organization:california supreme court

Revolt of the gig workers: How delivery rage reached a tipping point - SFChronicle.com
▻https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Revolt-of-the-gig-workers-How-delivery-rage-13605726.php

Gig workers are fighting back.

By their name, you might think independent contractors are a motley crew — geographically scattered, with erratic paychecks and tattered safety nets. They report to faceless software subroutines rather than human bosses. Most gig workers toil alone as they ferry passengers, deliver food and perform errands.

But in recent weeks, some of these app-wielding workers have joined forces to effect changes by the multibillion-dollar companies and powerful algorithms that control their working conditions.

Last week, Instacart shoppers wrung payment concessions from the grocery delivery company, which had been using customer tips to subsidize what it paid them. After outcries by workers on social media, in news reports and through online petitions, San Francisco’s Instacart said it had been “misguided.” It now adds tips on top of its base pay — as most customers and shoppers thought they should be — and will retroactively compensate workers who were stiffed on tips.

New York this year became the first U.S. city to implement a minimum wage for Uber and Lyft, which now must pay drivers at least $17.22 an hour after expenses ($26.51 before expenses). Lyft, which sued over the requirement, last week gave in to driver pressure to implement it.

For two years, drivers held rallies, released research, sent thousands of letters and calls to city officials, and gathered 16,000 petition signature among themselves. The Independent Drivers Guild, a union-affiliated group that represents New York ride-hail drivers and spearheaded the campaign, predicted per-driver pay boosts of up to $9,600 a year.

That follows some other hard-fought worker crusades, such as when they persuaded Uber to finally add tipping to its app in 2017, a move triggered by several phenomena: a string of corporate scandals, the fact that rival Lyft had offered tipping from the get-go, and a class-action lawsuit seeking employment status for workers.

“We’ll probably start to see more gig workers organizing as they realize that enough negative publicity for the companies can make something change,” said Alexandrea Ravenelle, an assistant sociology professor at New York’s Mercy College and author of “Hustle and Gig: Struggling and Surviving in the Sharing Economy.” “But companies will keep trying to push the envelope to pay workers as little as possible.”

The current political climate, with tech giants such as Facebook and Google on hot seats over privacy, abuse of customer data and other issues, has helped the workers’ quests.

“We’re at a moment of reckoning for tech companies,” said Alex Rosenblat, a technology ethnographer at New York’s Data & Society Research Institute and author of “Uberland: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Rules of Work.” “There’s a techlash, a broader understanding that tech companies have to be held accountable as political institutions rather than neutral forces for good.”

The climate also includes more consumer awareness of labor issues in the on-demand economy. “People are realizing that you don’t just jump in an Uber and don’t have to think about who’s driving you and what they make,” Ravenelle said. “There’s a lot more attention to gig workers’ plight.”

Instacart customers were dismayed to discover that their tips were not going to workers on top of their pay as a reward for good service.

Sage Wilson, a spokesman for Working Washington, a labor-backed group that helped with the Instacart shoppers’ campaign, said many more gig workers have emerged with stories of similar experiences on other apps.

“Pay transparency really seems to be an issue across many of these platforms,” he said. “I almost wonder if it’s part of the reason why these companies are building black box algorithmic pay models in the first place (so) you might not even know right away if you got a pay cut until you start seeing the weekly totals trending down.”

Cases in point: DoorDash and Amazon also rifle the tip jar to subsidize contractors’ base pay, as Instacart did. DoorDash defended this, saying its pay model “provides transparency, consistency, and predictability” and has increased both satisfaction and retention of its “Dashers.”

But Kristen Anderson of Concord, a social worker who works part-time for DoorDash to help with student loans, said that was not her experience. Her pay dropped dramatically after DoorDash started appropriating tips in 2017, she said. “Originally it was worth my time and now it’s not,” she said. “It’s frustrating.”

Debi LaBell of San Carlos, who does weekend work for Instacart on top of a full-time job, has organized with others online over the tips issue.

“This has been a maddening, frustrating and, at times, incredibly disheartening experience,” said Debi LaBell of San Carlos, who does weekend work for Instacart on top of a full-time job. “When I first started doing Instacart, I loved getting in my car to head to my first shop. These past few months, it has taken everything that I have to get motivated enough to do my shift.”

Before each shopping trip, she hand-wrote notes to all her customers explaining the tips issue. She and other shoppers congregated online both to vent and to organize.

Her hope now is that Instacart will invite shoppers like her to hear their experiences and ideas.

There’s poetic justice in the fact that the same internet that allows gig companies to create widely dispersed marketplaces provided gig workers space to find solidarity with one another.

“It’s like the internet taketh and giveth,” said Eric Lloyd, an attorney at the law firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents management, including some gig companies he wouldn’t name, in labor cases. “The internet gave rise to this whole new economy, giving businesses a way to build really innovative models, and it’s given workers new ways to advance their rights.”

For California gig workers, even more changes are on the horizon in the wake of a ground-breaking California Supreme Court decision last April that redefined when to classify workers as employees versus independent contractors.

Gig companies, labor leaders and lawmakers are holding meetings in Sacramento to thrash out legislative responses to the Dynamex decision. Options could range from more workers getting employment status to gig companies offering flexible benefits. Whatever happens, it’s sure to upend the status quo.

Rather than piecemeal enforcement through litigation, arbitration and various government agencies such as unemployment agencies, it makes sense to come up with overall standards, Rosenblat said.

“There’s a big need for comprehensive standards with an understanding of all the trade-offs,” she said. “We’re at a tipping point for change.”

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: csaid@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @csaid

#USA #Kalifornien #Gig-Economy #Ausbeutung

Federal judge rules Uber calling its drivers independent contractors may violate antitrust and harm competition / Boing Boing
►https://boingboing.net/2019/06/21/labor-uber.html

https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/uber.jpg

A federal judge has ruled that alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors by the ride-hailing service app Uber could harm competition and violate the spirit of America’s antitrust laws.

• Lawsuit says misclassifying workers creates competitive harm
• 30 days to amend complaint with new information

The ruling by Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is not a final decision in the case, but is a “significant warning to ride-hailing companies,” Bloomberg News reports.

“It signals how a 2018 California Supreme Court case and future worker classification laws could open the floodgates to worker misclassification and antitrust claims.”

Uber’s Worker Business Model May Harm Competition, Judge Says
▻https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/ubers-worker-business-model-may-harm-competition-judge-says

Uber’s Worker Business Model May Harm Competition, Judge Says
Posted June 21, 2019
Suit: Misclassifying workers produces competitive harm
Complaint must be amended within 30 days with new information
Uber‘s alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors could significantly harm competition and violate the spirit of antitrust laws, a federal judge ruled.

The ruling, although not a final decision in the case, is a significant warning to ride-hailing companies. It signals how a 2018 California Supreme Court case and future worker classification laws could open the floodgates to worker misclassification and antitrust claims.

Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss all of the claims brought against Uber by Los Angeles-based transportation service Diva Limousine, saying the company established a causal link between Uber’s behavior and real economic harm being felt by competitors.

Driver misclassification could save Uber as much as $500 million annually just in California, according to Diva’s lawyers.

“Diva’s allegations support the inference that Uber could not have undercut market prices to the same degree without misclassifying its drivers to skirt significant costs,” the judge wrote in the June 20 ruling.

Unlike employees, independent contractors aren’t entitled to benefits such as health care, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, and overtime.

An attorney for Diva said he was pleased with the court’s decision and that it was a warning that the company couldn’t skirt California labor laws.

“There’s an acknowledgement here that Uber not only harms its drivers but also that its conduct crosses the line from robust competition to unfair competition,” said attorney Aaron Sheanin of Robins Kaplan LLP. “And that injures its competitiors, including Diva.”

Uber didn’t return a request for comment.

Overall, Uber was only able to get part of Diva’s complaint fully dismissed—specifically, its claims under the state’s Unfair Practices Act. Diva’s claims under the California Unfair Competition Law can proceed once it amends its complaint to address jurisdictional issues and other legal arguments.

Diva’s lawyers have 30 days to refile an updated complaint which is likely to move forward given the judge’s ruling that the claims have merit.

The ruling was based in part from language drawn from the California Supreme Court’s April 2018 ruling in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court. That decision made it harder for California employers to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. It also condemns misclassification as a type of unfair competition.

Uber identified Dynamex in regulatory filings as a long-term potential risk factor for its business success.

The case is Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:18-cv-05546, Order Issued 6/20/19.

#USA #Uber #Wettbewerb #Monopol #Urteil #Justiz

California is cracking down on the gig economy
▻https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/30/18642535/california-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors

California just took a major step in rewriting the rules of the gig economy.

The state Assembly passed a bill Wednesday that would make it harder for companies to label workers as independent contractors instead of employees, a common practice that has allowed businesses to skirt state and federal labor laws. The bill will now go to the state Senate.

Hundreds of thousands of independent contractors in California, ranging from Uber and Amazon drivers to manicurists and exotic dancers, would likely become employees under the bill.

That small status change is huge. These workers would suddenly get labor protections and benefits that all employees get, such as unemployment insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and a guaranteed $12 minimum hourly wage. It also means companies are fuming about the added cost.

The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing work that isn’t central to the company’s business, and (c) has an independent business in that industry. If they don’t meet all three of those conditions, then they have to be classified as employees.

San Francisco to Uber, Lyft : Tell us what drivers earn
▻https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/San-Francisco-to-Uber-Lyft-Tell-us-what-drivers-12951396.php

Do Uber and Lyft stiff their drivers on wages ? A legal push by the ride-hailing companies’ hometown of San Francisco could lead to the drivers becoming employees rather than independent contractors. City Attorney Dennis Herrera subpoenaed the companies on Tuesday for records of driver pay and benefits, as well as their classification as independent contractors, rather than employees. The move follows a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision that makes it harder for companies to (...)

#Lyft #Uber #travail

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/51/24/15635722/3/rawImage.jpg

REDACTED COMMUNICATION SENT TO COUNSEL IN MATTER OF SUIT AGAINST MORRISON & FOERSTER ET AL ON AUGUST 7, 2015

Dear Counsel:

I hope you are well and are enjoying the summer.

