person:robert hawley

  • Text of First Amended Complaint Against Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California; Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist International of the Americas; David Rosenberg; David Reed; Sheryl Cambron; Barbara Geisler; Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; Michael Cabral; Peter Martin, Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Mary Ann Todd , Munger Tolles & Olson, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties, Mark Robinson, Geoffrey Brown, Arnold Porter, Mark Parnes, CaliforniaALL, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Larissa Parecki, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield, McGeorge School of Law, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner, Accenture, Freada Kapor Klein, Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, James Lewis, Verizon Communications, Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, James Hsu, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and Does 1-100

    PART 1 — INTRODUCTION
    1. Plaintiff - an individual residing in Yolo
    County who is an investigative reporter and a Rabbi - has been subject
    to a campaign of systematic harassment ever since he uncovered
    corruption in various matters dealing with the California Public
    Utilities Commission; Democratic Party operatives; and Boyd Gaming
    Director, owner of various casinos, and class-action attorney Thomas
    Girardi ("Girardi") of Girardi & Keese in connection with financial
    corruption, obstruction of justice, and related acts of misconduct.

    2. For example, Plaintiff unearthed the fact that
    subsequent to being disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    stemming from an attempt to defraud the court by resorting to the “use
    of known falsehoods”, the State Bar of California appointed as
    “special prosecutor” Girardi’s own private malpractice lawyer (Jerome
    Falk of Howard Rice) to prosecute Girardi on the State Bar’s behalf.
    (When later questioned about this matter, Falk asserted that his firm
    had represented the law firm of Girardi & Keese, but not Girardi
    himself.)
    3. Plaintiff also discovered corruption in a
    national class-action case (Fogel v. Farmers) in which Girardi - who
    represented the class of plaintiffs - never disclosed that the
    attorneys who represented defendant Farmers (Skadden Arps, Thomas
    Nolan, Raoul Kennedy) were concurrently representing Girardi himself
    in a separate legal matter. Very shortly after Plaintiff exposed the
    corruption, attorneys for Farmers approached, sought and obtained from
    the court a supplemental notice to the class of plaintiffs (consisting
    of 14 million Americans) indicating that if they cashed their
    settlement checks, they agreed to not sue Farmers or Girardi because
    of the undisclosed relationship.
    4. Plaintiff also unearthed corruption involving
    Girardi (who has a reputation of “bankrolling” the California
    Democratic party) and individuals associated with the California
    Democratic Party with connections to the California Public Utilities
    Commission/Energy Commission (Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Geoffrey
    Brown, Peter Arth, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Darrell Steinberg) and
    utility lawyers involved in the “California Energy Crisis” (Ron Olson
    and Jeff Bleich of Munger Tolles; James Brosnahan of Morrison &
    Foerster; John Keker of Keker & Van Nest; Jerry Falk and Douglas
    Winthrop of Howard Rice; Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese; Joe
    Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Mark Robinson of Robinson
    Calcagnie Robinson; and the law offices of DLA Piper) to launder money
    from utility companies (SCE, PG&E, Verizon, AT&T) to various members
    of California’s Democratic Party (Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Kamala
    Harris, Jerry Brown, Kevin Johnson, Darrell Steinberg) and OBAMA FOR
    AMERICA via various non-profits (CaliforniaALL, Level Playing Field
    Institute, California Consumer Protection Foundation).
    5. Also involved in the various financial schemes were
    Cache Creek Casino, Sacramento-based developer Mark Friedman of
    Fulcrum Property, his business partner (gambling attorney Howard
    Dickstein), and Dickstein’s wife, Jeannine English, who was also
    acting on behalf of AARP to position Barack Obama in the White House
    and on behalf of Mark Friedman to position Kevin Johnson as the mayor
    of Sacramento. Additionally involved were Obama for America tech-guru
    Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor Klein.
    6. In connection with the above discoveries,
    Plaintiff informed various law-enforcement agencies of these facts, as
    well as filed ethics complaints against some of the above named
    attorneys with the State Bar of California.
    7. Plaintiff was repeatedly warned that Girardi is
    “well-connected” and will seek to silence Plaintiff as a result of
    Plaintiff’s discoveries and allegations.
    8. Indeed, very shortly after Plaintiff unearthed
    these events, a posse of eight armed investigators from the Yolo
    County District Attorney’s office executed an invalid search warrant
    at Plaintiff’s place of residence in Yolo County and confiscated all
    documents and computers in his home relating to, inter alia, various
    ethics complaints filed by Plaintiff on the ground that the ethics
    complaints were baseless.
    9. Plaintiff has been informed by credible sources,
    and therefore alleges, that David Rosenberg was one of those
    responsible for pressing criminal charges against him, that he
    “cleared the way” for the search warrant, and that he is otherwise
    friendly with Howard Dickstein, Mark Friedman, Jerry Brown, Mark
    Robinson, and Chief Marshall McKay of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (all
    actors in CaliforniaALL — a sham non-profit launched for the purpose
    of laundering funds to finance the campaigns of various politicians,
    including President Obama, Kamala Harris, Kevin Johnson of Sacramento,
    and Governor Jerry Brown. )
    10. Venue in this case is proper in Yolo County because the acts and
    omissions of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in Yolo County.
    11. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the
    Defendants sued as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues
    these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and
    believes, and therefore alleges, that the Defendants herein designated
    as Does are legally responsible in some manner for the events and
    happenings referred to which caused the injuries to Plaintiff for
    which he now seeks damages. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to
    allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
    12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that
    at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the agents, servants,
    employees and/or joint venturers of the other Defendants and were at
    all times mentioned herein acting within the scope, course and
    authority of this agency, employment and/or joint venture. Plaintiff
    is further informed and believes and, therefore alleges, that each of
    the Defendants consented to, ratified, participated in, or authorized
    the acts of the remaining Defendants.
    PART 2: BACKGROUND OF FACTS UNDERLYING CLAIMS AGAINST LEA ROSENBERG
    AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S
    BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 — PREDICATED ON 26 U.S. C. §
    6104(d)

