17] He was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.[7]

As part of the court led by Chief Justice Rose Bird, Reynoso was part of the liberal majority.[18] With that majority, he extended environmental protections, individual liberties, and civil rights.[18]

When a case came before the Supreme Court regarding whether or not due process required that a non-English-speaking person charged with a crime be provided with an interpreter, Reynoso drew upon his experiences representing such clients to persuade a majority of his fellow justices that “basic fairness on the constitutional sense require that there be an interpreter for that individual”.[19]

Ouster from the Supreme Court

During the next retention vote in 1986, Bird, Joseph Grodin, and Reynoso were targeted by conservative and victims-rights groups.[20][21][22] The 1986 campaign again portrayed the targeted justices as “soft on crime”,[22] but this time focused on the court’s handling of the state’s death penalty law.[23] Reynoso believes Governor Deukmejian’s decision to oppose him, Bird, and Grodin was the most important factor in that election.[24] Deukmejian said that the justices’ decisions on death-penalty cases demonstrated a “lack of impartiality and objectivity”.[21] Reynoso’s advisors told him that it would take three campaign ads to counteract one ad by his opponents;[25] he and the other justices lacked the funds to compete with the campaign, raising a collective $3 million to the opposition’s $7 million.[25] Deukmejian told Grodin and Reynoso that he would oppose their retention unless they voted to uphold more death sentences.[26]

The campaign highlighted that the Bird court had overturned 59 consecutive death-penalty cases during Bird’s nine-year tenure.[27] Reynoso, who had voted to uphold the state’s death-penalty law, voted only once for a death sentence during his seven years on the court.[28] The Oxnard Press-Courier said in an editorial that Reynoso was Bird’s “most consistent ally” and that “he has been second only to the chief justice in supporting decisions that favor criminal defendants over prosecutors”.[29] The California District Attorneys Association issued a 78-page report attacking the three justices, mainly over their death-penalty rulings, but dropped their campaign later because of fears a political campaign could affect the group’s tax-exempt status.[30]

“There’s clearly an effort to politicize the court”, Reynoso told United Press International during the campaign.[31] He was endorsed by the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs.[31] According to California attorney general John Van de Kamp, the court refused to hear appeals of, or affirmed, 97 percent of convictions in the 1984/85 fiscal year; Reynoso remarked, “That doesn’t sound at all like a ‘soft on crime’ record”.[31] Defending his death-penalty votes, he said that “most, but not all” of the reversals stemmed from the 1978 Briggs Amendment, which “does not comport with US Supreme Court law”.[22]

The campaign to remove the justices succeeded; voters rejected new terms for Bird, Grodin, and Reynoso.[32] Reynoso was rejected by 60 percent of voters.[33] This made Deukmejian the first governor in California history to have the opportunity to appoint three justices to the court at once.[32] The justices left the bench when the court’s term ended on 5 January 1986.[34]

Afterward, Donald Heller, a former Federal prosecutor who drafted the 1978 death-penalty initiative approved by California voters, disagreed with the campaign to unseat the justices, calling Reynoso “a thoughtful, decent man who got thrown out” and “a very capable judge who tried to do the right thing in cases.”[35] Reynoso said of the result, “you can’t blame [the voters] when the governor of the state, who is a lawyer, says the justices aren’t following the law. If I didn’t know better, I would have voted against me, too.”[25]

Impact of the ouster campaign

The 1986 California Supreme Court retention election started a major trend turning such elections into “an ideological battleground over judicial philosophies and specific decisions”, making them “as highly salient as races for overtly political offices”, wrote one academic paper.[33] Even before the election, California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus remarked “You cannot forget the fact that you have a crocodile in your bathtub”,[36] referring to the act of making a judicial decision without regard to the potential political consequences.[37] “You know it’s there, and you try not to think about it, but it’s hard to think about much else while you’re shaving.”[38] “You keep wondering whether you’re letting yourself be influenced, and you do not know. You do not know yourself that well,” he wrote.[36] “You worry about it in two different ways,” wrote Reynoso; “First you worry it might influence you improperly. Then you worry because you’re concerned you might overcompensate, and not pay enough attention to arguments that are perfectly legitimate.”[39]