This will serve to discuss various matters dealing with the two above referenced actions. At times, each counsel is addressed individually and at times issues are addressed to all (or the majority of) counsel collectively, as follows:

1. YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES DAVID ROSENBERG AND DAVID REED — First, as to the part of this communication addressed to Messrs. Michael Fox, Keith Fink and Olaf Muller, please be informed that an upcoming federal action of Levi v. Girardi & Keese will include one cause of action seeking only equitable relief against “Yolo County Superior Court.” Since your clients (Judges David Rosenberg and David Reed) are part of the “Yolo County Superior Court”, I wanted to give you a heads-up of the upcoming action, as well as to inform you that it is unrelated to the topics which were previously the subjects of various agreements.

Simply put, and as discussed in more detail below as events relate to other parties, there have been serious new developments dealing with: a) Yolo DA / AARP b) Michael Cabral / Yolo and Riverside DA’s offices/ SNR Dentons - Rod Pacheco - James Hsu / Yolo County’s Cache Creek Casino - Chief Marshall Mckay/ Mark Friedman / DLA Piper / Kapor Enterprises.

As far as (a) — developments involving Yolo DA and AARP, etc, note that last week I learned that AARP — where George Davis (formerly a California Bar BOG member who voted to press false criminal charges against me with Yolo DA, president of AARP-California, and with strong financial ties to CCPF) and Barbara O’Connor (AARP and AARP Foundation Director, Link America Foundation Director - whom I caught in major alleged fraud re Washington DC party to celebrate the “linking” of the two Americas — which in actuality was a Barack Obama inauguration party - and employee of Sacramento-based Donna Lucas’s Public Affairs) — has bestowed an unusual grant of $40,000 on the Yolo County District Attorney (see attached press-release and HERE ) headed by Jeff Reisig and Jonathan Raven.

As far as (b) — developments involving Yolo / Riverside Assistant District Attorney Michael Cabral — note that during the pendency of the criminal action against me, a very unusual theory was explored by which Cabral had been transferred from Riverside County DA to Yolo County DA for the sole reason of falsely and maliciously criminally prosecuting me in order to intimidate me into silence and otherwise confiscate incriminating evidence through the execution of an invalid search warrant.
At that time, I looked into those facts and rejected the theory dealing with Cabral (See story HERE). About one month ago, I learned that Cabral is no longer with the Yolo DA, and has returned back home to the Riverside County District Attorney.

As you may recall and as I stated previously, I agreed to a plea of no contest to a charge of misdemeanor attempted extortion as a stopgap measure since I was under duress on various fronts. As part of the plea bargain I agreed to, among other things, not contact the State Bar of California Board of Governors/Trustees directly, and other overreaching conditions.

Both as a journalist and as a victim of the above alleged malfeasance, I am obviously interested in informing the State Bar of California Board of Governors/Trustees and the public vis-a-vis press releases, published articles, and by contacting other journalists of those events. However, per conditions imposed on me while under duress as part of the plea bargain in the criminal matter by Judge Reed, I am prohibited from directly contacting BOG members. As such, in addition to suing some of the above named and others in federal court, I plan to ask the same federal court for relief to allow me to freely exercise free speech.

As such, if the attorneys for Judges Rosenberg and Reed believe that advancing an action against Yolo County Superior Court for equitable relief is not consistent with the spirit or language of our prior agreements, please let me know.

Note that from my perspective past events are all forgotten history and there is absolutely no desire to rehash old claims against Rosenberg and Reed. In fact, as I mentioned to Rosenberg’s attorney (Mr. Fink) over the phone, I am a huge fan of Rosenberg and was recently disappointed that he was not appointed as a justice to the California Supreme Court given his outstanding judicial qualities, experience, and political background (i.e. former chief of staff to Governor Jerry Brown; Judicial Council member; mayor of Davis, etc).

2. SERVICE OF BRIEF AND APPENDIX — California Rules of Court Rule 8.124 (e)(1)states that “a party preparing an appendix must: (A) Serve the appendix on each party, unless otherwise agreed by the parties....”

As far as the service of the appendix, I am hoping that each party will agree to waive formal service and instead agree that the service of a searchable PDF Appendix via electronic mail is sufficient. Note that I will be advising the court of my request and the responses received from counsel, if any.

Similarly, I am hoping that you will also agree to waive formal service of a hard copy of the appellant’s brief and to instead agree that the service of searchable PDF and/or Microsoft Word version of the brief via electronic mail is sufficient. I will also be letting the court know that I made this request of counsel and the responses received, if any.

I would like to urge everyone to agree to the above in order to save a tree, costs, and the unnecessary labor of printing, copying, and binding thousands of pages.

3. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS — As applied to the two above referenced actions, I would like to remind everyone that the window to engage in settlement discussions has been closed, as was stated previously. As such, due to multitudes of reasons, in connection with the above two referenced actions, please refrain from extending any settlement offers, attempting to engage in settlement negotiations, or offering anything of value. The only exception will be if the undersigned originates a proposal.

4. DOCKET — As far as the matter pending before the California Third District Court of Appeal, note that the docket maintained by the court contains many inaccuracies and is otherwise lacking. For example, a search for the last name of defendant/respondent “James Brosnahan” yields no result. Ditto defendants Freada Kapor Klein, Michael Cabral, Mark Friedman (only the name of the late distinguished Morton Friedman OBM appears), Fulcrum Property (only “Fulcrum Davis” appears, which I assume is associated with the Friedmans), Mary Cary Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Ronald Olson, Jeff Bleich, Chris Young, Kamala Harris, Douglas Winthrop, Holly Fujie, Ophelia Basgal, and others.

As such, I ask that each of you contact the court of appeal on behalf of your respective clients — similar to the 4th entry of the docket by which the attorney for Darrel Steinberg independently wrote the court to advise that Steinberg is a respondent, see HERE — to inform the court of the problem and ask for it to be rectified.

Moreover, please ensure that the name of your clients are spelled correctly i.e. “Munger,Tollis” or “Freada, Kapor, Klein” are not the correct spelling, at least based on my understanding.

The attorney representing Ms. Kamala Harris is requested to inform the court to remove a comment by which the docket states that Ms. Harris was sued in her capacity as the attorney general or forward proof where I allege she was sued in such capacity.

The attorney from Locke Lord representing defendants Cary Zellerbach and Martin Investment is asked to inform the court to correct the docket which does not mention either yourself, your firm, or your clients. Also with respect to your client that has thus far managed to avoid service, please be advised that the California statute of limitations is tolled and I intend to pursue claims against her either in state or federal court. REDACTED

5. SKADDEN ARPS — ISSUES RE RAUOL KENNEDY REPRESENTATION OF CALIFORNIA JUDICIARY — Mr. Russell, as you may recall, in reply to my inquiry you wrote: "My colleague Raoul Kennedy does indeed represent Justice Robert Mallano in Mallano v. Chiang et al., LASC Case No. BC533770. As you may know, Judge Elihu Berle granted class certification in Mallano on January 15, 2015. The class members have not yet been identified because notice has not been circulated, nor has the period for opt outs occurred. Nevertheless, regardless of which judges or justices eventually become members of the class, pursuant to section 811.9 of the California Government Code, the “fact that a justice, judge, subordinate judicial officer, court executive officer, court employee, the court, the Judicial Council, or the Administrative Office of the Courts is or was represented or defended by the county counsel, the Attorney General, or other counsel shall not be the sole basis for a judicial determination of disqualification of a justice, judge, subordinate judicial officer, the county counsel, the Attorney General, or other counsel in unrelated actions.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 811.9. As a matter of law, there is no conflict. The statute is attached for your reference."

As a reply, I wrote in part that the statute applies only to one justice, and in the case at hand Mr. Kennedy represents (as of now and assuming none chose to opt out) the entire qualified panel of justices of the Third District and that, most importantly, per the statute, the representation must be the “sole” basis. Here, the representation of Skadden/ Kennedy is NOT the sole basis. Rather, there is an additional basis for the disqualification — which is the fact that Skadden itself is also a DEFENDANT in the “unrelated action.”

In any event, this will serve to inform you that I intend to seek to disqualify any and all judicial officers who are clients of your firm. As such, I ask for you to please forward a list identifying the class members and all those who chose to opt-out of the litigation.

6. MORRISON & FOERSTER: Mr. Besirof, associate Davis indicated that you replaced Mr. Dresser as the attorney in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or require certain clarification. Since you are new to the case and since it is summer, if you need extra time to catch up on materials as far as the filing of an appellate respondent brief, I am extending to you (and by extension everyone else) an additional 60 days in which to file your brief.

7. DEFENDANT MARK FRIEDMAN / COUNSEL - BROTHER PHILIP FRIEDMAN — Mr. Friedman, in connection with events dealing with Michael Cabral / Yolo DA / Chache Creek Casino and SNR Dentons, can you please provide a list of all the partnerships between defendant Mark Friedman and the Rumsey / Yocha Dehe tribe which operates Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County?

A lawsuit (attached) the tribe/casino filed against your brother and REDACTED lists the following: Government Property Fund,LLC; Government Property Fund II, LLC ; Government Property Fund III, LLC ; Government Property Fund IV, LLC ; 4330 Watt,LLC; Fulcrum Management Group LLC ; Fulcrum Friedman Management Group, LLC ; Illiniois Property Fund, GPF ; and Illinois LLC. Are these partnership still in effect ?

Also, for purposes of determine potential conflicts of interest in the current pending matter as far as your ability to serve as legal counsel given your role as a potential witness, please inform me whether Paragraph 108 of the lawsuit which states: “The other Vectors partners included REDACTED and Opper, as well as Friedman, Friedman’s father and brother, and John Krasznekewicz (a Friedman friend)” refers to you, Philip Friedman. In essence, what I am asking is are you the Vector partner or is the brother alluded to someone else ? Also, starting in 2006 to the present, were you involved in any other partnership with the tribe and the casino ?

8. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON: Mr. Senator, if not a bother, I will appreciate if your firm would forward me the following:

a - copy of the report prepared by your colleague Bart Williams dealing with alleged misconduct by Joe Dunn, especially in connection to a trip overseas by which Dunn was accompanied by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese and Tom Layton. As you may be aware, accompanying the Yolo County District Attorney officers during the execution of the search warrant at my home was also Tom Layton — who served as liaison. As such, if said report is in the public domain, I will appreciate if you forward a copy.

b - your colleague Jeffrey Bleich recently solicited as clients a group of UC Davis APA law students in connection with their bid to admit post-mortum an APA applicant to the State Bar of California. If not a bother, will it be possible for you to please forward to me a copy of the motion and all other pleading submitted to the California Supreme Court.