    13. Following the execution of the invalid search
    warrant on Plaintiff’s home, described above, Plaintiff began
    conducting research into David Rosenberg’s background and learned that
    he is a judge with the Yolo County Superior Court with a reputation of
    being a “political animal”.
    14. Plaintiff further learned, and thereupon
    alleges, that Judge David Rosenberg and his wife (Lea Rosenberg), as
    well as Judge David Reed and his wife (Sheryl Cambron), are deeply
    involved — as either officers or directors — with a web of
    non-profit entities worth millions of dollars known as Saratoga
    Retirement Community, Meadows of Napa Valley, Davis Odd Fellows, Odd
    Fellows Homes of California, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Soroptimist
    International of Davis, David Odd Fellows Hall, and others. Plaintiff
    is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Lea and David
    Rosenberg are individuals residing in Yolo County.
    15. Later on, Plaintiff also discovered a pattern by
    which Lea Rosenberg and Sheryl Cambron — as the wives of two judges -
    were energetically raising funds from various businesses for an entity
    known as Progress Ranch headed by the foreperson of the Yolo County
    Grand Jury, Barbara Sommer. (For example, Davis Odd Fellows
    repeatedly held events to benefit Progress Ranch known as “Breakfast
    with Santa”; Soroptimist International of Davis held an event to
    benefit Progress Ranch known as “Texas Hold ’Em”; Davis Rebekah Lodge
    held an event to benefit Progress Ranch known as “Crab Feed.”) During
    the time period that Barbara Sommer served as foreperson of the Grand
    Jury of Yolo County, the grand jury was investigating two prominent
    entities — Cache Creek Casino (a casino which is owned and operated
    by Yocha Dehe Wintun nation headed by Marshall Mckay) and “First 5
    Yolo” (headed by Yolo County Board of Supervisors member Don Saylor).
    16. Judge Rosenberg’s judicial campaign treasurer, Victor
    Bucher, is a nationally renowned expert in the area of accounting and
    tax fraud, and also serves as the “treasurer” of a separate non-profit
    entity launched by David Odd Fellows — Davis Odd Fellows Charities,
    Inc. — where David Rosenberg serves as president and Victor Bucher as
    Treasurer.
    17. On April 4, 2013 — consistent with the
    statutory framework put into place by 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) — Plaintiff
    served a request for Davis Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge (which
    Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges are
    tax-exempt organizations) to make available for inspection their IRS
    990 forms.
    18. A tax-exempt organization must make available
    for public inspection its application for tax exemption, three most
    recent 990 annual information returns, and schedules and attachments
    available, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d), which reads, in relevant
    part:
    “Public inspection of certain annual returns, reports, applications
    for exemption, and notices of status
    (1) In general
    In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of
    section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501 (a) or an
    organization exempt from taxation under section 527 (a)—
    (A) a copy of—
    (i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by
    exempt organizations) by such organization,
    (ii) any annual return which is filed under section 6011 by an
    organization described in section 501 (c)(3) and which relates to any
    tax imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax on unrelated
    business income of charitable, etc., organizations),
    (iii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of
    exemption under section 501 or notice of status under section 527 (i),
    the exempt status application materials or any notice materials of
    such organization, and
    (iv) the reports filed under section 527 (j) (relating to required
    disclosure of expenditures and contributions) by such organization,
    shall be made available by such organization for inspection during
    regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of
    such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or
    more regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each
    such regional or district office, and
    (B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or
    such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return,
    reports, and exempt status application materials or such notice
    materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other
    than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
    The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in
    writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be
    provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within
    30 days.
    (2) 3-year limitation on inspection of returns
    Paragraph (1) shall apply to an annual return filed under section 6011
    or 6033 only during the 3-year period beginning on the last day
    prescribed for filing such return (determined with regard to any
    extension of time for filing).”
    19. Plaintiff delivered the request through Lea
    Rosenberg because she was the common denominator between the various
    “Odd Fellows” entities and Soroptimist, in that she served as an
    officer and/or director of the various “Odd Fellows” entities, and as
    president of Davis Rebekah Lodge.
    20. Specifically, on April 4, 2013 Plaintiff
    delivered to Lea Rosenberg at learose@jps.net the following email
    request:
    “Re: Request for Production of IRS Form 990, Form 990 Schedule A,
    Form 1023 to entities associated with Lea Rosenberg, to wit:
    Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd
    Fellows

    Dear Mrs. Rosenberg:

    Consistent with U.S. Internal Revenue Service Regulations, please
    consider this communication a formal request to produce their IRS Form
    990, Form 990 Schedule A, as well Form 1023. This request is for all
    documents submitted to the IRS within the past three years, which
    generally means the three most recent returns.