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor from the University of Southern California, agreed with the ousted Justice Grodin, saying “the legacy of 1986 could be that justices facing retention elections will decide cases with an eye, perhaps subconsciously, on how their rulings will affect their chances at the polls.”[40] Chemerinsky called for abolishing judicial-review elections.[40] He wrote, “Largely due to defects in a poorly worded death penalty law, the court had a strikingly one-sided pattern of decisions on the issue”, noting that this, Bird’s controversial history, the trio’s appointments by an unpopular governor, and the realization by their opponents that the court’s ideology could be completely changed if the campaign succeeded lead to the opposition campaign.[40] Jazon Czarnezki, assistant professor of law at Marquette University, attributed Bird’s defeat to “her resolute opposition to the death penalty and overturning a series of death sentences”.[41] Exit polls indicated that the death-penalty issue was the major reason why voters refused to retain the justices.[42]

The justices were also impacted by a lack of support from Democratic legislative incumbents in safe districts.[26]

Despite the fact that California Supreme Court justices undergoing a retention election are running uncontested, the median spending for justices’ campaigns rose from $3,177 in 1976 to $70,000 in 1994.[43]

Campaigns similar to the one expelling Bird, Grodin, and Reynoso have since been mounted against judges in other states, such as Justice Penny J. White of Tennessee, who also lost a retention election due to a death-penalty issue.[44] Retired California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George advocated eliminating retention elections and appointing justices to single 15-year terms, following an election in Iowa where three justices were removed from office after that state’s high court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage.[45] The campaign was largely funded by out-of-state organizations; George said that the January 2010 United States Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to contribute unlimited sums to independent political committees was likely to increase the influence of well-funded groups in nonpartisan judicial retention elections like those in Iowa and California.[45]

Post-judiciary

After leaving the Court, Reynoso returned to private law practice and academia. Shortly after his ouster, he was appointed to the California Post Secondary Education Commission.[3]

He has worked for the New York–based firm of Kay, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, out of their Sacramento office,[46] where he was a special counsel.[3] He worked on complex civil litigation, as an expert witness on legal ethics, and as a mediator.[46] His agreement with the firm allowed him to spend up to 40 percent of his time on pro bono work.[47]

In 1991, he joined the faculty of the UCLA School of Law, where he taught until 2001.[1] He was a faculty adviser for the Chicano-Latino Law Review.[48] In 1995, UCLA law students selected him as Professor of the Year.[49]

The United States Senate appointed Reynoso to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1993.[50][51] He was appointed the vice-chairman of the Commission by President Bill Clinton on 19 November 1993.[17][51] During his tenure, he accused California Governor Pete Wilson of generating anti-immigrant sentiments to gain popularity.[17] When the Commission harshly criticized Florida’s handling of the presidential election of 2000, Reynoso said “the greatest sin” was the number of people who weren’t allowed to vote.[52] He was among the commissioners that looked into complaints that some eligible voters were denied the right to vote, or that votes were improperly counted, in Florida.[53] Reynoso, along with Commission chairwoman Mary Frances Berry, resigned his commission on 7 December 2004, after President George W. Bush‘s White House staff announced that their six-year terms had expired on 5 December and announced replacements for them.[54][55] Berry and Renoso maintained that their commissions were not due to expire until midnight on 21 January 2005, but said in their resignation letters that it wasn’t worth the fight.[54] The move to replace them occurred after the Commission released a draft of a report criticizing Bush’s civil rights record.[56]

On 1 July 2001, Reynoso joined the faculty at the University of California, Davis, School of Law as the first Boochever & Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality.[6][18] The chair, established with a gift from UC Davis alumni Charles Bird, is named in honor of Judge Robert Boochever and Bird’s parents, and is awarded in recognition of outstanding scholarship, teaching, and commitment to preserving and expanding the understanding of “the virtues necessary of a great republic.”[6] He retired in December 2006, becoming a professor emeritus.[57]