9. FREADA AND MITCHELL KAPOR / LEVEL PLAYING FIELD INSTITUTE : Mr. Medina, at your earliest, I will appreciate if you please address the following:

a. In order to determine your status as potential witness, can you please forward your employment history to date beginning from around 2006 ? Were you ever employed at the DLA Piper office in Sacramento ? If yes, can you please state the dates of your employment.

b. Are you and your clients in a position to disclose who is paying Kapor and LPFI’s attorney’s fees? If it is DLA Piper who set you up to defend the two or otherwise is paying your attorney’s fees, please let me know. As you may know, DLA Piper managing partner Gilles Attia, daughter Sarah Attia, and partner Steve Churchwell played a huge role in CaliforniaALL / Obama for America. Also, separately and around the same time, there is an allegation that DLA Piper laundered $50,000 to “Obama Victory Fund” through defendant Level Playing Field Institute / Kapor Enterprises vis-a-vis the so called “Kapor Maneuver.”

c. Recently, I have learned from a YOU-TUBE video featuring Mr. Kapor that he is heavily invested in what he refers to as “Ed-Tech” companies.

It will be appreciated if you let me know if Mr. Kapor, his wife, or their entities have any business relationships with Steve Poizner or former California Bar Foundation treasurer Lindsay Lee — both of whom are also involved with Ed-Tech.

d. Yesterday, just as I was about to send you settlement business proposals, much to my chagrin and indignation, I encountered the following article in USA Today. Under the heading of “Kapors pledge $40 million investment in tech diversity” it stated, among other things: “Mitch Kapor and wife Freada Kapor Klein will invest $40 million over three years in a set of initiatives designed to give women and underrepresented minorities a better shot at becoming technology entrepreneurs.” The article further stated that “Kapor Capital will make more than $25 million in investments in technology start-ups working to narrow the achievement gaps. At least half of the companies will have founders from underrepresented groups.” (See story ▻http://tinyurl.com/p33dxlx )

My understanding is that any and all non-profit and for-profits companies operated in the State of California are deemed to be “business establishments” that come within the purview of Civil Code Section 51 known as The Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Be advised that the plan by the Kapors and Kapor Capital to “make more than $25 million in investments in technology start-ups working to narrow the achievement gaps. At least half of the companies will have founders from underrepresented groups” runs afoul of The Unruh Civil Rights Act which reads: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

In other words, Kapor Capital’s plan to pick and choose “founders from underrepresented groups” (based on the article, women and “underrepresented minorities”) is unlawful. If you or your clients disagree, please forward an explanation. Otherwise, I shall await word from you that there has been a change of plans.

e. As you may be aware, starting around 2000, the former executive-director of the State Bar of California (Ms. Judy Johnson) secretly served as the president of the “California Consumer Protection Foundation” ("CCPF") an entity which obtained millions of dollars from class-action “cy pres” awards and from fines, settlements and payments the CPUC — during the time Michael Peevey and Geoff Brown served as commissioners — imposed on various utility companies. For example, anytime a merger took place i.e. between various cell-phone companies such as Verizon, millions were paid to CCPF.

CCPF, in turn, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to entities in South-Central Los Angeles [with very close connection to State Bar of California BOG members Shrimpscam’s Gwen Moore and George Davis], a dubious entity in Venice for “Youth Radio”, an entity headed by Michael Shames, various Asian-American entities with close connections to State Bar officials (Holly Fujie and Madge Watai — Little Tokyo Service Center, etc.) and money to entities headed by associates of Justice Ming Chin.

Based my estimation, around $3 million cannot be accounted for, and separately I alleged that CCPF submitted false reports to the IRS. Months before the execution of the search warrant, I complained to the IRS against CCPF as well as filed an ethics complaint against Judy Johnson and others with the State Bar of California. Later, as you may recall, the State Bar of California BOG voted to file criminal charges against me, alleging among other things, that the CCPF ethics complaint constituted criminal conduct which served as one basis for the search warrant.

Based on my recollection, it also appeared that CCPF may have funneled money to entities established by the Kapors. Since all the materials have been confiscated by the Yolo DA and are otherwise inaccessible, at your earliest, I will appreciate the names of those entities and the dates / amounts each of these contribution.

f. Please consider this a formal request for “Kapor Center for Social Impact” to produce its 3 last 990 forms submitted to the IRS. If you need me to request this information from the entity directly, please let me know.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please let me know if you have any questions.

REDACTED COPY OF MOTION TO JUDGE LESLIE NICHOLS TO PRODUCE FORM 700 AND DISCLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH PG&E

In California, all state and local public officials and all candidates for public office must file a Statement of Economic Interests, also known as a Form 700. It appears that Hon. Leslie Nichols failed to comply with this requirement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff hereby requests that Judge Nichols produce forthwith said Form 700 at the next available opportunity and before rendering any other decisions or issuing any other orders in this matter.

Additionally, Plaintiff moves Hon. Leslie Nichols to disclose whether he or a family member owns (or owned in the last year) any financial instruments (such as bonds or stocks) with defendants PG&E, Berkshire Hathaway, Edison International, Southern California Edison, Accenture, or any other defendant named in this case.

Moreover, Plaintiff moves this Court to provide details (such as dates) describing his involvement with the Judicial Council, JAMS, and all prior matters involving PG&E.

Plaintiff also moves this Court to disclose the extent of his relationship with defendants Ophelia Basgal and PG&E in the context of the California Supreme Court Historical Society (“CSCHS”).

As this Court is aware, defendants Basgal and PG&E were named in this suit in connection with alleged misconduct relating to non-profit CaliforniaALL. However, Plaintiff in the past also unearthed misconduct relating to PG&E and Basgal in connection with the CSCHS in that PG&E and Basgal (who, shockingly, served as the treasurer of CSCHS), as well as Justice Ronald George and attorneys from Howard Rice / Arnold & Porter, misused CSCHS to launder money to a UC entity (where Justice George’s son, Eric George, served as director) for the purpose of bribing Joseph Grodin in a suit filed by California’s former attorney general Bill Lockyer against PG&E.

Lastly, Plaintiff asks that this Court confirm that it was not involved in any fraudulent activities in failing to disclose that Ophelia Basgal was an employee of PG&E during her tenure as the treasurer of the CSCHS.

Due to the above pending requests, Plaintiff moves this Court to suspend any and all rulings and orders pending the disclosure of the requested data. Plaintiff also moves this Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing at the earliest possible opportunity to allow defendants PG&E and Ophelia Basgal to testify under oath as to the extent of their relationship with Judge Nichols.

Respectfully submitted.

William Hauck (of California State University Board of Trustees / Goddard Claussen / Golden Pacific Bank / California Forward / Blue Shield of California Foundation ) Asked to Disclose Reason / Motive California State University Board of Trustees Spent Tax-Payers Money to File an Amicus Brief in Matter of BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION v. CITY OF BERKELEY Involving Personal Residence of Freada Klein Kapor of CaliforniaALL Financial Scheme / The Kapor Center

See story @:

▻http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/tag/william-hauck-aka-bill-hauck-of-california-state-university-

California Supreme Court Docket for BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION v. CITY OF BERKELEY [ TLR Note: 1. real parties are Mitchell Kapor and Freada Klein Kapor ( of CaliforniaALL financial scheme / The Kapor Center ) seek to build 10,000 square-foot house, adjacent 10 parking spots for fundraising volunteers , certified “Green” in Berkeley, CA — objecting neighbors commenced action 2- YR Asks – Why / What interests THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATIONS’S EDUCATION LEGAL ALLIANCE have in filing Amicus Briefs ?

Parties and Attorneys
BERKELEY HILLSIDE PRESERVATION v. CITY OF BERKELEY (LOGAN)
Case Number S201116

Party Attorney
Berkeley Hillside Preservation : Plaintiff and Appellant

Susan Brandt-Hawley
Brandt-Hawley Law Group
P.O. Box 1659
Glen Ellen, CA

Fadley, Susan Nunes : Plaintiff and Appellant

Susan Brandt-Hawley
Brandt-Hawley Law Group
P.O. Box 1659
Glen Ellen, CA

City of Berkeley : Defendant and Respondent

Laura Nicole McKinney
Office of the City Attorney
2180 Milvia Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA

City Council of the City of Berkeley : Defendant and Respondent

Laura Nicole McKinney
Office of the City Attorney
2180 Milvia Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA

Logan, Donn : Real Party in Interest and Respondent

Amrit Satish Kulkarni
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA

Julia Lynch Bond
Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA

Kapor, Mitchell D. : Real Party in Interest and Respondent

Amrit Satish Kulkarni
Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA

Julia Lynch Bond
Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA

Kapor-Klein, Freada : Defendant and Respondent

Amrit Satish Kulkarni
Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson
555 Twelfth Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA

Julia Lynch Bond
Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA

Laguna Beach Architectural Guild : Pub/Depublication Requestor

Sherman L. Stacey
Gaines & Stacey LLP
1111 Bayside Drive, Suite 280
Corona Del Mar, CA

California Building Industry Association : Pub/Depublication Requestor

Andrew B. Sabey
Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

California League of Cities : Pub/Depublication Requestor

Melanie Sengupta
Holland & Knight
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA

California State Association of Counties : Pub/Depublication Requestor

Melanie Sengupta
Holland & Knight
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA

California Infill Builders Association : Pub/Depublication Requestor
Meea Kang, President
2012 “K” Street
Sacramento, CA 95811

Bay Area Council : Pub/Depublication Requestor
Matt Regan, Vice President
201 California Street, Suite 1450
San Francisco, CA 94111

Save Our Carmel River : Amicus curiae

Michael W. Stamp
Attorney at Law
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, CA

Molly E Erickson
Law Offices of Michael W Stamp
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, CA

The Open Monterey Project : Amicus curiae

Michael W. Stamp
Attorney at Law
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, CA

Molly E Erickson
Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, CA

Bernardi, Patricia : Other

Michael W. Stamp
Attorney at Law
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, CA

Coastal Defender : Other

Beverly Suzanne GrossmanPalmer
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA

Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association : Amicus curiae

Leila H. Moncharsh
Veneruso & Moncharsh
5707 Redwood Road, Suite #10
Oakland, CA

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris : Amicus curiae

Catherine Mitchell Wieman
Office of the Attorney General
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA

The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area : Amicus curiae

Stephen L. Kostka
Perkins Coie, LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA

Planning and Conservation League : Amicus curiae

Jan Chatten-Brown
Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA

Endangered Habitat League : Amicus curiae

Jan Chatten-Brown
Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA

California Preservation Foundation : Amicus curiae

Jan Chatten-Brown
Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA

Save Our Heritage Organization : Amicus curiae

Jan Chatten-Brown
Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA

The California Building Industry Association : Amicus curiae

Michael Zischke
Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Andrew B. Sabey
Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

California Business Properties Association : Amicus curiae

Michael Zischke
Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Andrew B. Sabey
Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation : Amicus curiae

Michael Zischke
Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Andrew B. Sabey
Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP
555 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Pacific Legal Foundation : Amicus curiae

Malcolm Reed Hopper
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento, CA

California School Boards Associations’s Education Legal Alliance : Amicus curiae

Harold M. Freiman
Lozano Smith
2001 North Main Street, Suite 650
Walnut Creek, CA

Kelly Marie Rem
Lozano Smith
2001 North Main Street, Suite 650
Walnut Creek, CA

The Regents of the University of California : Amicus curiae

Charles Furlonge Robinson
University of California/Office of General Counsel
1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA

Kelly L. Drumm
Office of the General Counsel
1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA

The Board of Trustees of the California State University : Amicus curiae

Andrea Marie Gunn
Office of General Counsel
401 Golden Shore, 4th Floor
Long Beach, CA

Christine Helwick
Office of the General Counsel
401 Golden Shore, 4th Floor
Long Beach, CA

League of California Cities : Amicus curiae

Amanda Jean Monchamp
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Melanie Sengupta
Holland & Knight
50 California Street, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA

California State Association of Counties : Amicus curiae

Amanda Jean Monchamp
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA

Melanie Sengupta
Holland & Knight
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA

Center for Biological Diversity : Amicus curiae

Michael Ward Graf
Law Offices of Michael W. Graf
227 Behrens Street
El Cerrito, CA

High Sierra Rural Alliance : Amicus curiae

Michael Ward Graf
Law Offices of Michael W. Graf
227 Behrens Street
El Cerrito, CA

Association of California Water Agencies : Amicus curiae

Christian Lucier Marsh
Downey Brand LLP
333 Bush Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA

Andrea Pelton Clark
Downey Brand LLP
333 Bush Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA

Graham Cole St. Michel
Downey Brand LLP
333 Bush Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA

Eric George in Addendum # 11 to Suspicious Financial Machinations Surrounding University of California Regent Richard Blum — Husband of Dianne Feinstein : UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies aka “IGS” [TLR Note: 1- Eric George part of IGS; 2- California Supreme Court Historical Society ("CSCHS") headed by Ronald George, PG&E’s Ophelia Basgal of CaliforniaALL, and Kay Werdegar forward money to IGS 3- In 2007 , CSCHS transfers the unusually high amount of $ 51, 720 to IGS — which YR is in the process of analyzing — may have been used to bribe Joseph Grodin in matter involving PG&E, Jerry Brown, Bill Lockyer, Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk and Amy Margolin 5. CSCHS also transfers funds to “University of California Board of Regents” 6- Separately, according to YR, CSCHS can’t treat expenses for services as “grants” or “donations” 7- Eric George remains under scrutiny in matters involving Toyota, In Re Girardi, Ocean Liners, Winnie the Pooh, Bet Tzedek, 1st. Century Bank,
etc...]

Please see story :

▻http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/eric-george-in-addendum-11-to-suspicious-financial-machinati

Eric George of Browne George Ross — son of deposed Ronald George — hereby asked disclose reason necessary to solicit money from private parties (i.e. law firms, lawyers) during time surplus funds of non-profit “California Supreme Court Historical Society” were invested at brokerage-house Smith Barney

Please see @:

▻http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/eric-george-of-browne-george-ross-son-of-deposed-ronald-geor

1st Century Bank
AARP
Abercrombie & Fitch
Addington Report
African-American Online Summit
Alan Rothenberg
Alec Chang
Alex Kozinski
Alice Oliver-Parrott
Alicemarie H. Stotler
Allen Blumenthal
Allen Matkins
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
American Taliban
Andrew Breitbart
Anita Yu Westly
Annette Carnegie
Anthony Kline
Antonio Villaraigosa
AOC
Arent & Fox
Arlen Opper
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arrow Point
Arthur Margolis
Article III
Asian Pacific American Bar Association.
Association of Discipline Defense Counsel
Avalon
Barack Obama
Barbara George
Barbara O’Connor
Barclay Lynn
BC300142
Benjamin Fogel
Berkshire Hathaway
Bet Tzedek
Beth Jay
Bettina Neuefeind
Bill Hebert
Boalt Hall
BOG
Brenda Kempster
Bribery
Bruce Africa
Buchalter Nemer
Bulgari; Eric George
Cache Creek Casino
CAIR
California Bar Foundation
California Bar Journal
California Commission on Judicial Performance
California Consumer Protection Foundation
California Democratic Party
California Emerging Technology Fund
California Forward
California Lawyers for Discipline Reform
California Public Utilities Commission
California State Assembly
California Supreme Court
CaliforniaALL
Calvo & Clark
Carlos Bustamante
Carlos Moreno
CARS
Caspar Weinberger
Catherine Purcell
CAUSE
CCAF
CCPF
Chanan Reitblat
Chancery Club
Charles Schwab
Charles Siller
Chevron
Chief Justice
Chief Trial Counsel
Chris Young
Christa & Jackson
Christian Pantages
CityView
Claire Cooper
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
CONFLICT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Connie Merriett
Consumer Watchdog
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
Countywide Financial Services
CPUC
Craig Holden
Cristobal Bonifaz
CWS Enterprises
Dan Morian
Daniel Zaheer
David Burrow
David Cameron Carr
David Grove
David Lash
David Oppenheimer
David Pasternak
David Washburn
David Wenholz
David Werdegar
Dawn Melton
Dawn O’Donnell
Dean
Dean Barbieri
Dean Chemerinsky
DeapWater Horizon
Demeter Energy
Democracy Fund Inc
Dewey & Leboeuf
Dian Grueneich
Diane Curtis
Diane Karpman
Diane Parnes
Diane Pritchard
Dianne Feinstein
Dick Costolo
Dickstein & Zerbi
Disneyland
Diversity
DLA Piper
Dole Food Company
Donald Miles
Donald Steedman
Donna Lucas
Douglas Winthrop
Douglas Wintrhrop
Dunsmuir
DWP
Edison International
Edith Matthai
EducateLA
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker
Elliot Peters
Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack
Ephraim Margolin
Eric George
Eric Holder
Eric Maier
Eric Moore
Erika Girardi
Erika Jayne
Erin Baldwin
Erwin Chemerinsky
Esther Rodgers
Ethics
Facebook
Farmers Insurance Group
Fauxnique
FBI
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Feminazi
FINRA
Fishkin & Slatter
Fogel v. Farmers
Fogel v Farmers Group
Freada Kapor Klein
Fred Rowley
Gayle Murphy
GEM Communications
Geoffrey Brown
Geoffrey Hazard
Gerald Ulemen
Gibor Basri
Gilles Attia
Gilmur Murray
Ginger Bredemeier
Girardi & Keese
Golden Gate University
Golden Gate Universiy
Goodwin Liu
Graham LippSmith
Grant Esposito
Gretchen Nelson
Guam
Gwen Moore
Harvard law School
Hastings College of the Law
Hearing Department
Henry Weinstein
Herbert Brown
Herbert Sinclair Kerr
HMS
Holly Fujie
Holly Harpham
Holly Hogan
Howard Dickstein
Howard Miller
Howard Rice
IALA
In Re Girardi
Institute on Aging
IRS
Ivo Labar
J. Tonny Serra
Jack Dorsey
Jacqueline Scott Corley
James Hsu
James Robie
James Towery
James Wagstaffe
James Ware
Jamie Harley
Jamie Harmon
Jan Little
Jayne Kim
Jeannine English
Jeff Reisig
Jeffrey Bleich
Jeffrey Shohet
Jerome Falk
Jerome Fishkin
Jerry Brown
Jerry Fishkin
Jessica Tavares
Jill Sperber
Jim Robie
Jim Wagstaffe
JoAnn Remke
JoAnne Earls Robbins
Joe Cotchett
Joe Longley
John Broderick
John Burton
John Edwards
John Keker
John Noonen
John Oliver
John Roos
Joilene Wood Grove
Jon Streeter
Jonathan Dickstein
Joseph Grodin
Joseph Shalant
Joyce Kennard
judge
Judge James Ware
Judith Epstein
Judy Johnson
Justice
Kamala Harris
Karina Hamilton
Karpman & Associates
Kathryn Werdegar
Keith Wetmore
Keker & Van Nest
Kelly Corcoran
Ken Lammers
KENNETH KARST
Kerr & Wagstaffe
Kinde Durkee
Kreindler & Kreindler
Kristen A. Corpion
Lakers
Lance Armstrong
Lanny Breuer
Larissa Parecki
Larry Lessig
Larry Sonsini
Laura Chick
Lawrence Jeff Dal Cerro
Lawrence Yee
Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Company
Lee Roy Selmon
Lehman English Kelly & O’Keefe
Leslie Brodie
Leslie Hatamiya
Level Playing Field Institute
Lewis Brisbois
Lindsay Slatter
London Riot
Lori Schechter
Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Jail
Los Angeles Superior Court
Los Angeles Times
Louis Shoch
Loyola School of Law
Lucas Public Affairs
Lucy Armendariz
Madge Watai
Maier Shoch
Major Lindsey & Africa
Malcolm Wittenberg
Maria Oropeza
Maria Radwick
Mario Camara
Marissa Dennis
Marissa Prayongratana
Mark Gil-Torres
Mark Parnes
Mark Torres-Gil
Marsha Berzon
Martha Escutia
Marvin Baxter
Matthew Melamed
Matthew Werdegar
Maya Harris
McGeorge School of Law
Meet the Press
Meg Whitman
Mel Gibson
Mercedes-Benz
Metropolitan Police
Micha Liberty
Michael Anello
Michael Boli
Michael Marcus
Michael Nava
Michael Peevey
Michael Savage
Michael Shames
Michael von Loewenfeldt
Mike Feuer
Mike Gallagher
Mike Nisperos
Ming Chin
Mitch Kapor
MoFo
Morrison C. England
Morrison England
Morrison & Foerster
Munger Tolles Olson
N. Randy Smith
NACDL
Nancy Fineman
NAPABA
Nelson Holl
Nelson Jang Holl
Ninth Circuit
Noah Rosenthal
Norberto Santana
Obama for America
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Oksana Grigorieva
Oliver North
O’Melveny Myers
Operation Withern
Orly Taitz
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pamela Phillips
Partner
Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
Pat Fong Kushida
Patrice McElroy
Patricia Barry
Patricia Lee
Paul Anka
Paul Donnachie
Paul Kramer.
Paul O’Brien
Paul Triana
People Ethical Treatment Animals
Pete Arth
Peter Arth
Peter G. Keane
Peter Keane
Phil Kay
Philip Maxwell
Pierce O’Donnell
Posterous
Prerna Lal
Proms
Puttin’ on the Ritz
Puzzle Pieces
R. Scott Wiley
Rachel Abelson
Rachel Grunberg
Racist
Raj Chatterjee
Raoul Kennedy
Raymond Robie
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Review Department
Rex Heinke
Reza Gostar
Richard Fine
Richard Rubin
Richard Salerno
Richard Sander
Rick Perry
RICO
RICO Act
Ritz-Carlton
Robb Scott
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
Robert Chick
Robert Hamilton
Robert Hawley
Robert Scott Wiley
Robie & Matthai
Rod Kerr
Ron Burkle
Ron Olson
Ronald George
Ronald Gottschalk
Ronald Stovitz
Ronlad George
Rory Little
Rosemary Shahan
Russell Weiner
Ruthe Ashley
Ruthe Catolico Ashley
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Sander vs. State Bar
Sandor Samuels
Santa Catalina Island
Sara Granda
Sarah Attia
Sarah Glynn
Sarah Redfield
Scotland Yard
Scott Drexel
Sean SeLegue
Sean Topp
Sempra Energy
Senator Joseph Dunn
Sergio Garcia
Shandy
Sheldon Sloan
Sholom Rubashkin
Skadden Arps
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Sonya Molodetskaya
Southern California Edison
Spire Law Group
St Andrews University
Stanley Arouty
Starr Babcock
State Bar Court
State Bar Foundation
State Bar of California
State Bar of Texas
State Farm
Stephen Larson
Steve Cooley
Steve Westly
Steven Churchwell
Sunne Wright McPeak
Supreme Court of California
Susan Friery
Susan Mac Cormac
Susan Margolis
Susan Rutberg
Susan Shalit
Suspicious Minds
Tani Cantil Sakauye
Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye
Ted Frank
Terry Collingsworth
The California Endowment
The Elliott Building
The Sand Dollar
Thomas Girardi
Thomas Nolan
Thomas P. O’Brien
Thunder Valley Casino
TLR
Tom Girardi
Tom Layton
Tom O’Brien
Tony Haymet
Tony West
Tore Bjorn
Torie Flournoy-England
Tricia Weaver
Twitter
Two Harbors
UC Berkeley Foundation
UC Berkeley School of Law
U.C. Hastings
UCAN
UCI
UCI Foundation
UCLA
UNH
United States Department of Justice
University of Edinburgh
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
Verizon Wireless
Victor King
Victor Miramontes
Voice of OC
Wal-Mart
Walmart
Walter Lack
Wenholz Law Firm
William Allsup
William Fletcher
William Highberger
William Wells
Willie Brown
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Winnie the Pooh
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
Young White Female
ZeroDivide
Zurich Financial Services

