Text of First Amended Complaint Against Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; David Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Barbara Geisler; Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; Michael Cabral; Peter Martin, Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Mary Ann Todd , Munger Tolles & Olson, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties, Mark Robinson, Geoffrey Brown, Arnold Porter, Mark Parnes, CaliforniaALL, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Larissa Parecki, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield, McGeorge School of Law, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner, Accenture, Freada Kapor Klein, Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, James Lewis, Verizon Communications, Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, James Hsu, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and Does 1-100
PART 1 — INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff - an individual residing in Yolo
County who is an investigative reporter and a Rabbi - has been subject
to a campaign of systematic harassment ever since he uncovered
corruption in various matters dealing with the California Public
Utilities Commission; Democratic Party operatives; and Boyd Gaming
Director, owner of various casinos, and class-action attorney Thomas
Girardi ("Girardi") of Girardi & Keese in connection with financial
corruption, obstruction of justice, and related acts of misconduct.
2. For example, Plaintiff unearthed the fact that
subsequent to being disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
stemming from an attempt to defraud the court by resorting to the “use
of known falsehoods”, the State Bar of California appointed as
“special prosecutor” Girardi’s own private malpractice lawyer (Jerome
Falk of Howard Rice) to prosecute Girardi on the State Bar’s behalf.
(When later questioned about this matter, Falk asserted that his firm
had represented the law firm of Girardi & Keese, but not Girardi
himself.)
3. Plaintiff also discovered corruption in a
national class-action case (Fogel v. Farmers) in which Girardi - who
represented the class of plaintiffs - never disclosed that the
attorneys who represented defendant Farmers (Skadden Arps, Thomas
Nolan, Raoul Kennedy) were concurrently representing Girardi himself
in a separate legal matter. Very shortly after Plaintiff exposed the
corruption, attorneys for Farmers approached, sought and obtained from
the court a supplemental notice to the class of plaintiffs (consisting
of 14 million Americans) indicating that if they cashed their
settlement checks, they agreed to not sue Farmers or Girardi because
of the undisclosed relationship.
4. Plaintiff also unearthed corruption involving
Girardi (who has a reputation of “bankrolling” the California
Democratic party) and individuals associated with the California
Democratic Party with connections to the California Public Utilities
Commission/Energy Commission (Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Geoffrey
Brown, Peter Arth, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Darrell Steinberg) and
utility lawyers involved in the “California Energy Crisis” (Ron Olson
and Jeff Bleich of Munger Tolles; James Brosnahan of Morrison &
Foerster; John Keker of Keker & Van Nest; Jerry Falk and Douglas
Winthrop of Howard Rice; Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese; Joe
Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Mark Robinson of Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson; and the law offices of DLA Piper) to launder money
from utility companies (SCE, PG&E, Verizon, AT&T) to various members
of California’s Democratic Party (Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Kamala
Harris, Jerry Brown, Kevin Johnson, Darrell Steinberg) and OBAMA FOR
AMERICA via various non-profits (CaliforniaALL, Level Playing Field
Institute, California Consumer Protection Foundation).
5. Also involved in the various financial schemes were
Cache Creek Casino, Sacramento-based developer Mark Friedman of
Fulcrum Property, his business partner (gambling attorney Howard
Dickstein), and Dickstein’s wife, Jeannine English, who was also
acting on behalf of AARP to position Barack Obama in the White House
and on behalf of Mark Friedman to position Kevin Johnson as the mayor
of Sacramento. Additionally involved were Obama for America tech-guru
Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor Klein.
6. In connection with the above discoveries,
Plaintiff informed various law-enforcement agencies of these facts, as
well as filed ethics complaints against some of the above named
attorneys with the State Bar of California.
7. Plaintiff was repeatedly warned that Girardi is
“well-connected” and will seek to silence Plaintiff as a result of
Plaintiff’s discoveries and allegations.
8. Indeed, very shortly after Plaintiff unearthed
these events, a posse of eight armed investigators from the Yolo
County District Attorney’s office executed an invalid search warrant
at Plaintiff’s place of residence in Yolo County and confiscated all
documents and computers in his home relating to, inter alia, various
ethics complaints filed by Plaintiff on the ground that the ethics
complaints were baseless.
9. Plaintiff has been informed by credible sources,
and therefore alleges, that David Rosenberg was one of those
responsible for pressing criminal charges against him, that he
“cleared the way” for the search warrant, and that he is otherwise
friendly with Howard Dickstein, Mark Friedman, Jerry Brown, Mark
Robinson, and Chief Marshall McKay of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (all
actors in CaliforniaALL — a sham non-profit launched for the purpose
of laundering funds to finance the campaigns of various politicians,
including President Obama, Kamala Harris, Kevin Johnson of Sacramento,
and Governor Jerry Brown. )
10. Venue in this case is proper in Yolo County because the acts and
omissions of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in Yolo County.
11. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the
Defendants sued as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues
these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and therefore alleges, that the Defendants herein designated
as Does are legally responsible in some manner for the events and
happenings referred to which caused the injuries to Plaintiff for
which he now seeks damages. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to
allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that
at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the agents, servants,
employees and/or joint venturers of the other Defendants and were at
all times mentioned herein acting within the scope, course and
authority of this agency, employment and/or joint venture. Plaintiff
is further informed and believes and, therefore alleges, that each of
the Defendants consented to, ratified, participated in, or authorized
the acts of the remaining Defendants.
PART 2: BACKGROUND OF FACTS UNDERLYING CLAIMS AGAINST LEA ROSENBERG
AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 — PREDICATED ON 26 U.S. C. §
6104(d)
13. Following the execution of the invalid search
warrant on Plaintiff’s home, described above, Plaintiff began
conducting research into David Rosenberg’s background and learned that
he is a judge with the Yolo County Superior Court with a reputation of
being a “political animal”.
14. Plaintiff further learned, and thereupon
alleges, that Judge David Rosenberg and his wife (Lea Rosenberg), as
well as Judge David Reed and his wife (Sheryl Cambron), are deeply
involved — as either officers or directors — with a web of
non-profit entities worth millions of dollars known as Saratoga
Retirement Community, Meadows of Napa Valley, Davis Odd Fellows, Odd
Fellows Homes of California, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Soroptimist
International of Davis, David Odd Fellows Hall, and others. Plaintiff
is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Lea and David
Rosenberg are individuals residing in Yolo County.