    Said regulations require that these documents be produced within 30
    days. Soroptimist International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis
    Odd Fellows are entitled to charge reasonable costs for any copying
    and mailing costs incurred in relation to this request. Alternatively,
    you can email the documents to me as PDF attachments. I prefer the
    latter method. However, if for some reason, you prefer to copy and
    mail the documents, please send them to the following address:

    [—address intentionally omitted—]

    I ask that you draw no conclusion or develop any concern from the mere
    fact that this request is being made about you, Soroptimist
    International of Davis , Davis Rebekah Lodge, Davis Odd Fellows or any
    other individual or entity.

    In addition, I ask that you please produce the following:
    1. A detailed and complete list of all other non-profit entities you
    were involved beginning in 2008 to the present.
    2. A detailed and complete list of all sums which were transferred
    amongst any and all organizations you were involved, beginning in 2008
    to the present. For example, if in 2009 Soroptimist International of
    Davis transferred money to Davis Odd Fellows either as donation or
    rent, I ask that such transaction be disclosed.
    3. A detailed and complete list of all direct or indirect transfers of
    funds from Soroptimist International of Davis, Davis Rebekah Lodge,
    Davis Odd Fellows to Progress Ranch and/or any other entity associated
    with Barbara Sommer from 2007 to the present.

    Thank you for your time and anticipated cooperation. If you have any
    questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
    21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s email dated April 3, 2013.
    22. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff delivered to Lea
    Rosenberg a notice of change of address.
    23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that Lea Rosenberg received Plaintiff’s requests for the
    organizations’ IRS 990 forms, and while conspiring with other
    Defendants, chose to breach the duty to comply with 26 U.S.C. §
    6104(d).
    24. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
    therefore alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided,
    abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged,
    promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in,
    enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted
    in, or conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
    25. Due to this failure to comply with Plaintiff’s
    request, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources trying to
    obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff asked his
    paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the Internet in
    hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents, also to no
    avail.
    26. Still seeking a complete set of the requested
    documents, on September 24, 2013 Plaintiff sent Lea Rosenberg the
    following email:
    "RE: Davis Odd Fellow Hall; Davis Odd Fellow - Second Request for
    Production of IRS Documents

    Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

    The purpose of this communication is to address the following matters:

    1. Since you appear to have been involved with Davis Rebekah Lodge,
    Davis Odd Fellow, and Sophomoric, I had previously asked you to
    produce the IRS tax-returns for those entities.

    For reasons which I do not understand, rather than complying with this
    simple request (as you are required to do by law given the fact that
    those entities are allowed to operate on a “tax-exempt” status), you
    have failed to respond. I am therefore reiterating my request that you
    comply with the request for these tax returns and produce them to me
    within the next 5 days.

    As you know, I am troubled by events surrounding the almost exclusive
    fundraising to “emancipated foster youth”, Barbara Sommer, Davis Odd
    Fellow members Jonathan Raven and Michael Cabral, Cache Creek Casino,
    Vic Bucher, and Progress Ranch.

    I am also troubled by the fact that Judge Rosenberg (and his Judicial
    Campaign CPA Vic Bucher) lends money to the judicial campaign of other
    judges (i.e. Tim Fall and Dan Maguire). Hence, I would like to get to
    the bottom of things, and need the requested tax forms to do so.

    2. In the previously submitted request, there was no mention of “Davis
    Odd Fellow Hall.” My position and understanding is that Davis Odd
    Fellow Hall is part of Davis Odd Fellow.
    Nevertheless, please consider this communication a formal request to
    also provide copies of the last three tax return forms that “Davis Odd
    Fellow Hall” had submitted to the IRS.

    3. Given that Davis Odd Fellow, David Odd Fellow Hall, and Davis
    Rebekah Lodge are under the exclusive control of you, your husband
    David Rosenberg, as well as David Reed and his wife Cheryl Cambron,
    and given that both David Rosenberg and David Reed are judges of the
    Yolo County Superior Court, I submit that these entities have a duty
    to operate at an even higher level of transparency than mandated by
    the IRS, and must comply with the common law duty of disclosure.

    Thus, in addition to inspecting and copying the documents authorized
    by the IRS, I request copies of detailed financial statements (i.e.
    income, expenditures, names of donors, names of businesses and amount
    of rent Davis Odd Fellow Hall charges its various tenants, identity of
    subcontractors, identity of those who have rented the Hall etc.) For
    example, my understanding is that David Greenwald (publisher of The
    People’s Vanguard of Davis and Vanguard Court Watch) entered into a
    contract with Davis Odd Fellow Hall. Given that Mr. Greenwald’s
    publications purport to report on misconduct and malfeasance in the
    local area, including the courts, it appears to me that there is a
    direct conflict between this stated mission and his decision to rent
    space from an entity whose Board is comprised of you, and two Yolo
    County Superior Court judges.

    I am looking forward to hearing from you and receiving the requested documents."
    27. Later that day, Plaintiff received an email
    response from Lea Rosenberg stating only the following: “so he is at
    it again.”
    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
    Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 Predicated on
    26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
    (Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of
    Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California;
    Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist
    International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist
    International of the Americas; and Does 1 - 100)

    28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
    – 27 as though fully set forth herein.
    29. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests,
    Defendants failed to comply with 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d). This failure
    constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business
    & Professions Code § 17200.
    30. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
    Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled,
    commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated,
    advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to,
    facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the
    commission of the above-described acts.
    31. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
    acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
    fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
    trial.
    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
    Negligence Per Se / Torts in Essence
    (Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order
    of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge; Grand Lodge of California;
    Independent Order of Odd Fellows; Davis Odd Fellows; Soroptimist
    International of Davis; Soroptimist International; Soroptimist
    International of the Americas; and Does 1 - 100)