Alphabetical List of Organizations / Individuals That Are of Interest to The Leslie Brodie Report — Year 2013

For updates, please see @:

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2013/01/01/the-leslie-brodie-report-2013-people-of-interest-15372924

A.

AARP - American Association of Retired Persons;

Peter Arth of CPUC;

Accenture;

Robert Adler of Southern California Edison, formerly of Munger Tolles;

Marty Africa of Lindsey Major & Africa;

Allen Matkins;

Ruthe Catolico Ashley (aka Ruthe Ashley);

Lance Astrella of Astrella & Rice;

B.

Starr Babcock of State Bar of California;

Ophelia Basgal, formerly of PG&E;

Gibor Basri of UC Berkeley Foundation/ CaliforniaALL;

Jeremy Ben Ami of J. Street;

Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles;

Jeffrey Bleich of Munger Tolles & Olson/ Obama for America;

Richard Blum;

Geoff Brown of CPUC;

Frederick Brown of Gibson Dunn;

Boyd Gaming;

James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster / Obama for America;

Ron Burkle of The Yucaipa Companies;

John Burton of California Democratic Party;

C.

CaliforniaALL;

California Forward;

California Emerging Technology Fund;

California Consumer Protection Foundation ("CCPF");

California Supreme Court Historical Society;

California Endowment;

Annette Carnegie of Morrison & Foerster;

CB Richard Ellis;

Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment (CAUSE);

Alec Chang of Skadden Arps;

Raj Chatterjee of Morrison & Foerster;

Erwin Chemerinsky of UCI School of Law;

Ming Chin, Associate Justice of California Supreme Court;

Steve Churchwell of DLA Piper;

CityView:

Richard Claussen of Goddard Claussen;

CleanTECH;

Joe Cotchett of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy

Dick Costolo of Twitter / Posterous;

D.

Angela Davis of US Attorney’s office in Los Angeles/ Judicial Council

Howard Dickstein ;

Jeannine Dickstein (aka Jeannine English);

Jack Dorsey of Twitter/Posterous;

DLA Piper;

Duke Energy;

Joe Dunn;

Kinde Durkee;

E.

Edison International

Judge Morrison England;

Torie Flournoy-England;

Jeannine English (aka Jeannine Dickstein);

EPIC Church at 543 Howard;

Martha Escutia;

F.

Jerome Falk of Arnold & Porter(formerly of Howard Rice);

Timothy
Judge Tim Fall of Yolo Couty Superior Court (image:courtesy photo)

Judge Timothy Fall (aka Tim Fall) of Yolo County Superior Court;

Nancy Fineman of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy;

James Brosnahan, Jeff Bleich, Willie Fletcher
From left James Brosnahan, Unknown, Jeffrey Bleich, and Judge Willie Fletcher (Image: courtesy photo)

William Fletcher : FOB — Friend of Bill Clinton;Democratic Party Operative; Judge with Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; UC Berkeley;

For People of Color, Inc. — entity associated with MTO;

Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property;

Holly Fujie;

Fulcrum Property;

G.

Ronald George;

Eric George;

Girardi & Keese;

Thomas Girardi;

Golden Pacific Bank;

Joilene Wood Grove;

David Grove ;

Jasmine Guillory;

H.

Karina Hamilton of UC Irvine;

Robert Hamilton of Allen Matkins;

Leslie Hatamiya;

Kamala Harris;

William Hauck of Goddard Claussen;

Robert Hawley of State Bar of California;

Tony Haymet of Scripps Institution of Oceanography ;

James Hsu

I.

Institute on Aging;

J.

Judy Johnson;

K.

Raoul Kennedy of Skadden Arps;

Freada Klein Kapor;

Mitchell Kapor;

Keker & Van Nest;

John Keker of Keker & Van Nest;

Brenda Kempster of LINK AMERICAS Foundation

Pat Fong-Kushida

Stewart Kwoh

L.

Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack;

David Lash;

Tom Layton of State Bar of California / Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department;

Patricia Lee

Richard Lehman of Lehman Levi Pappas & Sadler;

Larry Lessig;

Level Playing Field Institute;

David Lira;

Little Tokyo Service Center;

Donna Lucas of Lucas Public Affairs

Greg Lucas

M.

Susan Mac Cormac of Morrison & Foerster;

Nancy McFadden of PG&E / UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy / Jerry Brown’s

Dennis Mangers;

Manika Jewelry;

Patrice McElroy;

Nancy McFadden of PG&E;

Sunne McPeak;

Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese;

Victor Miramontes of CityView / CaliforniaALL;

Gwen Moore of GEM Communications / Shrimpscam/ State Bar of California;

Munger Tolles & Olson;

N.

Bettina Neuefeind;

Tom Nolan of Skadden Arps;

Bill Novelli of AARP/Porter Novelli;

O.

Barbara O’Connor of AARP, Lucas Public Affairs;

Pierce O’Donnell

Ron Olson of Munger Tolles & Olson / Berkshire Hathaway / Southern California Edison

P.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company;

Larissa Parecki;

Mark Parnes of Wilson Sonsini;

David Pasternak of Pasternak Pasternak & Patton ;

Bradley Phillips of Munger Tolles & Olson;

Michael Peevey of CPUC;

Pegasus Capital;

Roman Porter;

Porter Novelli;

Q.

R.

Sarah E. Redfiled of UNH School of Law;

Jeff Reisig ;

Reliant Energy;

JoAnn Remke;

Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson/Judicial Council;

Richard Robinson

John Roos, formerly CEO of Wilson Sonsini;

Alan Rothenberg of 1st. Century Bank;

Fred Rowley of Munger Tolles;

Dave Rosenberg of Yolo County Superior Court / Judicial Council;

Bonnie Rubin of 1st. Century Bank / State Bar of California Legal Services Trust Fund Commission

S.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography;

Douglas Scrivner of Accenture

Thomas Silk;

Larry Sonsini

Southern California Edison;

State Bar of California Legal Services Trust Fund Commission

Station Casinos;

Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest;

Aaron Swartz;

T.

Mary Ann Todd of Munger Tolles & Olson / California Bar Foundation

Richard Tom of Southern California Edison / California Bar Foundation

U.

UC Irvine School of Law;

UC Irvine Foundation;

UC Berkeley Foundation;

UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy

University of Phoenix;

V.

Venoco;

Verizon Communications

Voice of Orange County

W.