In 2009, Reynoso spoke with UC Davis law students, noting that he has retired a few times, but was then chairing a citizens’ commission investigating the death of Luis Gutierrez, a farm worker shot by police in Yolo County.[58]

President-elect Barack Obama appointed Reynoso to his White House transition team in early 2009, as part of a justice and civil rights sub-team.[59]

Following a 10 June 2010 Washington, DC screening of Cruz Reynoso: Sowing the Seeds of Justice, the Abby Ginzberg documentary film, he was injured in a car accident in Virginia, along with his wife Elaine and grandson.[60] Reynoso suffered a broken collarbone, a punctured lung, and other injuries when a Hummer struck their rental car at an intersection, hospitalizing him for nine days.[61][62] His wife suffered “grave injuries” to her brain and internal organs, requiring multiple surgeries.[61] Both were placed into medically-induced comas; Elaine remained in a coma after the inducement was stopped.[62] Reynoso was initially cited for pulling out into the path of the Hummer, which had the right of way, but a judge dismissed the case.[61] Elaine Reynoso resigned from her position as a trustee of Sierra College in June 2011 to focus on recovering from her injuries;[63] she has required extensive physical rehabilitation.[61]

After the accident, Reynoso said he has re-evaluated his priorities, and will focus on completing his memoirs and legal articles, as well as resuming work on the Yolo citizens’ commission probe.[61] The commission’s work was put on hold while the Reynosos recuperated.[61]

Reynoso has served on the boards of directors of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,[47] the Natural Resources Defense Council,[47] and Children Now.[51] He co-founded the Latino Issues Forum with Bob Genasda,[3] and was Chairman of its board of directors.[47] He is a trustee of the Garment Workers Trust Fund.[64]

Awards and honors

On 9 August 2000, President Clinton awarded Reynoso the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’s highest civilian honor.[49] The medal’s citation said “Through his efforts to address social inequity in his rural community, his leadership of the pioneering California Rural Legal Assistance program, his tenure as the first Latino on the California Supreme Court and his service on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, he has been a strong force for change and a passionate voice for our nation’s disadvantaged”.[48]

Reynoso received the Hispanic Heritage Award in Education on 7 September 2000, during a nationally-televised presentation at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.[49]

In 2003, UC Davis law students organized the La Raza Law Students Association; donors established the Cruz Reynoso Social Justice Fellowship.[18] The fellowship helps Latino law students attending Berkeley Law afford the opportunity to work as judicial externs or in social justice during the summer break.[65]

He was honored with the University of California Davis Medal of Honor at a lifetime achievement event on 15 September 2007, at the Mondavi Center.[57] The medal is the highest honor bestowed by the university.[66] At the event, UC Davis announced the Cruz and Jeannene Reynoso Scholarship for Legal Access, which helps first-year students with financial needs.[57]

Documentary filmmaker Abby Ginzberg produced the film Cruz Reynoso: Sowing the Seeds of Justice.[9] It was funded in 2009 in part by the California Documentary Project of the California Council for the Humanities.[67] The film was screened at film festivals and other institutions in the United States, Cuba, and Uruguay.[9] Ginzberg says she chose to make the film because “I was involved in the effort to save the justices in 1986, and I have always wanted to take a second look at why the campaign to recall them was so successful.”[68] It was first screened on 16 March 2010 at the Chicano Resource Center of the East Los Angeles Library.[67] The film was a Gold Winner of the 2010 Davey Awards in the Film/Video/TV category.[69] It also received the Jury Award for Best Feature Documentary at the Sacramento Film and Music Festival.[70]

The City of Chicago passed a resolution honoring Reynoso that was presented to him while he was a visiting distinguished scholar at the John Marshall Law School in 2009.[71]

The State Bar of California gave Reynoso its Bernard E. Witkin Medal in September 2009 for his “significant contributions to the quality of justice and legal scholarship” in California, recognizing him as a “legal giant”.[72][73]