    32. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
    – 31 as though fully set forth herein.
    33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that Defendants were all aware of Plaintiff’s repeated
    requests for the above-described entities’ IRS Form 990 forms, as
    described in this Complaint.
    34. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
    therefore alleges that Defendants were under a duty to ensure
    compliance, yet chose to breach a duty prescribed in 26 U.S.C. §
    6104(d). This failure to comply with the statutory requirements
    constitutes negligence per se. In the alternative, Plaintiff further
    alleges that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of
    26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) constitutes “torts in essence” as a matter of
    public policy, because the statute at issue was enacted to benefit
    individuals in Plaintiff’s position, and because implied in 26 U.S.C.
    § 6104(d) is a private right of action.
    35. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of duty,
    as alleged above, Plaintiff spent considerable time and resources
    trying to obtain those documents elsewhere, to no avail. Plaintiff
    asked his paid research-clerk to conduct further research on the
    Internet in hope of locating a complete set of the desired documents,
    also to no avail. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and has lost
    money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
    36. Plaintiff further alleges that Davis Odd Fellows
    owns a Hall ("Davis Lodge Hall"), on a property adjacent to the two
    Lodges, and is the owner (and landlord) of rental property currently
    occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold
    Real Estate.
    37. The “Hall Board Association” is a California
    corporation, and is the actual owner of the Davis Lodge Hall, the
    adjacent property of the two Lodges, and the rental property currently
    occupied by Hunan Chinese Restaurant and Coldwell-Banker Doug Arnold
    Real Estate.
    38. The “Hall Board Association” is composed of
    President David Rosenberg, Vice President David Reed, Secretary Lea
    Rosenberg, Treasurer Sheryl Cambron, and Barbara Geisler.
    39. The Davis Lodge Hall is available to rent by the
    general public for receptions, fund-raisers, dinners, conferences,
    trade shows, meetings, and other events.
    40. The Davis Lodge Hall is also used by Davis Odd
    Fellows for its own functions, such as Davis Odd Fellows Bingo and
    Master Balls.
    41. In approximately September 2013, and after the
    expenditure of considerable time, resources, and efforts, Plaintiff
    managed to ascertain that the actual legal name of Davis Odd Fellows
    and David Rebekah Lodge is “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order of Odd
    Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge.” Plaintiff then managed to obtain
    partial copies of tax returns that “Yolo Lodge 169 Independent Order
    of Odd Fellows and Davis Rebekah Lodge” had submitted to the IRS.
    42. Upon reviewing partial copies of the
    above-described IRS 990 forms from 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff noted that
    false information had been submitted to the IRS on two occasions that
    he was able to identify from the incomplete forms. Specifically,
    according to those 990 forms, in 2010 David Reed served as the
    president of Yolo Lodge 169; serving as the Treasurer of Yolo Lodge
    was Sheryl Cambron. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that Reed and Cambron are married to each other.
    43. However, this was not the information provided
    to the IRS. The 2010 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge asked, ’Did
    any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family
    relationship or a business relationship with any other officer,
    director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge
    states, “NO.” Since two of the officers (Reed and Cambron) were
    actually married to each other, this is a misrepresentation.
    44. In 2011, Yolo Lodge officers submitted false
    information to the IRS again, this time involving a different set of
    actors — Lea and David Rosenberg, who are married to each other.
    Specifically, in 2011 David Rosenberg served as President of Yolo
    Lodge; his wife, Lea Rosenberg, served as “Secretary” of Yolo Lodge,
    and David Reed served as a board member.
    45. The 2011 IRS Form 990 submitted by Yolo Lodge
    asked, ’Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a
    family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer,
    director, trustee, or key employee?’ The form submitted by Yolo Lodge
    states, “NO.” Since two of the officers (David Rosenberg and Lea
    Rosenberg) were actually married to each other, this is a
    misrepresentation.
    46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that Virgil Smith is a CPA, a member of Davis Odd Fellows, and
    a co-conspirator in the submission of these fraudulent tax-returns.
    Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    also responsible for submitting these fraudulent tax-returns were
    Davis Odd Fellows officers and directors David Rosenberg, Lea
    Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler, and Robert
    Bockwinkel.
    47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that the fraudulent tax-returns were submitted because David
    Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron, Barbara Geisler,
    Virgil Smith and Robert Bockwinkel did not want the IRS and the public
    to become aware that Sheryl Cambron is married to David Reed, and
    because they were concerned that if such relationships (i.e. Lea
    Rosenberg is married to David Rosenberg) would be disclosed, it may
    trigger an IRS audit.
    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
    Civil Conspiracy to Violate 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
    (Against Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl
    Cambron, Barbara Geisler, Virgil Smith; Robert Bockwinkel; and Does 1
    – 100)