15. Later on, Plaintiff also discovered a pattern by
which Lea Rosenberg and Sheryl Cambron — as the wives of two judges -
were energetically raising funds from various businesses for an entity
known as Progress Ranch headed by the foreperson of the Yolo County
Grand Jury, Barbara Sommer. (For example, Davis Odd Fellows
repeatedly held events to benefit Progress Ranch known as “Breakfast
with Santa”; Soroptimist International of Davis held an event to
benefit Progress Ranch known as “Texas Hold ’Em”; Davis Rebekah Lodge
held an event to benefit Progress Ranch known as “Crab Feed.”) During
the time period that Barbara Sommer served as foreperson of the Grand
Jury of Yolo County, the grand jury was investigating two prominent
entities — Cache Creek Casino (a casino which is owned and operated
by Yocha Dehe Wintun nation headed by Marshall Mckay) and “First 5
Yolo” (headed by Yolo County Board of Supervisors member Don Saylor).
16. Judge Rosenberg’s judicial campaign treasurer, Victor
Bucher, is a nationally renowned expert in the area of accounting and
tax fraud, and also serves as the “treasurer” of a separate non-profit
entity launched by David Odd Fellows — Davis Odd Fellows Charities,
Inc. — where David Rosenberg serves as president and Victor Bucher as
Treasurer.
17. On April 4, 2013 — consistent with the
statutory framework put into place by 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) — Plaintiff
served a request for Davis Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge (which
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges are
tax-exempt organizations) to make available for inspection their IRS
990 forms.
18. A tax-exempt organization must make available
for public inspection its application for tax exemption, three most
recent 990 annual information returns, and schedules and attachments
available, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d), which reads, in relevant
part:
“Public inspection of certain annual returns, reports, applications
for exemption, and notices of status
(1) In general
In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of
section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) or an
organization exempt from taxation under section 527 (a)—
(A) a copy of—
(i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by
exempt organizations) by such organization,
(ii) any annual return which is filed under section 6011 by an
organization described in section 501 (c)(3) and which relates to any
tax imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax on unrelated
business income of charitable, etc., organizations),
(iii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of
exemption under section 501 or notice of status under section 527 (i),
the exempt status application materials or any notice materials of
such organization, and
(iv) the reports filed under section 527 (j) (relating to required
disclosure of expenditures and contributions) by such organization,
shall be made available by such organization for inspection during
regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of
such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or
more regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each
such regional or district office, and
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or
such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return,
reports, and exempt status application materials or such notice
materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other
than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in
writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be
provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within
30 days.
(2) 3-year limitation on inspection of returns
Paragraph (1) shall apply to an annual return filed under section 6011
or 6033 only during the 3-year period beginning on the last day
prescribed for filing such return (determined with regard to any
extension of time for filing).”
19. Plaintiff delivered the request through Lea
Rosenberg because she was the common denominator between the various
“Odd Fellows” entities and Soroptimist, in that she served as an
officer and/or director of the various “Odd Fellows” entities, and as
president of Davis Rebekah Lodge.
20. Specifically, on April 4, 2013 Plaintiff
delivered to Lea Rosenberg at learose@jps.net the following email
request:
“Re: Request for Production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A,
Form 1023 to entities associated with Lea Rosenberg, to wit:
Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd
Fellows
Dear Mrs. Rosenberg:
Consistent with U.S. Internal Revenue Service Regulations, please
consider this communication a formal request to produce their IRS Form
990, Form 990 Schedule A, as well Form 1023. This request is for all
documents submitted to the IRS within the past three years, which
generally means the three most recent returns.
Said regulations require that these documents be produced within 30
days. Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis
Odd Fellows are entitled to charge reasonable costs for any copying
and mailing costs incurred in relation to this request. Alternatively,
you can email the documents to me as PDF attachments. I prefer the
latter method. However, if for some reason, you prefer to copy and
mail the documents, please send them to the following address:
[—address intentionally omitted—]
I ask that you draw no conclusion or develop any concern from the mere
fact that this request is being made about you, Soroptimist
International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows or any
other individual or entity.
In addition, I ask that you please produce the following:
1. A detailed and complete list of all other non-profit entities you
were involved beginning in 2008 to the present.
2. A detailed and complete list of all sums which were transferred
amongst any and all organizations you were involved, beginning in 2008
to the present. For example, if in 2009 Soroptimist International of
Davis transferred money to Davis Odd Fellows either as donation or
rent, I ask that such transaction be disclosed.
3. A detailed and complete list of all direct or indirect transfers of
funds from Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge,
Davis Odd Fellows to Progress Ranch and/or any other entity associated
with Barbara Sommer from 2007 to the present.
Thank you for your time and anticipated cooperation. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s email dated April 3, 2013.
22. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff delivered to Lea
Rosenberg a notice of change of address.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s requests for the
organizations’ IRS 990 forms, and while conspiring with other
Defendants, chose to breach the duty to comply with 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d).
24. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided,
abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged,
promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in,
enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted
in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
25. Due to this failure to comply with Plaintiff’s
request, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to
obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his
paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in
hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no
avail.
26. Still seeking a complete set of the requested
documents, on September 24, 2013 Plaintiff sent Lea Rosenberg the
following email:
"RE: Davis Odd Fellow Hall; Davis Odd Fellow - Second Request for
Production of IRS Documents
Dear Ms. Rosenberg:
The purpose of this communication is to address the following matters:
1. Since you appear to have been involved with Davis Rebekah Lodge,
Davis Odd Fellow, and Sophomoric, I had previously asked you to
produce the IRS tax-returns for those entities.
For reasons which I do not understand, rather than complying with this
simple request (as you are required to do by law given the fact that
those entities are allowed to operate on a “tax-exempt” status), you
have failed to respond. I am therefore reiterating my request that you
comply with the request for these tax returns and produce them to me
within the next 5 days.
As you know, I am troubled by events surrounding the almost exclusive
fundraising to “emancipated foster youth”, Barbara Sommer, Davis Odd
Fellow members Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral, Cache Creek Casino,
Vic Bucher, and Progress Ranch.
I am also troubled by the fact that Judge Rosenberg (and his Judicial
Campaign CPA Vic Bucher) lends money to the judicial campaign of other
judges (i.e. Tim Fall and Dan Maguire). Hence, I would like to get to
the bottom of things, and need the requested tax forms to do so.
2. In the previously submitted request, there was no mention of “Davis
Odd Fellow Hall.” My position and understanding is that Davis Odd
Fellow Hall is part of Davis Odd Fellow.
Nevertheless, please consider this communication a formal request to
also provide copies of the last three tax return forms that “Davis Odd
Fellow Hall” had submitted to the IRS.
3. Given that Davis Odd Fellow, David Odd Fellow Hall, and Davis
Rebekah Lodge are under the exclusive control of you, your husband
David Rosenberg, as well as David Reed and his wife Cheryl Cambron,
and given that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the
Yolo County Superior Court, I submit that these entities have a duty
to operate at an even higher level of transparency than mandated by
the IRS, and must comply with the common law duty of disclosure.