In April 2011, the University of California, Merced awarded Reynoso the Alice and Clifford Spendlove Prize in Social Justice, Diplomacy and Tolerance.[74] The prize honors people who exemplify the delivery of social justice, diplomacy, and tolerance in their work.[75] The prize included a $10,000 award.[76]

Chapman University conferred an honorary Doctor of Laws degree upon him in May 2011.[77]

Source@: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruz_Reynoso

———————–

Cruz Reynoso was an associate justice for the California Supreme Court and the Third District Court of Appeal. He previously was special counsel for Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, and is currently professor of law and Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality at the UC Davis School of Law.

From 1994 to 2004, Mr. Reynoso served as vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He also was a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and at the University of New Mexico. Earlier in his career, he was director of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. and deputy director of the California Fair Employment Practices Commission. Mr. Reynoso also served in the U.S. Army from 1953 to 1955. He is the son of Mexican immigrants and was an agricultural worker in California fruit orchards.

He has served on numerous other federal, state and professional boards and commissions concerned with civil rights, immigration and refugee policy, government reform, the administration of justice, legal services for the indigent, and education. In 2000, Mr. Reynoso received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian honor, for his lifelong devotion to public service. He also is a recipient of the Hispanic Heritage Foundation Award in Education. Mr. Reynoso’s publications include articles on cultural diversity, educational equity and affirmative action.

Mr. Reynoso holds a bachelor’s degree from Ponoma College in Claremont and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley.  Source: http://www.cafwd.org/pages/cruz-reynoso

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

 

Breaking ….. Cache Creek Casino — Under the Tight Control of Howard Dickstein — Funnels Millions to Yolo County District Attorney (TLR Note: See Below)

During the investigation, tribal representatives refused to participate in the process or respond to the grand jury’s findings, citing their status as “a sovereign governmental entity that is immune to the jurisdiction and process of state and local authorities.”

Representatives from the Yocha Dehe tribe also refused to provide up-to-date membership figures when requested for this story, but the grand jury report estimated adult membership at fewer than 25 people.

While tribal casinos present challenges to rural counties, some believe their value as an economic engine can’t be denied.

Steve Smith, the human resources director for the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians — the Sonoma tribe operating River Rock —said that the casino employs roughly 600 people, making it one of the top 20 employers in the county.

Cache Creek employs more than 2,300 people, said Mike Traum, the casino’s communications manager. The figure makes the casino the second largest employer in Yolo County, behind only the University of California, Davis.

Noting the effects that such large-scale gaming operations can have on rural areas, the tribes operating  Cache Creek and River Rock have entered into intergovernmental agreements with Yolo and Sonoma counties, respectively.
Both agreements resulted in multimillion-dollar windfalls of mitigation payments for the two counties.

In Yolo County, the Yocha Dehe tribe has shelled out more than $32 million in mitigation between 2002 and 2010, with healthy portions going toward the sheriff’s department and the district attorney’s office.

 

Please see source:

http://www.standupca.org/tribes/Rumsey%20Rancheria/rural-indian-casinos-bring…

 

TLR Note:

Howard Dickstein — a Sacramento-based Indian gambling attorney is highly corrupted, greedy at the extreme, and has been compared by many to Jack Abramoff. 

Dickstein two main clients are Cache Creek Casino / Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation located in Yolo County, and Thunder Valley Casino/ United Auburn Indian Community located in Placer County.

Only recently, Arizona Senator John McCain has called for an investigation concerting Dickstein ‘s alleged unlawful business practices.  Similarly, Madame Jessica Tavares — former chair of  United Auburn Indian Community which owns Thunder Valley Casino — accused Dickstein of duping the tribe into paying his firm $26 million in fees over six years. 

Previously, the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians which owns Cache Creek Casino had sued Dickstein.  The lawsuit ( http://tinyurl.com/cs77wqm) alleged “Greed & Betrayal” vis-via causes of actions for:

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

While the above mentioned suit was being litigated,  not surprisingly, wholly separate allegations of grave misconduct were leveled against Howard Dickstein, as well as against the firm which represented him — Keker & Van Nest. 