    48. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
    – 47 as though fully set forth herein.
    49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that subsequent to Plaintiff’s request to obtain copies of the
    relevant IRS forms 990 delivered to Lea Rosenberg as described above,
    Defendants Lea Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, David Reed, Sheryl Cambron,
    Robert Bockwinkel, Barbara Geisler, and Virgil Smith willfully and
    knowingly conspired and agreed among themselves to a scheme by which
    they agreed to violate Plaintiff’s legal rights by not complying with
    26 U.S.C. § 6104(d) because they were concerned he would discover the
    tax-fraud perpetrated on the IRS, as described above; that two Yolo
    County judicial officers (Rosenberg and Reed) and an attorney employed
    by Yolo County (Cambron) almost exclusively raised funds to support an
    entity headed by the Foreperson of the Yolo County Grand Jury; and the
    appearance that Davis Odd Fellows has been misused to indirectly curry
    favors with the foreperson of Yolo County Grand Jury.
    50. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that as further overt acts (both lawful and unlawful) by
    which to advance the objective of said conspiracy, committed by one or
    more of the conspirators pursuant to their common design, were: (a) an
    agreement between Defendants to intentionally violate 26 U.S.C. §
    6104(d); (b) an agreement to ignore Plaintiff’s repeated requests for
    information sought pursuant to this statute; (c) a lawful overt act to
    belittle Plaintiff by sending him an email which reads, “so he is at
    it again”’ and (d) an agreement by Defendants to mislead and defraud
    Plaintiff by means of a plan they conceived and executed in which
    David Reed falsely stated in writing “TO MY KNOWLEDGE DAVIS ODD
    FELLOWS HAVE NEVER MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OR PARTICIPATED IN FUND-RAISING
    FOR PROGRESS RANCH”. (emphasis added)
    51. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted,
    counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted,
    instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled,
    contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or
    conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.