Thus, in addition to inspecting and copying the documents authorized
by the IRS, I request copies of detailed financial statements (i.e.
income, expenditures, names of donors, names of businesses and amount
of rent Davis Odd Fellow Hall charges its various tenants, identity of
subcontractors, identity of those who have rented the Hall etc.) For
example, my understanding is that David Greenwald (publisher of The
People’s Vanguard of Davis and Vanguard Court Watch) entered into a
contract with Davis Odd Fellow Hall. Given that Mr. Greenwald’s
publications purport to report on misconduct and malfeasance in the
local area, including the courts, it appears to me that there is a
direct conflict between this stated mission and his decision to rent
space from an entity whose Board is comprised of you, and two Yolo
County Superior Court judges.
I am looking forward to hearing from you and receiving the requested documents."
27. Later that day, Plaintiff received an email
response from Lea Rosenberg stating only the following: “so he is at
it again.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 Predicated on
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of
Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California;
Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist
International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist
International of the Americas; and Does 1 - 100)
28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 27 as though fully set forth herein.
29. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests,
Defendants failed to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure
constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business
& Professions Code § 17200.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated,
advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to,
facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the
commission of the above-described acts.
31. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Per Se / Torts in Essence
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order
of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California;
Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist
International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist
International of the Americas; and Does 1 - 100)
32. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 31 as though fully set forth herein.
33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants were all aware of Plaintiff’s repeated
requests for the above-described entities’ IRS Form 990 forms, as
described in this Complaint.
34. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Defendants were under a duty to ensure
compliance, yet chose to breach a duty prescribed in 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d). This failure to comply with the statutory requirements
constitutes negligence per se. In the alternative, Plaintiff further
alleges that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) constitutes “torts in essence” as a matter of
public policy, because the statute at issue was enacted to benefit
individuals in Plaintiff’s position, and because implied in 26 U.S.C.
§ 6104(d) is a private right of action.
35. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of duty,
as alleged above, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources
trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff
asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the
Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents,
also to no avail. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost
money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
36. Plaintiff further alleges that Davis Odd Fellows
owns a Hall ("Davis Lodge Hall"), on a property adjacent to the two
Lodges, and is the owner (and landlord) of rental property currently
occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold
Real Estate.
37. The “Hall Board Association” is a California
corporation, and is the actual owner of the Davis Lodge Hall, the
adjacent property of the two Lodges, and the rental property currently
occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold
Real Estate.
38. The “Hall Board Association” is composed of
President David Rosenberg, Vice President David Reed, Secretary Lea
Rosenberg, Treasurer Sheryl Cambron, and Barbara Geisler.
39. The Davis Lodge Hall is available to rent by the
general public for receptions, fund-raisers, dinners, conferences,
trade shows, meetings, and other events.
40. The Davis Lodge Hall is also used by Davis Odd
Fellows for its own functions, such as Davis Odd Fellows Bingo and
Master Balls.
41. In approximately September 2013, and after the
expenditure of considerable time, resources, and efforts, Plaintiff
managed to ascertain that the actual legal name of Davis Odd Fellows
and David Rebekah Lodge is “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd
Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge.” Plaintiff then managed to obtain
partial copies of tax returns that “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order
of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge” had submitted to the IRS.
42. Upon reviewing partial copies of the
above-described IRS 990 forms from 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff noted that
false information had been submitted to the IRS on two occasions that
he was able to identify from the incomplete forms. Specifically,
according to those 990 forms, in 2010 David Reed served as the
president of Yolo Lodge 169; serving as the Treasurer of Yolo Lodge
was Sheryl Cambron. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Reed and Cambron are married to each other.
43. However, this was not the information provided
to the IRS. The 2010 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ’Did
any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family
relationship or a business relationship with any other officer,
director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge
states, “NO.” Since two of the officers (Reed and Cambron) were
actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.
44. In 2011, Yolo Lodge officers submitted false
information to the IRS again, this time involving a different set of
actors — Lea and David Rosenberg, who are married to each other.
Specifically, in 2011 David Rosenberg served as President of Yolo
Lodge; his wife, Lea Rosenberg, served as “Secretary” of Yolo Lodge,
and David Reed served as a board member.
45. The 2011 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge
asked, ’Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a
family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer,
director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge
states, “NO.” Since two of the officers (David Rosenberg and Lea
Rosenberg) were actually married to each other, this is a
misrepresentation.
46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Virgil Smith is a CPA, a member of Davis Odd Fellows, and
a co-conspirator in the submission of these fraudulent tax-returns.
Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges that
also responsible for submitting these fraudulent tax-returns were
Davis Odd Fellows officers and directors David Rosenberg, Lea
Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, and Robert
Bockwinkel.
47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that the fraudulent tax-returns were submitted because David
Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler,
Virgil Smith and Robert Bockwinkel did not want the IRS and the public
to become aware that Sheryl Cambron is married to David Reed, and
because they were concerned that if such relationships (i.e. Lea
Rosenberg is married to David Rosenberg) would be disclosed, it may
trigger an IRS audit.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Civil Conspiracy to Violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
(Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl
Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; and Does 1
– 100)
48. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 47 as though fully set forth herein.
49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that subsequent to Plaintiff’s request to obtain copies of the
relevant IRS forms 990 delivered to Lea Rosenberg as described above,
Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron,
Robert Bockwinkel, Barbara Geisler, and Virgil Smith willfully and
knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which
they agreed to violate Plaintiff’s legal rights by not complying with
26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) because they were concerned he would discover the
tax-fraud perpetrated on the IRS, as described above; that two Yolo
County judicial officers (Rosenberg and Reed) and an attorney employed
by Yolo County (Cambron) almost exclusively raised funds to support an
entity headed by the Foreperson of the Yolo County Grand Jury; and the
appearance that Davis Odd Fellows has been misused to indirectly curry
favors with the foreperson of Yolo County Grand Jury.
50. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore
alleges that as further overt acts (both lawful and unlawful) by
which to advance the objective of said conspiracy, committed by one or
more of the conspirators pursuant to their common design, were: (a) an
agreement between Defendants to intentionally violate 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d); (b) an agreement to ignore Plaintiff’s repeated requests for
information sought pursuant to this statute; (c) a lawful overt act to
belittle Plaintiff by sending him an email which reads, “so he is at
it again”’ and (d) an agreement by Defendants to mislead and defraud
Plaintiff by means of a plan they conceived and executed in which
David Reed falsely stated in writing “TO MY KNOWLEDGE DAVIS ODD
FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING
FOR PROGRESS RANCH”. (emphasis added)
51. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted,
instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled,
contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or
conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
PART 3 — Factual Background Dealing with In Re Girardi, Fogel v.