James Wagstaffe of Kerr & Wagstaffe;

Monica Walsh of Manika Jewelry;

David Washburn of Voice of OC;

Madge Watai

Henry Weissmann of Munger Tolles & Olson

David Werdegar of Institute on Aging;

Kathryn Werdegar, Associate-Justice of California Supreme Court;

Matthew Werdegar of Keker & Van Nest;

Tony West of United States Department of Justice;

Steve Westly;

Anita Westly

Wilson Sonsini

Douglas Winthrop of Arnold & Porter(formerly of Howard Rice), California Bar Foundation;

X.

Y.

Christopher Young of Keker & Van Nest
Christopher Young of Keker & Van Nest (image: courtesy)

Christopher Young of Keker & Van Nest

Z.

Carry Zellerbach (aka Mary Ellen Zellerbach);

Daniel Zingale;

Zurich Financial Services / Zurich Insurance;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE HOLLY FUJIE ACCUSED OF MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS, MONEY LAUNDERING

A former partner of Los Angeles-based Buchalter Nemer — who California Governor Jerry Brown appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench under questionable circumstances involving his cousin, former California Public Utility Commissioner Geoff Brown — is accused in federal court of committing myriad financial crimes and acts of fraud.

Documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reveal that Holly Fujie of Los Angeles allegedly engaged in predicate acts of racketeering through and by means of money laundering, mail and bank fraud, as well as conversion of funds.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering action by Marina Del Rey-based community activist Daniel Dydzak, also names as a defendant Bet Tzedek Legal Services of Los Angeles and Eric George — the son of the controversial former chief justice of California, Ronald George.

Both Holly Fujie and Eric George were directors of Bet Tzedek, an entity which obtained millions of dollars from the various trusts funds maintained and operated by the State Bar of California, as well as funds from the California Bar Foundation, where Holly Fujie presently serves as the vice-president.

Both the State Bar of California and the California Bar Foundation are under the direct control of the California Supreme Court.

The various legal trust funds maintained by the State Bar of California are overseen by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission where, coincidently, Holly Fujie also served as director.

Heading the commission is David Lash of O’Melveny & Myers, another lawyer who is a director of Bet Tzedek, and Bonnie Rubin of 1st Century Bank — a bank owned by former president of the State Bar of California Alan Rothenberg. Coincidently, Eric George is part owner of 1st Century Bank.

Dydzak alleges in his lawsuits that part of the millions originated from the State Bar of California and its foundation headed to Bet Tzedek were embezzled by the various actors and were siphoned to off shore bank accounts.

Bet Tzedek is headed by CEO Sandor “Sandy” Samuels — former Chief Trial Counsel at embattled Countywide Financial Services — who according to Dydzak was appointed President and CEO of Bet Tzedek largely due to his working knowledge of how to operate an enterprise which engages in myriad financial crimes.

According to confidential sources familiar with the situation, Dydzak filed the suit in Washington DC, because he is extremely concerned that given the caliber of the defendants and the fact that they are in control of the justice system in California, they will seek to injure him in various ways, including in seeking to somehow derail the suit.

According to these sources, Tom Layton, investigator from the State Bar of California who is well connected with Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, in the past paid a visit to Dydzak’s neighborhood, and sought to convince his neighbors to falsely accuse Dydzak of various acts of misconduct, including providing improper and unlawful legal counsel.

Key words:
California Governor Jerry Brown, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, California Public Utility Commission, Geoff Brown, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Eric George, Ronald George, State Bar of California, California Bar Foundation, California Supreme Court, Legal Services Trust Fund Commission, David Lash, O’Melveny & Myers, 1st Century Bank , Alan Rothenberg, Tom Layton

The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) is carefully following a major developing story out of California relating to San Francisco-based Institute on Aging (IOA), David Werdegar, California Supreme Court Associate- Justice Kathryn Werdegar, and Matthew Werdegar of Keker & Van Nest.

According to knowledgeable sources, David Werdegar - the recently deposed President and CEO of San Francisco-based Institute on Aging — has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit.

On April, 2011 President and CEO Dr. David Werdegar, Board Chair Anthony Wagner, State Senator Leland Yee, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, and Supervisor Eric Mar attended IOA’s Senior Campus ribbon-cutting ceremony. A substantial portion of IOA’s budget arrives from the City and County of San Francisco which uses IOA and its facilities to care for some its aging population.(Image:courtesy of IOA)

As was reported earlier, on March 5, 2012, IOA’s Board of Directors announced that Dr. David Werdegar has retired as Chief Executive Officer, and the Board has named J. Thomas Briody, MHSc as the organization’s new President and CEO.

TLR is gathering and analyzing data concerning the suit, and will post update as they become available.

Please see @:

►http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/david-werdegar-institute-on-aging-deposed-ceo-named-as-defen

Qualified Source: Demand Letter Sent by Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi to DLA Piper Does Not Amount to Extortion/Attempted Extortion

California Supreme Court decision, Footnote 16 which reads:

“We emphasize that our conclusion that Mauro’s communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law are based on the specific and extreme circumstances of this case. Extortion is the threat to accuse the victim of a crime or “expose, or impute to him · any deformity, disgrace or crime” (Pen.Code, § 519) accompanied by a demand for payment to prevent the accusation, exposure, or imputation from being made. Thus, our opinion should not be read to imply that rude, aggressive, or even belligerent prelitigation negotiations, whether verbal or written, that may include threats to
file a lawsuit, report criminal behavior to authorities or publicize allegations of wrongdoing, necessarily constitute extortion. (Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. Chuidian, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 1079, 267 Cal.Rptr. 457 [“a person, generally speaking, has a perfect right to prosecute a lawsuit in good faith, or to provide information to the newspapers”].) Nor is extortion committed by an employee who threatens to report the illegal conduct of his or her employer unless the employer desists from that conduct. In short, our discussion of what extortion as a matter of law is limited to the specific facts of this case.”

See @:

►http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/qualified-source-demand-letter-sent-by-girard

The Great Dissents of the “Lone Dissenter”: Justice Jesse W. Carter’s Twenty Tumultuous Years on the California Supreme Court Available for free @

www.cap-press.com/pdf/2064.pdf

Ninth Circuit’s Judge William Fletcher, David Oppenheimer , Joseph Grodin, Golden Gate University, Susan Rutberg and Barbara Babcock in The Great Dissents of the “Lone Dissenter” while Ninth Circuit’s William Fletcher Ruling on Matter of “Bribing Pat”

Please see @:
►http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/ninth-circuits-judge-william-fletcher-david-o

California Supreme Court Hon Kathryn Werdegar’s Spouse — David Werdegar’s Institute on Aging 2010 Annual Report Shows Contribution From Foundations of Charles Schwab, Morrison & Foerster, Google

See @:
►http://lesliebrodie.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/hon-kathryn-werdegars-spouse-david-werdegars-institute-on-ag

CCPF’s Stewart Kwoh and California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin featured speakers at Official State Bar of California Meeting (TLR 1- Note: No Mention of CCPF and Judy Johnson 2- Sponsored by Skadden Arps)

►http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/ccpfs-stewart-kwoh-and-california-supreme-cou

<p>Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation President Robin Rivett, as well as staff-attorneys Meriem Hubbard and James Burling have been publicly asked by TLR to opine on events relating to CAUSE’s Ming Chin and Judy Johnson’s CCPF <br /><br /><img src='https://seenthis.net/

http://i.imgur.com/jOcJV.jpg

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/01/11/pacific-legal-foundation-s-robin-rivett-meriem-hubbard-and-jame

<p>Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Ming W. Chin abruptly quit his position with the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment. The resignation took place amidst an ongoing investigation by the <span class="tag">California Commission on Judicial Performance.</span></p>
<p><img src='https://seenthis.net/►http://data6.blog.de/media/338/5617338_d381eb97c8_l.jpeg" alt="" /><br />Hon. Ming W. Chin</p>
<p>A <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/08/14/california-supreme-court-associate-justice-ming-chin-subject-of-ethics-complaint-due-to-involvment-with-entity-which-cater-exclusively-to-asian-a-11667055/">formal ethics complaint</a> filed with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleged that Chin’s involvement with CAUSE is prohibitive due to CAUSE’s invidious discrimination against those who are non Asian-American. The complaint further 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.</p>
<p>In Addition, Justice Chin’s clandestine nature and undisclosed involvement was 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 sham charity CaliforniaALL would soon be considered by the California Supreme Court.</p>
<p>According to the complaint, records were sought pertaining to CaliforniaALL from the California Bar Foundation as well as from the State Bar of California to no avail. As such, and based on the blatant refusal to produce these records, a petition for relief will shortly be filed with the California Supreme Court seeking an order to compel the State Bar and its Foundation to make these public records available.</p>
<p>The complaint further alleges 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.</p>
<p>Similarly, the complaint alludes 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.</p>
<p>Hence, the complaint alleged, 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 APIA and otherwise wishes self-improvement for APIA more so than he does for the population as a whole.</p>
<p>Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, CAUSE quickly removed Justice Chin’s name from its rolls for 2011 and 2010, retroactively. See CAUSE <a href="http://www.causeusa.org/index.php/about/board-of-directors?start=1">2010a> roll. In contrast, see TLR’s <a href="http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/justice-ming-chin-center-for-asian-americans-78168">own records</a>, which clearly show that Justice Chin was a member of CAUSE’s Advisory Council in 2010.</p>
<p><span class="tag">CAUSE’s legal counsel, </span>Mr. Victor King, has confirmed the resignation, which went into effect shortly after the complaint was filed. See below.</p>
<p><img style="margin: 0px;" src='https://seenthis.net/►http://data7.blog.de/media/590/6021590_da3c9b3b84_m.jpeg" alt="CAUSE’S VICTOR KING RE JUSTICE MING CHIN " width="400" height="200" /></p>
<p>This latest development comes in the aftermath of revelations of numerous scandals involving the California Supreme Court and the State Bar of California. Most notable among these is the forced departure of Executive Director Judy Johnson and <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/04/09/b-r-e-a-k-i-n-g-n-e-w-s-details-beginning-to-pour-in-11044973/">her secret control of CCPF</a> ; the <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/05/concerns-mount-over-systemic-abuse-of-ronald-gottschalk-as-preparations-for-adversarial-proceedings-against-patrice-mcelroy-move-into-high-gear-10912820/">bribery of Judge Patrice McElroy</a>; the “friendship” between Ronald George and Thomas Girardi; Judge Lucy <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/21/state-bar-of-california-california-democratic-party-cpuc-cash-flow-connection-part-1-la-mayor-antonio-villaraigosa-and-state-bar-court-judge-lucy-11887608/">Armendariz/Antonio Villaraigosa</a> Connection; as well as State Bar cover-up of Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk deceitful actions as special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar against two of his and his firm’s clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) as <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/15/united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit-will-be-asked-to-disbar-tom-girardi-walter-lack-howard-rice-s-jerome-falk-for-scheme-to-circ-12170012/">part of a scheme to exploit his authority</a> as special prosecutor for financial gain.</p>

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/08/fogel-vs-farmers-group-settlement-in-letter-to-judge-william-hi

Fogel vs. Farmers Group Settlement — In Letter to Judge William Highberger Objector Assails Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack’s Walter Lack Re Alleged Collision Between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese; Howard Rice’s Jerry Falk

Amid allegations of breached ethics rules and conflicts of interest, Los Angeles Superior Court Hon William Highberger was recently asked to consider additional matters relating to the approval of the settlement.