    PART 3 — Factual Background Dealing with In Re Girardi, Fogel v.
    Farmers, CaliforniaALL, Voice of OC
    3.1: IN RE GIRARDI
    52. In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    issued its final ruling in the disciplinary matter of In Re Girardi by
    imposing close to $500,000 in sanctions on Walter Lack of Engstrom
    Lispcomb & Lack and Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese stemming from an
    attempt to defraud the court and cause injury to Dole Food Company in
    the underlying litigation. Defending Girardi in the matter of In Re
    Girardi was Skadden Arps.
    53. The court ruled that Walter Lack (who stipulated to Special
    Prosecutor Rory Little that his prolonged acts of misconduct were
    intentional) and Thomas Girardi intentionally and recklessly resorted
    to “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false
    representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly”
    during years of litigation.
    54. The Ninth Circuit suspended Lack, reprimanded Girardi, and
    ordered Girardi and Lack to report their misconduct to the State Bar
    of California.
    55. The State Bar of California disqualified itself from handling the
    matter since Howard Miller (of Girardi & Keese) served at that time as
    its president, and had also made the decision to hire then-chief
    prosecutor, James Towery.
    56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that both
    Joe Dunn (Chief Executive of State Bar of California and a long time
    friend and protégé of Girardi) and Chief Justice Ronald George (father
    of Eric George — at the time co-counsel with Girardi and Lack in
    major class-action cases as part of an ongoing scheme by which Girardi
    was bestowing benefits on George) conspired to appoint as “Special
    Prosecutor” Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, who they knew would
    “exonerate” Girardi and Lack.
    57. Around the same time, renowned criminal defense attorney Doron
    Weinberg opined in the media as follows on the matter of In Re
    Girardi: “Prosecutors can admit the 9th Circuit’s disciplinary order,
    along with the entire record underpinning it”. “The State Bar
    generally respects the findings and conclusions of other
    jurisdictions”.
    58. Mr. Falk, in turn, exercised “prosecutorial discretion” and
    concluded that he did not believe Lack acted intentionally and that no
    charges will be brought against the two attorneys — despite the fact
    that Lack had previously stipulated in writing that he acted
    “intentionally.”
    59. Within days of Mr. Falk’s decision, Plaintiff filed an ethics
    complaint with the State Bar of California against Jerome Falk, James
    Towery, Howard Miller, and Douglas Winthrop (managing partner of
    Howard Rice and then-elected president of the California Bar
    Foundation), alleging that it was improper for Mr. Towery to appoint
    Mr. Falk given the close personal relationship between Howard Miller
    and Douglas Winthrop. Specifically, Howard Miller — in his capacity
    as president of the State Bar — had appointed Douglas Winthrop as
    president of the California Bar Foundation.
    60. State Bar of California Deputy Executive director Robert Hawley
    contacted Plaintiff and informed him that he (Hawley) has been
    appointed as “contact person,” and that the matter will be handled by
    the entire State Bar of California Board of Governors because one of
    the named actors was chief prosecutor James Towery.
    61. Specifically, on 12/27/2010 Robert Hawley wrote to Plaintiff in part:
    “On behalf of the State Bar of California its staff and its Board, I
    acknowledge receipt of your email message below and the one separately
    sent to James Towery, both on December 23, 2010.
    In your email message to Mr. Towery you state that you have sent a
    written letter of complaint to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
    (OCTC) Intake Unit. As we have previously advised your colleague
    Leslie Brodie, we provide status reports on pending matters involving
    OCTC only to individuals who provide verifiable identification
    information, including an address. I assume that your written
    complaint provides this information. If not, we will not be able to
    provide you with further status information on the subject of your
    email messages.”
    62. At or about that time, Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that
    several other Board members had business relationships with Girardi or
    other conflicts of interest which they were required to disclose
    pursuant to a statute.
    63. After several months, Mr. Hawley wrote Plaintiff, informing him
    the investigation was closed.
    64. A few weeks later, Plaintiff, while researching a separate topic,
    discovered that Howard Rice (the firm of Jerome Falk) actually
    represented Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a
    malpractice action only two years prior (Copple v. Astrella & Rice).
    65. On August 29, 2011 Plaintiff informed Robert Hawley and the
    entire Board of Governors (consisting of, among others, Laura Chick,
    Gwen Moore, Dennis Mangers, Jeannine English, George Davis, Alec Chang
    of Skadden Arps, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler, Jon
    Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, and Joe Dunn of Voice of OC about the
    recent discovery in order to re-open the investigation. Plaintiff is
    informed and believes and therefore alleges that, pursuant to an
    ongoing conspiracy to obstruct justice in the matter of In Re Girardi
    and an ongoing conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s due process and equal
    protection rights, Hawley never replied to Plaintiff’s inquiries, nor
    did any member of the Board of Governors.
    66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    said conspiracy was motivated in part by Democratic Party operatives
    such as Joe Dunn and Jeannine English to protect Thomas Girardi
    because of financial contributions to the Democratic Party, because
    Girardi arranged close to one million in cy pres awards to California
    AARP (where Jeannine English served as president), and because several
    BOG member had similar conflicts of interest, such as Alec Chang of
    Skadden Arps.
    67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the
    various wrong-doers became extremely concerned of the fact that
    Plaintiff discovered that Falk represented Girardi & Keese and Walter
    Lack, and because of Plaintiff’s whistle-blowing activities and robust
    use of his free-speech rights. As such, on December 7, 2011, out of
    the blue, Falk - Plaintiff alleges in an attempt to mislead Plaintiff
    –- wrote to Plaintiff:
    “I received your November 13 email, sent to me and many others,
    concerning my participation in the State Bar’s investigation of Walter
    J. Lack, Thomas V. Girardi and other attorneys. It is filled with
    disparaging characterizations, all of which seem to stem from your
    allegations that I or my firm have represented Mr. Lack and Mr.
    Girardi.
    Your allegations are false.
    I have never represented either person, or their firms. Neither has
    Douglas Winthrop. Nor has my firm ever represented Mr. Lack or Mr.
    Girardi. From 2006-2008, my firm represented several law firms,
    including Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack and Girardi & Keese, in a
    litigation matter. The public records of that litigation show that
    neither Mr. Winthrop nor I had nothing to do with that representation;
    in fact, I was unaware of it. The public records also show that my
    firm represented the law firms, but did not represent Mr. Girardi or
    Mr. Lack. The attorney responsible for that representation had left
    Howard Rice and taken the files with him before I was asked to serve
    as Special Deputy Trial Counsel in the State Bar matter.
    You are on notice that your allegations are false. The falsity of
    those allegations can be determined from the public records of the
    litigation in question. Do not make them again.”
    4.2: FOGEL VS. FARMERS:
    68. The day after the Ninth Circuit issued the published decision in
    the matter of In Re Girardi, respondents’ counsel (Skadden Arps and
    Thomas Nolan) moved to redact their names from the decision. The
    court rejected the request, noting that redaction was not merited.
    69. The peculiar nature of the motion to redact the names of
    respondents’ counsel from the published decision of this court
    prompted Plaintiff to look into the matter further. Plaintiff then
    discovered that, beginning in 2003, Girardi & Keese and Engstrom
    Lipscomb & Lack were prosecuting a class action case against Farmers
    Insurance Company, which was represented by Skadden Arps. This was a
    nationwide class action with estimated damages of close to $15 billion
    that had originally been filed by Texas Governor Rick Perry.
    70. In March, 2011 Plaintiff submitted an ethics complaint to the
    State Bar of California against Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese for
    various acts of misconduct in connection with Fogel v. Farmers Group,
    Inc. and the matter of In Re Girardi.
    71. The complaint alleged ethical violations stemming from collusion
    between the law offices of Girardi & Keese and Skadden Arps based on
    the fact that while the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers Group was pending,
    the law offices of Skadden Arps and Girardi & Keese entered into a
    wholly separate agreement by which Skadden Arps agreed to represent
    Girardi & Keese in the matter of In Re Girardi without informing the
    class of plaintiffs (consisting of 14 million Americans), nor the
    courts (the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi and the Los
    Angeles County Superior Court in the matter of Fogel vs. Farmers) of
    the concurrent representation by which Skadden Arps represented
    Girardi & Keese (in the Ninth Circuit matter), while at the same time
    defending Farmers against Girardi and Keese’s clients (in the Fogel
    vs. Farmers matter).
    72. Shortly after Plaintiff filed this ethics complaint, Skadden Arps
    moved ex parte (which, not surprisingly, was unopposed) to amend the
    settlement agreement in the Fogel matter and the notice to the class
    of 14 million Americans throughout the country to include a proviso by
    which members of the class would be prohibited from suing anyone due
    to the concurrent representation described above. Nevertheless, the
    State Bar of California decided not to take any action on this ethics
    complaint.
    73. In or around August of 2011, Plaintiff submitted an informal
    objection to the proposed Fogel v. Farmers settlement based on the
    reasoning described above and contemplated filing an appeal (if
    possible) or informally alerting the Court of Appeal of the collusive
    arrangement.
    4.3: CALIFORNIAALL / VOICE OF OC / OBAMA FOR AMERICA / QUADRIPLEGIC
    UC DAVIS LAW STUDENT SARA GRANDA / SEARCH- SEIZURE BY YOLO COUNTY
    DISTRCIT ATTORNEY
    CaliforniaALL — Voice of OC:
    74. While researching the relationship of Girardi & Keese and Howard
    Rice and the appointment of Douglas Winthrop as president of the
    California Bar Foundation by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese,
    Plaintiff reviewed the California Bar Foundation’s annual reports to
    familiarize himself with the names of the Foundation’s board of
    directors. Plaintiff stumbled upon the fact that the Foundation ended
    2008 close to $500,000 in the negative. Specifically, the Foundation
    reported to the IRS that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES in 2007 equaled plus
    +$373.842.00. However, in 2008, the Foundation reported to the IRS
    that REVENUE LESS EXPENSES equaled minus -$537,712.
    75. Plaintiff discovered that the money had been transferred to a
    newly-created Section 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (headed by Ruthe
    Catolico Ashley — close friend and confidant of Chief Justice Tani
    Cantil-Sakayue) known as CaliforniaALL, which obtained hundreds of
    thousands of dollars from utility companies PG&E, SCE, AT&T, and
    Verizon.
    76. In addition to Ruthe Catolico Ashley, CaliforniaALL was
    compromised of the following: Larissa Parecki, Morrison England,
    Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield of McGeorge School of Law,
    Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin Zellerbach of Martin
    Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner of Accenture, Freada Kapor
    Klein of Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal of Pacific Gas
    & Electric Company, James Lewis of Verizon Communications, Darrell
    Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, an James Hsu
    of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal-Dentons.
    77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    CaliforniaALL funneled some portion of the money to the UCI Foundation
    –- where State Bar of California Executive Director Joe Dunn, Judicial
    Council member Mark Robinson, and Erwin Chemerinsky served as trustees
    for the purpose of launching a new entity known as Saturday Law
    Academy at UCI. ("SALUCI")
    78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    SALUCI was actually already created in 2005 and was fully operational
    before CaliforniaALL arrived on the scene.
    Plaintiff further alleges that repeated claims by CaliforniaALL,
    including the following, were knowingly false, misleading, and
    fraudulent: “Our first funded pipeline, the Saturday Academy of Law,
    graduated its first class on March 7”; “An inspirational welcome
    given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky as 200 guests gathered at the Delhi
    Community Center to recognize the first graduating class of the UC
    Irvine Saturday Academy of Law. The six-week program, created by UCI’s
    Center for Educational Partnerships was made possible by a grant from
    CaliforniaALL.”
    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
    (Against defendants CaliforniaALL, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Larissa
    Parecki, Morrison England, Torie Flournoy-England, Sarah Redfield,
    McGeorge School of Law, Cary Martin Zellerbach AKA Mary Ellen Martin
    Zellerbach, Martin Investment Management, Douglas Scrivner, Accenture,
    Freada Kapor Klein, Level Playing Field Institute, Ophelia Basgal,
    Pacific Gas & Electric Company, James Lewis, Verizon Communications,
    Darrell Steinberg, Kamala Harris, Michael Peevey, Steve Poizner, James
    Hsu, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal-Dentons and Does 1-100)