Farmers, CaliforniaALL, Voice of OC
3.1: IN RE GIRARDI
52. In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued its final ruling in the disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi by
imposing close to $500,000 in sanctions on Walter Lack of Engstrom
Lispcomb & Lack and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese stemming from an
attempt to defraud the court and cause injury to Dole Food Company in
the underlying litigation. Defending Girardi in the matter of In Re
Girardi was Skadden Arps.
53. The court ruled that Walter Lack (who stipulated to Special
Prosecutor Rory Little that his prolonged acts of misconduct were
intentional) and Thomas Girardi intentionally and recklessly resorted
to “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false
representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly”
during years of litigation.
54. The Ninth Circuit suspended Lack, reprimanded Girardi, and
ordered Girardi and Lack to report their misconduct to the State Bar
of California.
55. The State Bar of California disqualified itself from handling the
matter since Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) served at that time as
its president, and had also made the decision to hire then-chief
prosecutor, James Towery.
56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that both
Joe Dunn (Chief Executive of State Bar of California and a long time
friend and protégé of Girardi) and Chief Justice Ronald George (father
of Eric George — at the time co-counsel with Girardi and Lack in
major class-action cases as part of an ongoing scheme by which Girardi
was bestowing benefits on George) conspired to appoint as “Special
Prosecutor” Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, who they knew would
“exonerate” Girardi and Lack.
57. Around the same time, renowned criminal defense attorney Doron
Weinberg opined in the media as follows on the matter of In Re
Girardi: “Prosecutors can admit the 9th Circuit’s disciplinary order,
along with the entire record underpinning it”. “The State Bar
generally respects the findings and conclusions of other
jurisdictions”.
58. Mr. Falk, in turn, exercised “prosecutorial discretion” and
concluded that he did not believe Lack acted intentionally and that no
charges will be brought against the two attorneys — despite the fact
that Lack had previously stipulated in writing that he acted
“intentionally.”
59. Within days of Mr. Falk’s decision, Plaintiff filed an ethics
complaint with the State Bar of California against Jerome Falk, James
Towery, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop (managing partner of
Howard Rice and then-elected president of the California Bar
Foundation), alleging that it was improper for Mr. Towery to appoint
Mr. Falk given the close personal relationship between Howard Miller
and Douglas Winthrop. Specifically, Howard Miller — in his capacity
as president of the State Bar — had appointed Douglas Winthrop as
president of the California Bar Foundation.
60. State Bar of California Deputy Executive director Robert Hawley
contacted Plaintiff and informed him that he (Hawley) has been
appointed as “contact person,” and that the matter will be handled by
the entire State Bar of California Board of Governors because one of
the named actors was chief prosecutor James Towery.
61. Specifically, on 12/27/2010 Robert Hawley wrote to Plaintiff in part:
“On behalf of the State Bar of California its staff and its Board, I
acknowledge receipt of your email message below and the one separately
sent to James Towery, both on December 23, 2010.
In your email message to Mr. Towery you state that you have sent a
written letter of complaint to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
(OCTC) Intake Unit. As we have previously advised your colleague
Leslie Brodie, we provide status reports on pending matters involving
OCTC only to individuals who provide verifiable identification
information, including an address. I assume that your written
complaint provides this information. If not, we will not be able to
provide you with further status information on the subject of your
email messages.”
62. At or about that time, Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that
several other Board members had business relationships with Girardi or
other conflicts of interest which they were required to disclose
pursuant to a statute.
63. After several months, Mr. Hawley wrote Plaintiff, informing him
the investigation was closed.
64. A few weeks later, Plaintiff, while researching a separate topic,
discovered that Howard Rice (the firm of Jerome Falk) actually
represented Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a
malpractice action only two years prior (Copple v. Astrella & Rice).
65. On August 29, 2011 Plaintiff informed Robert Hawley and the
entire Board of Governors (consisting of, among others, Laura Chick,
Gwen Moore, Dennis Mangers, Jeannine English, George Davis, Alec Chang
of Skadden Arps, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler, Jon
Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, and Joe Dunn of Voice of OC about the
recent discovery in order to re-open the investigation. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and therefore alleges that, pursuant to an
ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice in the matter of In Re Girardi
and an ongoing conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s due process and equal
protection rights, Hawley never replied to Plaintiff’s inquiries, nor
did any member of the Board of Governors.
66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
said conspiracy was motivated in part by Democratic Party operatives
such as Joe Dunn and Jeannine English to protect Thomas Girardi
because of financial contributions to the Democratic Party, because
Girardi arranged close to one million in cy pres awards to California
AARP (where Jeannine English served as president), and because several
BOG member had similar conflicts of interest, such as Alec Chang of
Skadden Arps.
67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the
various wrong-doers became extremely concerned of the fact that
Plaintiff discovered that Falk represented Girardi & Keese and Walter
Lack, and because of Plaintiff’s whistle-blowing activities and robust
use of his free-speech rights. As such, on December 7, 2011, out of
the blue, Falk - Plaintiff alleges in an attempt to mislead Plaintiff
–- wrote to Plaintiff:
“I received your November 13 email, sent to me and many others,
concerning my participation in the State Bar’s investigation of Walter
J. Lack, Thomas V. Girardi and other attorneys. It is filled with
disparaging characterizations, all of which seem to stem from your
allegations that I or my firm have represented Mr. Lack and Mr.
Girardi.
Your allegations are false.
I have never represented either person, or their firms. Neither has
Douglas Winthrop. Nor has my firm ever represented Mr. Lack or Mr.
Girardi. From 2006-2008, my firm represented several law firms,
including Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Girardi & Keese, in a
litigation matter. The public records of that litigation show that
neither Mr. Winthrop nor I had nothing to do with that representation;
in fact, I was unaware of it. The public records also show that my
firm represented the law firms, but did not represent Mr. Girardi or
Mr. Lack. The attorney responsible for that representation had left
Howard Rice and taken the files with him before I was asked to serve
as Special Deputy Trial Counsel in the State Bar matter.
You are on notice that your allegations are false. The falsity of
those allegations can be determined from the public records of the
litigation in question. Do not make them again.”
4.2: FOGEL VS. FARMERS:
68. The day after the Ninth Circuit issued the published decision in
the matter of In Re Girardi, respondents’ counsel (Skadden Arps and
Thomas Nolan) moved to redact their names from the decision. The
court rejected the request, noting that redaction was not merited.