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

Dear Honorable Judge Highberger:

This will serve to further address the grave and dire circumstances surrounding the proposed settlement in Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. It will also serve to address matters contained in a troubling order entered by this Court on an ex parte basis on April 28, 2011, and to lodge with the Court concerns regarding the credibility of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack in hopes that this Court will reject the settlement or, in the alternative, that the Court will award no attorneys’ fees and will shift the proposed $90 million attorneys’ fee award to the pool available to the class.

As the Court is aware, the undersigned have previously lodged an equitable objection ("objection") informing the Court of ethical violations and fraud perpetuated on this Court stemming from collusion between the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps based on the fact that while the Fogel matter was pending before this Court, 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 (9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.08-80090).

Neither the Ninth Circuit nor this Court (or for that matter, the class of plaintiffs which Girardi allegedly represents) were timely informed of the concurrent representation. In fact, Skadden Arps (on behalf of itself, its client Farmers, and its client Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi) actively and by omission took action to conceal the matter, by among other things, seeking an order from the Ninth Circuit seeking to remove its name from the Ninth Circuit’s published decision of In Re Girardi. The Ninth Circuit denied this request.

A review of class counsel’s omnibus brief and accompanying documents and exhibits filed in the instant matter necessitates this communication in order to ask the Court to further address the following issues:

As this Court is surely aware, the current matter before this court (styled as Fogel v. Farmers Group Inc.) is primarily based on the case originally advanced by the State of Texas and Governor Rick Perry, along with the Texas Department of Insurance, against Farmers Group, Inc. in approximately 2002.

Within days after the State of Texas filed the case, settlement negotiations commenced, and very shortly thereafter a settlement was announced in the amount of approximately $100 million. Joe K. Longley, an attorney from Austin, Texas (alongside Philip K. Maxwell and Steve McCleery), representing policyholder Jan Lubin, stated that Texas is settling on the “cheap,” and immediately commenced legal proceedings to derail the settlement.

Farmers’ policyholders Gilberto Villanueva and Michael Paladino both had previous class actions pending in the State of Texas prior to the State action being brought. These Intervenors were represented by State Bar of Texas members Alice Oliver-Parrott, David Burrow, David Jones, and R. Martin Weber.

At that time, Mr. Longley publicly stated that Farmers was unfairly enriched in an amount 10 times greater than the settlement amount, and presumably Mr. Longley wanted the State of Texas to settle for an amount close to $1 billion. Longley. along with several other lawyers (Phil Maxwell, Mike Gallagher, and Stephen McCleery), who were later joined by David Burrow, Alice Oliver-Parrot, Mike Gallagher and Dan Downey (collectively “Texas Class Counsel” ), immediately commenced legal proceedings to halt the settlement.

Beginning in December 2002 and continuing thereafter for five months in 2003, the parties engaged in intensive discovery; motion practice; document review; hearing preparation; hearings; and depositions, and extensive lawyer time and effort took place to prepare for, and participate in, the preliminary approval hearing the Texas District Court had set to be heard commencing in May 2003.

In February 2003, it became apparent to the Lubin’s co-counsel that additional legal assistance was needed. Mike Gallagher and Dan Downey were added at that time to act as co-counsel, with Longley & Maxwell, LLP, in representing Jan Lubin.

During those proceedings, particularly during the initial phase, Texas Class Counsel obtained and reviewed thousands of documents, and through masterful lawyering, and while opposed by the endless resources of the Attorney General of the State of Texas managed to derail the settlement. This matter became known as the “Lubin Proceedings,” and is still pending in the Texas courts, 261 Judicial District Court of Travis County.

Recognizing that much of the legal work was already completed by the State of Texas and the Texas Department of Insurance — which gave rise to a presumption of validity and credibility to the allegations against Farmers — Mr. Longley and some of the Texas Class Counsel saw the enourmous opportunity that had been presented to them and sought to file a nationwide class action against Farmers.

As such, in 2003, Longley and a few of the Texas Class Counsel flew to Los Angeles to meet with Messrs. Thomas Girardi (of Girardi & Keese) and Walter Lack (of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack); one month later, after the appropriate plaintiff had been selected, the current case was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court styled Benjamin Fogel v Farmers Group Inc. (Incidentally, the allegations set forth in Joe Longley’s declaration that they flew to Los Angeles to meet with Girardi and Lack only after reviewing “choice of law” and “venue” provisions because Farmers is headquartered in Los Angeles should be viewed by this Court with extreme skepticism as this suit could have been filed in Eureka, California, Nashville, Tennessee or any other court in the country.)

In approximately 2010, a settlement was reached in this pending matter allocating $455 million to be shared by the class, and $90 million in attorneys’ fees. Class counsel (both from Texas and California) advanced a motion for attorneys’ fees supported by declarations and exhibits. The declarations from Texas Class Counsel submitted to this Court are based on work performed in BOTH the Lubin and Fogel matters.

First, the undersigned respectfully asks this Court to consider whether it is fair to ask the Fogel class to finance the Lubin proceedings. Also, the fact that the Lubin matter is still pending and is specifically exempted from the current settlement will allow Texas Class Counsel to again collect fees if there is a future resolution of the litigation in Texas. As such, it is up to this Court to ensure that there will be no double recovery for the Texas Class counsel, and that the Fogel Class does not pay the attorneys’ fees for the Lubin proceedings.

Second, this Court is under a duty to independently examine the fairness of the settlement, including issues of collusion between class counsel and defendants (and their counsel) to ensure that collusion has not taken place by which defendants offer to settle for a lesser amount while offering incentive to class counsel vis-a-vis a large and disproportionate attorneys’ fee award. Hence, this Court is respectfully asked to inquire of Mr. Longley during the fairness hearing how he can support a settlement worth only $455 million for a NATIONWIDE class composed of 12.5 million Americans, when he has previously stated in his opposition to the Texas settlement that the settlement for ONLY the State of Texas should be closer to the $1 billion, the sum he contended was allegedly unfairly and unlawfully collected by Farmers.

A third issue relates to the declarations submitted in support of the request for attorney’s fees. In comparing declarations submitted by Texas Class Counsel (who, as stated above, did most of the fundamental work in the initial phase of Lubin and Villanueva), the declaration submitted by Thomas Girardi on behalf of Girardi & Keese — in which he states that his firm spent 6662 hours on the case — appears to be highly excessive, highly implausible, and highly suspicious. This is further magnified when considering that Walter Lack and his law firm submitted a declaration stating that close to 4000 hours were devoted to the case by Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack.

Usually, the relationship between Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack is based on a business model whereby Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi are responsible for financing the litigation, as well as providing much needed “clout,” very often withing the judicial system of Los Angeles County and the State Bar of California (to wit Thomas Girardi’s friendship with former California Supreme Court Chief Justice George; his friendship with former California State Bar Chief Trial Counsel and former crack addict Mike Nisperos, to whom Girardi serve as a “mentor”; his financing of the political career of the present Executive Director of the State Bar of California, Hon. Senator Joe Dunn; and other questionable “friendships” and relationships, the basis of which are usually political contributions and gifts).

Walter Lack and his firm, who are more methodical, are responsible for the day-to-day management of the litigation through motion practice, discovery, hearings etc. Once serious settlement negotiations commence, Mr. Girardi himself takes over the discussions, and has the final say on whether and under what terms the case should settle.

Hence, if Walter Lack and his firm already worked close to 4000 hours on this case, it is difficult to imagine why Girardi & Keese would also need to have spent 6662 hours on the matter.

In comparison, Joe Longley stated that he worked on BOTH cases only 2740 hours; Philip Maxwell stated that he devoted 2677 hours to both cases. (While this Court treats Longley and Maxwell as two separate law firms, for the majority of the time both presented themselves as one law firm, that of Longley & Maxwell.)

As such, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Court scrutinize the declaration submitted by Thomas Girardi by seeking a complete and detailed breakdown of all hours spent.

Additionally, conspicuously lacking is any declaration from Graham LippSmith of Girardi & Keese, even though he allegedly performed most of the work on behalf of Girardi & Keese. This Court should order Graham LippSmith to also submit a sworn affidavit, along with his timesheets, in support of the purported 6662 hours billed by Girardi & Keese.

Fourth, subsequent to submitting the Objection, and only after reading the omnibus brief submitted by class counsel, the undersigned learned that Zurich Financial Services and Farmers Group, Inc. (represented by Dewey & Lebuef and Skadden Arps) had approached the Court on an ex parte basis in approximately April 2011 in connection with the unsettling attorney-client relationship between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese.

It is quite a strange legal phenomenon when defendants move ex parte for an order pertaining to the future relationship between plaintiffs’ counsel and his clients. Indeed, it is almost as though Skadden Arps is still serving as defense counsel for Girardi & Keese, notwithstanding its own concerns that defendants and counsel may be held liable for interfering with the plaintiff class’s contractual relationship with Girardi & Keese or other related collusion.

It is alleged in the omnibus brief that defendants approached the Court ex parte asking it to analyze a “blog entry” alluding to an ethics complaint filed against Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps with the State Bar of California. Setting aside the absurdity of Zurich Financial Group, Farmers Group, Inc., Dewey & Lebuef, and Skadden Arps (the largest law firm in the world) approaching the Court ex parte asking it to analyze a “blog entry,” as opposed to their own declarations and admissions, the undersigned will concede that, indeed, an ethics complaint was advanced by the undersigned based on the facts subsequently described in the objection filed in this matter.