Specifically, attorneys from the law offices of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy,  and ethics expert Michael Boli alleged that Howard Dickstein and/or Keker & Van Nest manufactured evidence, and engaged in myriad violations of professional ethics.  See @:    http://tinyurl.com/bom2va2

Shockingly, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy,  and ethics expert Michael Boli  did not allege that Howard Dickstein and/or Keker & Van Nest engaged in extortion/attempted extortion or otherwise violated ethics rules which prohibit — even indirectly —  the threat of criminal prosecution for the purpose of gaining an advantage over an adversary in a civil dispute,  in reply to false allegations advanced to the court by Howard Dickstein and/or Keker & Van Nest that the plaintiffs (the clients of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy and ethics expert Michael Boli ) had “clearly committed a felony.”

Subsequent to the conclusion of the litigation, and in order to conceal the fraudulent and egregious misconduct perpetrated by Dickstein against his client — the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians — Dickstein had conspired with Keker & Van Nest to mislead the public into believing that the plaintiffs had only alleged that he was “negligent.”   See @   http://tinyurl.com/cp989dq

Dickstein is married to one Jeannine English — a lobbyist from Sacramento who serves as “Public Member” of the State Bar of California Board of Governors/Trustees.  Jeannine English, not surprisingly, is as greedy and corrupt as Dickstein, and then some. 

She is a former member of the California’s  “Little Hoover Commission” (as is State Bar of California “Public Member” Gwen Moore of Shrimpscam. )  

Interestingly, while Jeannine English was part of the Little Hoover Commission, Howard Dickstein was appointed to purvey legal services to the commission.  Conversely, Dickstein  had arranged that his client — the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians — would hire his wife Jeannine English to act as “Lobbyist” for the tribe.

Jeannine English was positioned as BOG “Public Member” to primarily ensure that her husband Howard Dickstein will not be disciplined by the State Bar of California, despite the well documented trail of fraudulent and egregious misconduct he had perpetrated against several  of his clients.  This had the net benefit of unjustly enriching  both  herself and her husband at the expense of Dickstein ‘s client, the People of the State of California, and the fair administration of justice. 

Further seeking to escape justice and in order to apiece other law enforcement agencies, Dickstein also arranges for huge sums of money to be donated to Jerry Brown, California attorney general Kamala Harris,  and other California Democratic Operatives from the coffers of his clients.  See example @    http://tinyurl.com/cftq5ye

Incidentally, Gwen Moore of Shrimpscam (as is  “Public Member” Dennis Mangers – also a California Democratic Party operative)  primary goal as BOG public members is also  to ensure that certain law firms such Girardi & Keese, Engstrom Lispcmomb & Lack, Cotche Pitre & McCarthy, Kreindler & Kreindler, Morrison & Foerster, Skadden Arps, Kerr & Wagstaffe, Howard Dickstein of Dickstein & Zerbi, and many others known as “State Bar Royalty” are not disciplined by the State Bar.  For example, Gwen Moore, Jeannine English, Alec Chang, Jon Streeter , Starr Babcock, Robert Hawley, Joe Dunn, and others are part of an ongoing highly unlawful conspiracy to obstruct justice in the matter of In Re Girardi.

 In consideration of allowing to operate with impunity by the state Bar of California , those  law firms contribute handsomely to members of the California Democratic Party vis-vis political donations and /or class-actions Cy Pres award and/or diversity money — either directly or indirectly. 

Moore is also involved in various other adventures which mainly consist of  “leaning” on the CPUC/Utility companies for the purpose of extracting money under the guise of Diversity pursuant to General Order 156.  According to sources close to YR,  General Order 156 is nullity given the passage of Proposition 209.  Consequently, those sources maintain,  a declaratory judgement action will soon be filed in the Sacramento Superior Court seeking to declare General Order 156 null and void.