    79. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
    – 78 as though fully set forth herein.
    80. The knowingly false, misleading and fraudulent
    claims by which executives and directors of CaliforniaALL took credit
    and falsely advertised that CaliforniaALL was instrumental in
    launching SALUCI which “graduated its first class” constitutes
    unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business &
    Professions Code § 17200 since SALUCI already came into existence in
    2005.
    81. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted,
    counseled, commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted,
    instigated, advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled,
    contributed to, facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or
    conspired in the commission of the above-described acts.
    82. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
    acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
    fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
    trial.
    83. On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff informed the State Bar Board of
    Governors and officially requested an investigation into alleged
    fraudulent transactions, financial irregularities, and unlawful
    conduct in connection with circumstances surrounding CaliforniaALL.
    Later that day, State Bar of California Foundation Director and CPUC
    Commissioner Geoffrey Brown sent Plaintiff the following:
    “I am named in the email with the purpose of tying my tenure at the
    CPUC and the Foundation to some alleged nefarious activity. The author
    of the email is herewith put on notice that I will pursue legal action
    if he persists in a claim that I have anything to do with illegal
    activity. He is further on notice that I am in no way connected with
    the recipient named in the article.”
    84. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that during his tenure as California Bar Foundation Director, Geoffrey
    Brown, as well as Jeff Bleich and Bradley Phillips of Munger Tolles &
    Olson, Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice-Arnold Porter, Holly Fujie of
    Buchalter Nemer, and Mark Parnes of Wilson Sonsini caused the
    following false and misleading advertisement to appear in the annual
    report: California Bar Foundation supported the launching of
    CaliforniaALL and, as the project filed for incorporation and
    501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, served as CaliforniaALL’s fiscal
    sponsor. A collaboration between the California Public Employment
    Retirement System, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
    California Department of Insurance, and the State Bar of California,
    CaliforniaALL was created in an effort to close the achievement gap
    among California students from preschool to the profession and,
    specifically, to bolster the pipeline of young people of diverse
    backgrounds headed for careers in law, financial services, and
    technology. Once CaliforniaALL obtained its tax-exempt status and was
    able to function as a fully independent nonprofit organization, the
    Foundation granted the balance of funds raised for the project -
    totaling $769,247 - to the new entity. We thank the following
    corporations for their gifts in support of CaliforniaALL: AT & T
    ,Edison International ,PG & E Corporation Foundation , and Verizon.
    85. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that the California Bar Foundation never served as the “fiscal
    sponsor” of CaliforniaALL. Plaintiff is further informed and believes
    and therefore alleges that that AT&T, Edison International, PG & E
    Corporation Foundation, and Verizon never used the California Bar
    Foundation as a “fiscal sponsor”, and any and all funds from AT & T,
    Edison International, PG & E Corporation Foundation, and Verizon went
    directly to CaliforniaALL.
    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
    (Against Defendants Geoffrey Brown, Jeff Bleich , Bradley Phillips,
    Munger Tolles & Olson, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice, Arnold Porter,
    Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Mark Parnes, Wilson Sonsini and Does
    1-100)

    86. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1
    – 85 as though fully set forth herein.
    87. The knowingly false, misleading and fraudulent
    claims by which executives and directors of the California Bar
    Foundation falsely asserted that $769,247 originated from AT&T, Edison
    International, PG & E Corporation Foundation, and Verizon constitute
    unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to California’s Business &
    Professions Code § 17200.
    88. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
    Defendants have directly performed, or aided, abetted, counseled,
    commanded, induced, procured, encouraged, promoted, instigated,
    advised, willfully caused, participated in, enabled, contributed to,
    facilitated, directed, controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the
    commission of the above-described acts.
    89. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful
    acts of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in
    fact and has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at
    trial.