This Court should be aware that requests by the undersigned to Skadden Arps, Dewey & Lebeuf, Girardi & Keese, ELL, and Texas Class Counsel for a copy of the ex parte papers went unanswered. In addition, the undersigned asked the same parties to post a copy of the complete sets of the ex parte papers on the official settlement website, a request which was also ignored.

Additionally, the undersigned communicated with other credible objectors who were also unaware (at least as of August 16 and 17, 2011) of the fact that defendants had moved ex parte to supplement the notice and restrict any future action on the part of the class, and were otherwise clueless about Paragraph 17 or the fact that Girardi & Keese was a client of Skadden Arps.

As such, this Court must order the parties to post said ex parte application and related papers on the official settlement website so as to provide the class and objectors an opportunity to form objection in an educated fashion by, among other things, requesting a postponement of the upcoming fairness hearing.

Shockingly, and based on the ex parte papers submitted by Zurich and Farmers which were, presumably (and predictably), unopposed by class counsel (because any opposition would expose their own misconduct), the Court issued an order allowing the modification of a notice to the class by which the members would be informed of the attorney-client relationship between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese. The order also, shockingly, stated that members of the class would be prohibited in the future from asserting that they were not adequately represented by class counsel due to the Skadden-Girardi relationship.

Upon reviewing this Court order, it is requested that the Court address inaccuracies in both the order and the notice, along with other issues, to wit;

A. This Court order and the Notice in Paragraph 17 state that the class was represented by “5 other law firms, which have not had any connections to the Farmers Group’s attorneys.” This statement is in contradiction to verbiage, also in Paragraph 17, which states, “The Court has appointed the following lawyers to represent the class as ’class counsel’: Thomas Girardi and Graham LippSmith of Girardi & Keese, Walter Lack of ELL, Phillip Maxwell of the Law Offices of Phillip Maxwell and Joe K. Longley of Law offices of Joe K. Longley.”

As this Court only appointed ELL, Longley and Maxwell, the order and the notice are not accurate when it states that 5 other law firms represented the class as, in actuality, only 3 other law firms reviewed the settlement.

B. This Court must take into account that the support of Walter Lack and ELL for the settlement (as part of the “5 other law firms”), and their indifference to the attorney-client relationship between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps, is suspect as Walter Lack and his firm were part and parcel of the matter of In Re Girardi.

Walter Lack knew all along about the concurrent representation between Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese, and was part of the scheme to mislead this Court and the Fogel class by not disclosing the relationship.

In fact, it was Walter Lack himself, despite repeated warnings even from within his own firm and from a federal district court judge, who executed the plan to defraud the federal judiciary with a fraudulent translation of a foreign judgment which resulted in the proceedings of In re Girardi. While the resultant proceedings were titled “In Re Girardi,” respondents in those proceedings were Girardi & Keese, Thomas Girardi, Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, Paul Triana, Sean Topp, and Walter Lack.

As such, it is highly disingenuous of this Court to authorize a notice to 12.5 million Americans which contains assertions that 5 (or more accuretly, 3) other law firms support the settlement given that one of those law firms (ELL) was part and parcel of the Ninth Circuit proceedings of In Re Girardi.

The Court should keep in mind that Walter Lack for many years chose to hide the collusion between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps not only from the class, but also from this Court, and that he is the same person who was found by the Ninth Circuit to have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and that “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Similarly, Walter Lack remained quiet when the State Bar of California appointed Jerome Falk of Howard Rice to serve as special persecutor to examine his misconduct before the Ninth Circuit. Despite the fact that Thomas Girardi stipulated to the prosecutor that he was “reckless,” and Walter Lack stipulated that his misconduct was “intentional,” Jerome Falk (on behalf of the People of the State of California) “exonerated” both of these attorneys, stating that he did not believe the misconduct was “intentional.”

Despite Walter Lack’s (and Thomas Girardi’s) habit of remaining quiet, it was the undersigned who only very recently discovered that, indeed, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi were actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. (See generally Ninth Circuit matter of Copple vs. Astrella ) With this background, Mr. Falk’s refusal to prosecute Lack and Girardi suddenly makes sense.

Fifth, the omnibus brief is highly offensive, incomplete, misleading, legally unsound, and clearly designed to speed up the collection of $90 million in attorneys’ fees. It is shocking that Girardi & Keese, on behalf of the class, is advancing legal arguments supporting the contention that there were no ethical violations on the part of Skadden Arps and Farmers. This is viewed as an additional fact in support of the collusion between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps; it also calls into question the ability of Girardi & Keese and Benjamin Fogel to adequately represent the class.

In addition, the undersigned take umbrage over the attitude displayed in the omnibus brief concerning the “conflict of interest.” The Court should note that both the undersigned and, presumably, others utilize the term “conflict of interest” in a generalized fashion (and not just as a term of art involving a legal “conflict of interest” with a client), to otherwise denote violations and breaches of ethics rules.

For example, in this case, a true conflict of interest on the part of Girardi & Keese would have arisen had Girardi & Keese, while representing Mr. Fogel and the class, filed a separate action against Mr. Fogel concerning a different matter on behalf of another client. Even if no “true” conflict exists, this does not negate the fact that Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps violated other rules of ethics. And, even if no rules of ethics were violated, that does negate the argument that the Court, while independently fulfilling its duty to examine collusion, must take into account the attorney-client relationship between Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps in the matter of In Re Girardi to support a finding of collusion which was detrimental to the Fogel class and, as such, reject the settlement.

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

California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming Chin Subject of Demand Letter Sent to Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment Addressing Retroactive Removal of Justice Chin’s Name

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/10/10/california-supreme-court-associate-justice-ming-chin-subject-of

A long-standing involvement with an entity that caters exclusively to Asian-Americans has led to a complaint being filed against California Supreme Court Associate Justice Ming W. Chin.

The ethics complaint filed with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleges that Chin’s involvement with the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment (“CAUSE”) is prohibited because of CAUSE’s invidious discrimination against those individuals who are non Asian-American.

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)

The complaint further alleges that Chin must be disciplined because of CAUSE’s involvement in the political process – conduct that Chin is otherwise prohibited from engaging in pursuant to Canon 5 – and because Chin intentionally hid his involvement with CAUSE from the public. See copy of complaint HERE.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, CAUSE quickly removed Justice Chin’s name from its rolls for 2011 and 2010, retroactively. See CAUSE 2010 roll. In contrast, see TLR’s own records, which clearly show that Justice Chin was a member of CAUSE’s Advisory Council in 2010.

According to individuals familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, Victor King, CAUSE’s legal counsel, has been advised of the situation. As a service to the community, we publish below the letter sent to Mr. King informing him of the pertinent facts:

Dear Mr King:

A few weeks ago, I filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance against California Supreme Court Associate Justice Hon. Ming W. Chin. The basis of the complaint was his involvement with the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment ("CAUSE"), an entity for which you serve as legal counsel.

Prior to filing the complaint, I visited CAUSE’s web-site on multiple occasions and observed that Justice Chin’s name appeared under the heading of Honorary Advisory Counsel. Recently, however, while viewing CAUSE’s website, I noticed that Justice Chin’s name has been removed from the list for the years of 2010 and 2011.

If, as I am assuming, subsequent to the my filing of the complaint Justice Chin decided to part ways with CAUSE, which resulted in the removal of his name from the roll for 2011, this would constitute, at least to me, an accurate statement of facts regarding his involvement with CAUSE, technically speaking.

However, the retroactive removal of Justice Chin’s name for 2010 is misleading as it is factually incorrect. Additionally, it hurts and diminishes the credibility of CAUSE and Justice Chin, as well as creating the impression that the complaint I filed lacks factual basis.

In addition, this action hurts the fair administration of justice by the California Supreme Court as parties who appear (or appeared) before the Court may wish to rely on Justice Chin’s involvement with CAUSE for disqualification purposes.

My assumption is that Justice Chin’s name was removed from the 2010 roll as a result of a technical error. As such, I ask that you take the appropriate actions which would result in honest and accurate information being conveyed to individuals who visit CAUSE’s web-site concerning Justice Chin’s past and present involvement with the organization.

Also, it would be helpful if you could confirm to me whether I am correct in my assumption that CAUSE and Justice Chin are no longer associated with each other, and the exact dates Justice Chin was associated with CAUSE.

Please note that I possess undeniable proof to support the complaint filed against Justice Chin. If CAUSE chooses not to take the requested corrective action within 10 days, I shall explore taking action consistent with and authorized by law.

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/25/united-states-supreme-court-asked-to-review-alleged-corruption-

Lending significant support to calls for an examination of corruption in the California Supreme Court, a sharply-worded brief was filed with the United States Supreme Court, urging it to grant review.

In that brief, Marina Del Ray-based legal scholar Dan Dydzak minced no words in accusing former Chief Justice Ronald George and attorneys from the San Francisco-based law firm of Howard Rice of egregious misconduct.

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

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

Dydzak alleges improprieties on the part of State Bar Court Judge Donald Miles, a former partner at Howard Rice, as well as Sean SeLegue, a current Howard Rice partner, and a cover-up by the California Supreme Court due to the close relationship between Ronald George and Howard Rice.

Allegations of egregious misconduct, ethical violations, and appearances of impropriety have become commonplace against embattled Howard Rice.

Recently, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled that the failure of Howard Rice partner Sean SeLegue to disclose at the time of an arbitration (in which he served as arbitrator) that he generally defended attorneys and law firms in cases involving professional responsibility, along with the fact that he was actively representing a firm in a case before the California Supreme Court in a dispute over legal fees, created sufficient doubt as to SeLegue’s impartiality in his role as an arbitrator.

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

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

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

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

Recently, a shocking discovery was made concerning the fact that Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack were actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice.

Separately, partner Douglas Winthrop, as reported earlier, is under extreme scrutiny in matters relating to the now-defunct charity CaliforniaALL.

The Gospel of APA Part 3: Goodwin Liu Should Filibuster His Own Nomination to California Supreme Court

►http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/26/the-gospel-of-apa-part-3-goodwin-liu-should-filibuster-his-nomi