69. The peculiar nature of the motion to redact the names of
respondents’ counsel from the published decision of this court
prompted Plaintiff to look into the matter further. Plaintiff then
discovered that, beginning in 2003, Girardi & Keese and Engstrom
Lipscomb & Lack were prosecuting a class action case against Farmers
Insurance Company, which was represented by Skadden Arps. This was a
nationwide class action with estimated damages of close to $15 billion
that had originally been filed by Texas Governor Rick Perry.
70. In March, 2011 Plaintiff submitted an ethics complaint to the
State Bar of California against Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese for
various acts of misconduct in connection with Fogel v. Farmers Group,
Inc. and the matter of In Re Girardi.
71. The complaint alleged ethical violations stemming from collusion
between the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps based on
the fact that while the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers Group was pending,
the law offices of Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese entered into a
wholly separate agreement by which Skadden Arps agreed to represent
Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi without informing the
class of plaintiffs (consisting of 14 million Americans), nor the
courts (the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi and the Los
Angeles County Superior Court in the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers) of
the concurrent representation by which Skadden Arps represented
Girardi & Keese (in the Ninth Circuit matter), while at the same time
defending Farmers against Girardi and Keese’s clients (in the Fogel
vs. Farmers matter).
72. Shortly after Plaintiff filed this ethics complaint, Skadden Arps
moved ex parte (which, not surprisingly, was unopposed) to amend the
settlement agreement in the Fogel matter and the notice to the class
of 14 million Americans throughout the country to include a proviso by
which members of the class would be prohibited from suing anyone due
to the concurrent representation described above. Nevertheless, the
State Bar of California decided not to take any action on this ethics
complaint.
73. In or around August of 2011, Plaintiff submitted an informal
objection to the proposed Fogel v. Farmers settlement based on the
reasoning described above and contemplated filing an appeal (if
possible) or informally alerting the Court of Appeal of the collusive
arrangement.
4.3: CALIFORNIAALL / VOICE OF OC / OBAMA FOR AMERICA / QUADRIPLEGIC
UC DAVIS LAW STUDENT SARA GRANDA / SEARCH- SEIZURE BY YOLO COUNTY
DISTRCIT ATTORNEY
CaliforniaALL — Voice of OC:
74. While researching the relationship of Girardi & Keese and Howard
Rice and the appointment of Douglas Winthrop as president of the
California Bar Foundation by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese,
Plaintiff reviewed the California Bar Foundation’s annual reports to
familiarize himself with the names of the Foundation’s board of
directors. Plaintiff stumbled upon the fact that the Foundation ended
2008 close to $500,000 in the negative. Specifically, the Foundation
reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES in 2007 equaled plus
+$373.842.00. However, in 2008, the Foundation reported to the IRS
that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES equaled minus -$537,712.
75. Plaintiff discovered that the money had been transferred to a
newly-created Section 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (headed by Ruthe
Catolico Ashley — close friend and confidant of Chief Justice Tani
Cantil-Sakayue) known as CaliforniaALL, which obtained hundreds of
thousands of dollars from utility companies PG&E, SCE, AT&T, and
Verizon.
76. In addition to Ruthe Catolico Ashley, CaliforniaALL was
compromised of the following: Larissa Parecki, Morrison England,
Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield of McGeorge School of Law,
Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach of Martin
Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner of Accenture, Freada Kapor
Klein of Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal of Pacific Gas
& Electric Company, James Lewis of Verizon Communications, Darrell
Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, an James Hsu
of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal-Dentons.
77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
CaliforniaALL funneled some portion of the money to the UCI Foundation
–- where State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn, Judicial
Council member Mark Robinson, and Erwin Chemerinsky served as trustees
for the purpose of launching a new entity known as Saturday Law
Academy at UCI. ("SALUCI")
78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
SALUCI was actually already created in 2005 and was fully operational
before CaliforniaALL arrived on the scene.
Plaintiff further alleges that repeated claims by CaliforniaALL,
including the following, were knowingly false, misleading, and
fraudulent: “Our first funded pipeline, the Saturday Academy of Law,
graduated its first class on March 7”; “An inspirational welcome
given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky as 200 guests gathered at the Delhi
Community Center to recognize the first graduating class of the UC
Irvine Saturday Academy of Law. The six-week program, created by UCI’s
Center for Educational Partnerships was made possible by a grant from
CaliforniaALL.”
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
(Against defendants CaliforniaALL, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Larissa
Parecki, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield,
McGeorge School of Law, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin
Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner, Accenture,
Freada Kapor Klein, Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal,
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, James Lewis, Verizon Communications,
Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, James
Hsu, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal-Dentons and Does 1-100)
79. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 78 as though fully set forth herein.
80. The knowingly false, misleading and fraudulent
claims by which executives and directors of CaliforniaALL took credit
and falsely advertised that CaliforniaALL was instrumental in
launching SALUCI which “graduated its first class” constitutes
unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business &
Professions Code § 17200 since SALUCI already came into existence in
2005.
81. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted,
instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled,
contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or
conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
82. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
trial.
83. On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff informed the State Bar Board of
Governors and officially requested an investigation into alleged
fraudulent transactions, financial irregularities, and unlawful
conduct in connection with circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL.
Later that day, State Bar of California Foundation Director and CPUC
Commissioner Geoffrey Brown sent Plaintiff the following:
“I am named in the email with the purpose of tying my tenure at the
CPUC and the Foundation to some alleged nefarious activity. The author
of the email is herewith put on notice that I will pursue legal action
if he persists in a claim that I have anything to do with illegal
activity. He is further on notice that I am in no way connected with
the recipient named in the article.”
84. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges
that during his tenure as California Bar Foundation Director, Geoffrey
Brown, as well as Jeff Bleich and Bradley Phillips of Munger Tolles &
Olson, Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice-Arnold Porter, Holly Fujie of
Buchalter Nemer, and Mark Parnes of Wilson Sonsini caused the
following false and misleading advertisement to appear in the annual
report: California Bar Foundation supported the launching of
CaliforniaALL and, as the project filed for incorporation and
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, served as CaliforniaALL’s fiscal
sponsor. A collaboration between the California Public Employment
Retirement System, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
California Department of Insurance, and the State Bar of California,
CaliforniaALL was created in an effort to close the achievement gap
among California students from preschool to the profession and,
specifically, to bolster the pipeline of young people of diverse
backgrounds headed for careers in law, financial services, and
technology. Once CaliforniaALL obtained its tax-exempt status and was
able to function as a fully independent nonprofit organization, the
Foundation granted the balance of funds raised for the project -
totaling $769,247 - to the new entity. We thank the following
corporations for their gifts in support of CaliforniaALL: AT & T
,Edison International ,PG & E Corporation Foundation , and Verizon.
85. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges
that the California Bar Foundation never served as the “fiscal
sponsor” of CaliforniaALL. Plaintiff is further informed and believes
and therefore alleges that that AT&T, Edison International, PG & E
Corporation Foundation, and Verizon never used the California Bar
Foundation as a “fiscal sponsor”, and any and all funds from AT & T,
Edison International, PG & E Corporation Foundation, and Verizon went
directly to CaliforniaALL.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
(Against Defendants Geoffrey Brown, Jeff Bleich , Bradley Phillips,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Arnold Porter,
Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Mark Parnes, Wilson Sonsini and Does
1-100)
86. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
– 85 as though fully set forth herein.
87. The knowingly false, misleading and fraudulent
claims by which executives and directors of the California Bar
Foundation falsely asserted that $769,247 originated from AT&T, Edison
International, PG & E Corporation Foundation, and Verizon constitute
unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business &
Professions Code § 17200.
88. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated,
advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to,
facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the
commission of the above-described acts.
89. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
trial.
90. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that a
significant portion of the $769,247 from the California Bar Foundation
to CaliforniaALL ended up financing a newly-created online publication
which Joe Dunn had launched with the help of Thomas Girardi, James
Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster (attorney for CaliforniaALL) and
Erwin Chemerinsky — this online publication is known as "Voice of OC.
91. Plaintiff requested that Voice of OC provide him with copies of
its IRS 990 forms. Voice of OC did not comply with applicable IRS
regulations in that it failed to reply to Plaintiff’s request for
copies, whereupon Plaintiff filed a complaint against Voice of OC and
Joe Dunn with the IRS.
92. The IRS promptly sent Plaintiff notice acknowledging the
complaint against Voice of OC.
93. Very shortly after Plaintiff had complained to the IRS, the FBI
arrested Kinde Durkee — CPA for Voice of OC — on unrelated charges.
94. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
CaliforniaALL was also misused to finance the election campaigns of
Kevin Johnson, Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, and Barack Obama,
specifically by the following actors:
Morrison & Foerster: James Brosnahan (self-proclaimed “mastermind”
behind the Democratic Party; member of OBAMA FOR America’s California
Finance Committee; Legal Counsel for CaliforniaALL ); Tony West (OBAMA
FOR America’s Chair of California’s Finance Committee); Chris Young —
later of Keker & Van Nest (OBAMA FOR America’s Northern California
Deputy Finance Director); Annette Carnegie (former director of the
California Bar Foundation during the transfer of the approximately
$780,000 to CaliforniaALL).
Munger Tolles & Olson: Jeffrey Bleich (president of the State Bar of
California, director of the California Bar Foundation, and founding
member and Chair of OBAMA FOR America’s National Finance Committee);
Brad Phillips (2007- 2008 Director of the California Bar Foundation
which served as a “financial sponsor” to CaliforniaALL on behalf of
Verizon Wireless and Southern California Edison, both clients of
Munger Tolles & Olson); Ron Olson (member of OBAMA FOR AMERICA;
Berkshire Hathaway and Edison Director).
Wilson Sonsini: Mark Parnes (2007-2008 director and Secretary of the
California Bar Foundation); John Roos (former CEO of Wilson Sonsini
and member of OBAMA FOR America’s National Finance Committee).
DLA Piper: Steven Churchwell of DLA Piper in Sacramento (Treasurer,
draft committee of OBAMA FOR AMERICA; firm where CaliforniaALL
resided free of charge); Gilles Attia.
Laura Chick (member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors
and OBAMA FOR AMERICA).
Kamala Harris (Co-Chair, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and member of
CaliforniaALL Advisory Council).
Freada Klein Kapor (member of CaliforniaALL board of directors; OBAMA
FOR America’s phone bank located at The Kapor Center).
Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Properties, and business
partner Marshall McKay of Cache Creek Casino on behalf of Barack
Obama.
Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Properties on behalf of Kevin Johnson.
ETHICS COMPLAINT IN RE UC DAVIS LAW STUDENT SARA GRANDA:
95. In May 2009, U.C. Davis School of Law quadriplegic law student
Sara Granda graduated from and hoped to sit for the July 2009 bar
exam.
96. The California’s Department of Rehabilitation paid the exam fee
for Granda with a check, and Granda was assured that she was properly
registered. However, the State Bar of California never processed
Granda’s application because the Department of Rehabilitation paid the
fee with a check, rather than a credit card.
97. Granda filed a suit in federal court seeking an injunction
directing the State Bar of California to allow her to sit for the bar
exam. The action was titled Sara Granda v. the State Bar of
California (Case Number 2:09-cv-02015-MCE). The State Bar of
California was represented by Mark Torres Gil, Rachel Grunberg, and
Lawrence Yee. The matter was adjudicated by Judge England of the
Eastern District of California, who promptly dismissed it.
98. During the course of presiding over the Granda case, Judge
England never disclosed to Granda that he and his wife (Torie
Flournoy-England) are part and parcel of an entity known as
CaliforniaALL — which had just obtained close to $800,000 from the
State Bar of California — headed by executive-director Judy Johnson,
who is also part of CaliforniaALL. Similarly neither did the State
Bar of California, Judy Johnson, Mark Torres Gil, Rachel Grunberg, or
Lawrence Yee provide this information to Granda.
99. On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff advanced an ethics complaint against
State Bar of California attorneys Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil,
Rachel Grunberg, Judy Johnson, and Holly Fujie.
100. The complaint alleged misconduct due to the failure of the
above-named attorneys to disclose to Plaintiff Granda the nature of
the close personal relationship between the State Bar of California,
CaliforniaALL, Judy Johnson, Judge England and his spouse — Terrie
Flournoy-England.
101. Plaintiff alleges the entire complaint filed by him was
factually accurate, truthful, and was brought in good faith.
Accompanying the complaint dated May 31 2011 were 11 exhibits in
support.
102. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
the State Bar of California received said complaint and rather than
assign an outside investigator due to the fact it was against their
own attorneys, summarily dismissed it.
103. On July 28, 2011, State Bar employee Jill Sperber wrote to
Plaintiff informing him that:
“I have determined that your complaint fails to present stuffiest
facts to substantiate an investigation.”
"The State Bar had no involvement with CaliforniaALL once it was
incorporated and operating."
“Several of the informational items that you list are not factually
accurate a) CaliforniaALL and State Bar are partners and B) a sub-rosa
transfer of funds from State Bar to CaliforniaALL took place.”
104. Sperber never alleged that the complaint filed by Plaintiff was
frivolous or “without merit.”