In furtherance of the above mentioned unlawful activities, and in order to compensate for the lack of discipline imposed on State Bar Royalty; sources familiar with the situation maintain a policy was put in place by Judy Johnson, Jeannine English, Thomas Girardi, Robert Hawley, Howard Dickstein, Alec Chang, Starr Babcock, Howard Miller, Holly Fujie and others — on their behalf and on behalf of others — to frame innocent lawyers and/or impose unusually harsh discipline even for minor violations. 

For example, on one hand, Walter Lack and Pierce O’Donnell — who despite a well documented trail of repeated acts of misconduct — have no or  very little displined imposed by the State Bar of California, respectively.   On the other hand , Phil Kay , Ron Gottschalk, Dan Dydzak , and many other were treated unjustly, and in accordance with said policy.

 

 

 

 

 

“Grand Jury Demands UCAN Financial Records” by Don Bauder (TLR Note: 1 – Kudos to Don Bauder 2- Man Who Exposed the Scam Re Judy Johnson, Michael Shames, UCAN, CPUC, Geoffrey Brown — Subject of Search Warrant by Jeff Reisig)

Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN), a prominent watchdog operation, has received a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury. In a document that I have seen, the U.S. Attorney’s office wants all records relating to UCAN and a related organization, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRCH); former San Diego political candidate Peter Navarro and his wife Leslie W. Lebon; Death by China Productions LLC, a group set up for making a movie of a book by the same name Navarro co-authored; Dan DiMicco, chief executive of steelmaker Nucor; Patrick McFadden, head of Nucor’s public affairs, and Red Rock Partners, which presumably is Red Rock Energy Partners, a fund set up to make energy investments. Some UCAN insiders suspect that the non-profit group lost money investing funds in Red Rock.

My column of August 24, 2011, showed how North Carolina-based Nucor put $1 million into production of the China-bashing movie, but the money went first to UCAN. McFadden explained to me at the time that Navarro wanted the $1 million sent to UCAN, so the company didn’t argue.

“Grand Jury Demands UCAN Financial Records” by Don Bauder (TLR Note: 1 – Kudos to Don Bauder 2- Man Who Exposed the Scam Re Judy Johnson, Michael Shames, UCAN, CPUC, Geoofrey Brown, Subject of Search Warrant by Jeff Reisig)

Please see @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/01/02/california-consumer-protection-foun…

And @:

http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/02/27/revealed-copy-of-ethics-complaint-f…

Pacific Legal Foundation’s Robin Rivett, Meriem Hubbard, and James Burling Hereby Asked to Opine on Matters Relating to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Resig Invading Home of Complainant in Matters Relating to Filing of Ethics Complaint in Re Sara Gran

Sacramento-based  Pacific Legal Foundation President Robin Rivett, as well as staff-attorneys Meriem Hubbard and James Burling are hereby asked  to opine on events relating to claims by Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig that  the complaint (attached below) may constitute a crime sufficent to invade the home the complainant in Yolo County.

Please observe that, rather than contacting you directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.  Any opinion or observation can be sent to lesliebrodie@in.com

 

May 31, 2011

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Granda v. State Bar of California

Granda v. State Bar of California


Plaintiff: Sara M. Granda
Defendant: State Bar of California
Case Number: 2:2009cv02015
Filed: July 22, 2009
Court: California Eastern District Court
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Yolo
Presiding Judge: Judge Morrison C. England Jr.
Presiding Judge: Judge John A. Mendez
Referring Judge: Judge Morrison C. England Jr.
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.

Date Filed # Document Text
August 11, 2009 22 Court Opinion or OrderMEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/10/09: Plaintiff’s Application is DENIED 4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close the file. Civil Case Terminated. (Kaminski, H)
August 7, 2009 21 Court Opinion or OrderCASE REASSIGNMENT ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/5/2009. Due to unavailability of Judge Mendez, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. has indicated he is willing to preside over case. With the reassignment APPROVED, all documents shall be denominated as 2:09-CV-2015 MCE KJM PS. (Marciel, M)
July 24, 2009 19 Court Opinion or OrderMEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/24/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff’s 18 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
July 24, 2009 16 Court Opinion or OrderORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/24/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order 4 is DENIED. The hearing scheduled for 2:00 p.m. todya, 7/24/09 is VACATED. A more detailed order denying the Application will follow.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
July 22, 2009 10 Court Opinion or OrderAMENDED MEMORANDUM and ORDER to docket 7 . Any opposition to Plaintiff’s Application shall be electronically filed not later than 3:00 p.m. (PDT) on Thursday, July 23, 2009. Signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/22/2009. (Deutsch, S)
July 22, 2009 7 Court Opinion or OrderMEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/22/09 ORDERING that a hearing on the 4 motion for temporary restraining order is scheduled at 2:00pm on 7/24/09 in Courtroom 7 before Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; opposition to plaintiff’s motion shall be electronically filed not later than 3:00pm. (Gaydosh, J)

Last Document Downloaded: April 2, 2010 16:43:10 PDT

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court’s PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: (PS) Granda v. State Bar of California
Search Blogs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Plaintiff: Sara M. Granda
Search Dockets [ Dockets ]
Search Blogs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal |Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance
Defendant: State Bar of California
Search Dockets [ Dockets ]
Search Blogs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal |Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance

Granda v. State Bar of California

Granda v. State Bar of California


Plaintiff: Sara M. Granda
Defendant: State Bar of California
Case Number: 2:2009cv02015
Filed: July 22, 2009
Court: California Eastern District Court
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Yolo
Presiding Judge: Judge Morrison C. England Jr.
Presiding Judge: Judge John A. Mendez
Referring Judge: Judge Morrison C. England Jr.
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.

Date Filed # Document Text
August 11, 2009 22 Court Opinion or OrderMEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/10/09: Plaintiff’s Application is DENIED 4 and this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close the file. Civil Case Terminated. (Kaminski, H)
August 7, 2009 21 Court Opinion or OrderCASE REASSIGNMENT ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/5/2009. Due to unavailability of Judge Mendez, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. has indicated he is willing to preside over case. With the reassignment APPROVED, all documents shall be denominated as 2:09-CV-2015 MCE KJM PS. (Marciel, M)
July 24, 2009 19 Court Opinion or OrderMEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/24/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff’s 18 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
July 24, 2009 16 Court Opinion or OrderORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/24/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order 4 is DENIED. The hearing scheduled for 2:00 p.m. todya, 7/24/09 is VACATED. A more detailed order denying the Application will follow.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
July 22, 2009 10 Court Opinion or OrderAMENDED MEMORANDUM and ORDER to docket 7 . Any opposition to Plaintiff’s Application shall be electronically filed not later than 3:00 p.m. (PDT) on Thursday, July 23, 2009. Signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/22/2009. (Deutsch, S)
July 22, 2009 7 Court Opinion or OrderMEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/22/09 ORDERING that a hearing on the 4 motion for temporary restraining order is scheduled at 2:00pm on 7/24/09 in Courtroom 7 before Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; opposition to plaintiff’s motion shall be electronically filed not later than 3:00pm. (Gaydosh, J)

Last Document Downloaded: April 2, 2010 16:43:10 PDT

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court’s PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: (PS) Granda v. State Bar of California
Search Blogs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Plaintiff: Sara M. Granda
Search Dockets [ Dockets ]
Search Blogs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal |Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance
Defendant: State Bar of California
Search Dockets [ Dockets ]
Search Blogs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal |Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance

Categories

RSS .

  • Give more money to the Judicial Council for Court Construction? Have we gone mad in Sacramento? 2019/09/06
    Below is a judicial branch synopsis from a legislative analysis of infrastructure needs for the state. I think it is prudent to point out that the judicial council only feigns adhesion to fraud, waste and abuse laws and actually worked aggressively to weaken the laws pertaining to judicial branch whistleblowers. They did this by creating […]
    SiteAdmin
  • 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

RSS Drudge Report Feed

.
Advertisements