105. Plaintiff submits that the 11 exhibits accompanying his
complaint showed beyond any doubts that the California Bar and
CaliforniaALL were partners, and that State Bar executive directors
(Judy Johnson) and employee Patricia Lee were part of CaliforniaALL.
As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
the claim by Ms. Sperber that “The State Bar had no involvement with
CaliforniaALL once it was incorporated and operating” is false, that
the State Bar Board of Governors continued to appoint directors to
CaliforniaALL, and that CaliforniaALL never acknowledged the
approximate $780,000 it obtained from the California Bar Foundation,
demonstrating that the transfer was sub-rosa.
Search-Seizure of CaliforniaALL Evidence By Investigators From Yolo
County District Attorney
106. On February 23, 2012, eight armed investigators from the Yolo
County District Attorney’s office arrived at Plaintiff’s place of
residence, searched the premises, and confiscated two computers, flash
drives, and documents pursuant to an invalid search warrant issued by
Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall.
107. The invalid search warrant listed the names of Joe Dunn (of
Voice of OC) ,Thomas Girardi (of Voice of OC, In Re Girardi) , Judy
Johnson, Holly Fujie, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, James Towery,
Howard Dickstein, Jeannine English, and State Bar attorneys Mark
Torres Gil, Lawrence Yee, and Rachel Grunberg.
108. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that
accompanying the DA officers was a private citizen named Tom Layton.
109. Plaintiff was told that by the investigators and Michael Cabral
that the State Bar Board of Governors was pressing criminal charges
against Plaintiff for, among other things, violations of B & P
Section 6043.5 (filing false and malicious ethics complaints) because
of the ethics complaint Plaintiff submitted in connection with U.C.
Davis School of Law quadriplegic law student Sara Granda.
110. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that,
in approximately early 2011, once Plaintiff unearthed the various acts
of misconduct described above — such as In Re Girardi, Fogel v.
Farmers, Voice of OC, and especially fraud dealing with CaliforniaALL
(an entity Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
was launched, represented, directed, or benefited by extremely
powerful politicians such as California Attorney General Kamala
Harris, Jerry Brown, Darrel Steinberg, Kevin Johnson, Joe Dunn, and
Obama for America; governmental officials such as CPUC’s Michael
Peevey, Geoffrey Brown; powerful law firms such as DLA Piper, Morrison
& Foerster, Munger Tolles, Dentons, and Girardi & Keese; major utility
companies such as PG&E, Verizon, and Southern California Edison; major
corporations such as Accenture, Fulcrum Property/Mark Friedman, Cache
Creek Casino/Marshall McKay, LPFI/ Freada Kapor; and members of the
California Judicial Council (such as Mark Robinson, Tani Cantil), an
understanding was reached to silence Plaintiff at any cost, to
retaliate against him because of his speech-related activates, to try
to intimidate him, and to confiscate all the incriminating evidence he
had gathered.
111. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest — a “bundler” for Barack Obama
who served as president of the State Bar of California and was aware
of Plaintiff’s discovery of CaliforniaALL due to the fact that
Plaintiff requested documents and sought an investigation —
immediately informed Keker & Van Nest, John Keker and associate Chris
Young of Plaintiff’s discoveries.
112. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Keker & Van Nest associate Chris Young — who caused the launching of
CaliforniaALL two years prior while serving as Obama for America
California Deputy Finance Director, and who later worked with Jeffrey
Bleich as White House Adviser, and who later worked with Mark
Friedman on the election campaign of Kevin Johnson — panicked. As
such, Chris Young’s attorney profile was quickly removed from the
KVN.COM web-site. This fraud was only discovered by Plaintiff months
later.
Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that State Actor Streeter, who also served as a Director of the
California Bar Foundation, conspired with nongovernmental agents of
CaliforniaALL, original actors Freada Kapor and Mary Ann Todd of
Munger Tolles (on behalf of Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway), Douglas Winthrop of Howard
Rice, Holly Fujie of Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee of Morrison &
Foerster, and Richard Tom of Southern California Edison to injure
Plaintiff, to retaliate against him because of his speech-related
activates, and to confiscate all the incriminating evidence he had
gathered.
113. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Streeter — who served as a “bundler” for Barack Obama’s campaign —
was also motivated to silence Plaintiff lest information he possessed
would cause President Obama to lose his re-election bid.
114. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Joe Dunn reached an understanding with Erwin Chemerinsky of
Voice of OC, as well as original Voice of OC directors Thomas Girardi
and James Brosnahan of Morrison & Forester, to misuse his authority as
a state actor to silence and retaliate against Plaintiff.
115. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
that James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster and Jon Streeter of Keker
& Van Nest met with Judicial Council members Tani Cantil, David
Rosenberg, Angela Davis, and Mark Robinson to discuss potential
courses of action. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
therefore alleges that, during said meeting, an agreement was reached
by which David Rosenberg — who also serves as a judge with the Yolo
County Superior Court — would “clear the way” for the issuance of a
search warrant of Plaintiff’s home lacking in probable cause.
Moreover, Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore
alleges that due to concerns of leaks by disc rental Judicial Council
employees expressed by Tani Cantil, Rosenberg agreed to unlawfully
arrange for the search warrant to also include the names of Joseph
Dunn and Starr Babcock in order to ascertain Plaintiff’s sources of
information, if any.
116. As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that, acting to serve their own financial interest and on
behalf of CaliforniaALL actors named above and pursuant to a
widespread conspiracy between private citizens and state actors, and
while acting under color of state law, the entire State Bar of
California Board of Governors (including Jon Streeter of Keker & Van
Nest — acting also pursuant to a separate conspiracy with KVN, John
Keker, Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property), and California
Bar Foundation directors Mary Ann Todd , Holly Fujie, Douglas
Winthrop; Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Jeannine English and George Davis
of AARP, Laura Chick of Obama for America, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps
–- acting on behalf client Tom Girardi, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler &
Kreindler) chose to adopt a plan by which they would unlawfully use
the fact that they are also clothed with the authority of state law to
knowingly and maliciously press false criminal charges against
Plaintiff for the alleged violation of California Business &
Professions 6043.5 which reads:
(a)Every person who reports to the State Bar or causes a complaint to
be filed with the State Bar that an attorney has engaged in
professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false
and malicious, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b)The State Bar may, in its discretion, notify the appropriate
district attorney or city attorney that a person has filed what the
State Bar believes to be a false and malicious report or complaint
against an attorney and recommend prosecution of the person under
subdivision (a).
117. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
the objective of the conspiracy was to knowingly and maliciously
submit a false criminal complaint to the Yolo County District Attorney
against Plaintiff, and for a search/seizure to be executed on
Plaintiff’s home to confiscate all evidence he had gathered in regard
to the above-described matters, and in order to retaliate and
intimidate him into silence, especially in matters dealing with In Re
Girardi, Fogel v. Farmers, Voice of OC, and CaliforniaALL.
118. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
around February of 2012, as an overt act in furtherance of said
conspiracy, representatives of the State Bar of California knowingly,
maliciously, and without probable cause pressed false criminal charges
against Plaintiff alleging, inter alia, violation of California
Business & Professions 6043.5
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
Predicated on California Penal Codes 148.5 and 182
(Against Defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
Todd, Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison
International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice,
Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster,
James Brosnahan, Richard Tom, Southern California Edison, Wilson
Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties, Mark Robinson, and Does 1
– 100)
119. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 - 118
as though fully set forth herein.
120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that Defendants willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed
among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to violate
Plaintiff’s legal rights in violations of California Penal Codes 148.5
and 182. This constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to
California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200.
121. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
above-described acts.
122. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts
of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
__________________________________
123. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that on
February 21, 2012 Chief Investigator of Yolo County District Attorney
Bruce Naliboff presented to Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy
Fall an invalid and meaningless “Statement of Probable Cause” in
support of a search warrant stating, inter alia, that a search of
Plaintiff’s residence and vehicle may reveal both written and
electronically recorded information of criminal conduct because
Plaintiff’s ethics complaint dealing with Sara Granda constituted a
misdemeanor in violation of B & P Section 6043.5, filing false and
malicious ethics complaints.
124. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that in
seeking to obtain a search warrant in connection with the ethics
complaint, Naliboff was acting pursuant to false advice and
information he obtained from Assistant District Attorney Michael
Cabral, who knew no probable cause existed in support of this claim.
125. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Cabral knew that no probable cause existed to seek a search warrant in
connection with the ethics complaint filed by Plaintiff and, further,
that he knew that the ethics complaint submitted by Plaintiff were (a)
valid, truthful, and meritorious; (b) protected by the First
Amendment; (c) did not constitute a crime warranting the search and
seizure of Plaintiff’s property; and (d) did not contain any facts
whatsoever to suggest that they were “false and malicious”.
126. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Cabral intentionally misled Naliboff, who in turn, misled Judge Falk
into believing there had been a WRITTEN criminal complaint originating
from the State Bar of California against Plaintiff when no such
WRITTEN complaint existed.
127. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that,
nevertheless, Cabral deliberately and maliciously instructed Naliboff
to seek a search warrant while misleading Naliboff and by giving him
false legal advice that probable cause existed to support the warrant,
despite the fact that there was absolutely no corroborating evidence
in support of probable cause.
128. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
Cabral allowed investigators to bring along a private citizen (Tom
Layton) during the execution of the warrant on February 23, 2012.
129. During the search, which lasted approximately three hours,
Cabral constantly called the deputies executing the warrant with
questions and instructions. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
therefore alleges that Cabral also directed, participated, and
controlled the actual search and seizure.
130. During the search of Plaintiff’s home, investigator Peter Martin
stated to Plaintiff that all documents referring to the State Bar of
California will be confiscated. Despite protests from Plaintiff,
Martin confiscated documents sent to Plaintiff by the IRS in
connection with a complaint he had made against Voice of OC and
CaliforniaALL.
131. Plaintiff asked Martin why he was taking all those documents,
and Martin stated that any and all documents referencing or relating
to the State Bar of California are being confiscated. When Plaintiff
pointed out to him that the document issued by the IRS mentions
neither the State Bar of California nor any person listed on the
warrant, Martin stated that the document would be confiscated
nevertheless.
132. During the interaction with Martin, Plaintiff felt intimidated
and threatened, and retaliated against because Plaintiff exercised his
First Amendment right to complain against Voice of OC to the IRS.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BANE ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1
(Against defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
Todd , Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard
Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison &
Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern
California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties,
Mark Robinson, and Does 1 - 100 )
133. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate here the allegations in
Paragraphs 1-132 above, as
though fully set forth.
134. Defendants’ above-described conduct constitute interference, by
threats, intimidation, and coercion, with Plaintiffs’ exercise and
enjoyment of his freedom of expression rights secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States and California, in
violation of California Civil Code § 52.1. Specifically, defendants
set in motion a course of action with the intent to retaliate,
intimidate, and suppress Plaintiff exercise of those rights.
135. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
above-described acts.
136. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of
Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David
Rosenberg conspired with Michael Cabral to add the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn to the search warrant in order to also
intimidate and silencePlaintiff. Plaintiff had never committed any
alleged crimes against Joseph Dunn or Starr Babcock, and there was no
probable cause to include the names of Starr Babcock and Joseph Dunn
in the search warrant.
137. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, if
Judge Falk had not been misled and had been presented with the
complete truth when the DA’s office was seeking the search warrant for
Plaintiff’s home, Judge Falk would not have signed the search warrant
in connection with the ethics complaint or with the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Violation of First Amendment/Free Speech Rights
(Against Defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
Todd , Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard
Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison &
Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern
California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties,
Mark Robinson, and Does 1 - 100 )
138 Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 -
137 as though fully set forth herein.
139. Defendants’ above-described conspiracies between state and
private actors, as well as the misuse of state power, and the attempt
to silence Plaintiffs constitute interference with his freedom of
expression rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
States and California, in violation of 42 USC 1983. .
140. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
above-described acts.
141. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of
Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David
Rosenberg conspired with Michael Cabral to add the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn to the search warrant. Plaintiff had never
committed any alleged crimes against Joseph Dunn or Starr Babcock, and
there was no probable cause to include the names of Starr Babcock and
Joseph Dunn in the search warrant.
142. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, if
Judge Falk had not been misled and had been presented with the
complete truth when the DA’s office was seeking the search warrant for
Plaintiff’s home, Judge Falk would not have signed the search warrant
in connection with the ethics complaint or with the names of Starr
Babcock and Joseph Dunn.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Predicated on Fourth Amendment Rights/Unreasonable
Search and Seizure
(Against Defendants Michael Cabral, Peter Martin, David Rosenberg,
and Does 1-100)
143 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate here the allegations in
Paragraphs 1-142 above, as
though fully set forth.
144. Defendants’ above-described conduct has violated and continues
to violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures under the fourth amendment to the US Constitution..
As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been injured in an
amount to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment
against Defendants as follows:
1. For general and special damages under all causes of action where
available by law;
2. For costs of suit;
3. For prejudgment interest;
4. For an injunction directing Defendants to comply with 26 U.S.C. §
6104(d); and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff also demands a jury trial in this matter.
DATED: February 24, 2014