    90. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that a
    significant portion of the $769,247 from the California Bar Foundation
    to CaliforniaALL ended up financing a newly-created online publication
    which Joe Dunn had launched with the help of Thomas Girardi, James
    Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster (attorney for CaliforniaALL) and
    Erwin Chemerinsky — this online publication is known as "Voice of OC.
    91. Plaintiff requested that Voice of OC provide him with copies of
    its IRS 990 forms. Voice of OC did not comply with applicable IRS
    regulations in that it failed to reply to Plaintiff’s request for
    copies, whereupon Plaintiff filed a complaint against Voice of OC and
    Joe Dunn with the IRS.
    92. The IRS promptly sent Plaintiff notice acknowledging the
    complaint against Voice of OC.
    93. Very shortly after Plaintiff had complained to the IRS, the FBI
    arrested Kinde Durkee — CPA for Voice of OC — on unrelated charges.
    94. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    CaliforniaALL was also misused to finance the election campaigns of
    Kevin Johnson, Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, and Barack Obama,
    specifically by the following actors:
    Morrison & Foerster: James Brosnahan (self-proclaimed “mastermind”
    behind the Democratic Party; member of OBAMA FOR America’s California
    Finance Committee; Legal Counsel for CaliforniaALL ); Tony West (OBAMA
    FOR America’s Chair of California’s Finance Committee); Chris Young —
    later of Keker & Van Nest (OBAMA FOR America’s Northern California
    Deputy Finance Director); Annette Carnegie (former director of the
    California Bar Foundation during the transfer of the approximately
    $780,000 to CaliforniaALL).
    Munger Tolles & Olson: Jeffrey Bleich (president of the State Bar of
    California, director of the California Bar Foundation, and founding
    member and Chair of OBAMA FOR America’s National Finance Committee);
    Brad Phillips (2007- 2008 Director of the California Bar Foundation
    which served as a “financial sponsor” to CaliforniaALL on behalf of
    Verizon Wireless and Southern California Edison, both clients of
    Munger Tolles & Olson); Ron Olson (member of OBAMA FOR AMERICA;
    Berkshire Hathaway and Edison Director).
    Wilson Sonsini: Mark Parnes (2007-2008 director and Secretary of the
    California Bar Foundation); John Roos (former CEO of Wilson Sonsini
    and member of OBAMA FOR America’s National Finance Committee).
    DLA Piper: Steven Churchwell of DLA Piper in Sacramento (Treasurer,
    draft committee of OBAMA FOR AMERICA; firm where CaliforniaALL
    resided free of charge); Gilles Attia.
    Laura Chick (member of the State Bar of California Board of Governors
    and OBAMA FOR AMERICA).
    Kamala Harris (Co-Chair, OBAMA FOR AMERICA and member of
    CaliforniaALL Advisory Council).
    Freada Klein Kapor (member of CaliforniaALL board of directors; OBAMA
    FOR America’s phone bank located at The Kapor Center).
    Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Properties, and business
    partner Marshall McKay of Cache Creek Casino on behalf of Barack
    Obama.
    Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Properties on behalf of Kevin Johnson.
    ETHICS COMPLAINT IN RE UC DAVIS LAW STUDENT SARA GRANDA:
    95. In May 2009, U.C. Davis School of Law quadriplegic law student
    Sara Granda graduated from and hoped to sit for the July 2009 bar
    exam.
    96. The California’s Department of Rehabilitation paid the exam fee
    for Granda with a check, and Granda was assured that she was properly
    registered. However, the State Bar of California never processed
    Granda’s application because the Department of Rehabilitation paid the
    fee with a check, rather than a credit card.
    97. Granda filed a suit in federal court seeking an injunction
    directing the State Bar of California to allow her to sit for the bar
    exam. The action was titled Sara Granda v. the State Bar of
    California (Case Number 2:09-cv-02015-MCE). The State Bar of
    California was represented by Mark Torres Gil, Rachel Grunberg, and
    Lawrence Yee. The matter was adjudicated by Judge England of the
    Eastern District of California, who promptly dismissed it.
    98. During the course of presiding over the Granda case, Judge
    England never disclosed to Granda that he and his wife (Torie
    Flournoy-England) are part and parcel of an entity known as
    CaliforniaALL — which had just obtained close to $800,000 from the
    State Bar of California — headed by executive-director Judy Johnson,
    who is also part of CaliforniaALL. Similarly neither did the State
    Bar of California, Judy Johnson, Mark Torres Gil, Rachel Grunberg, or
    Lawrence Yee provide this information to Granda.
    99. On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff advanced an ethics complaint against
    State Bar of California attorneys Lawrence Yee, Mark Torres-Gil,
    Rachel Grunberg, Judy Johnson, and Holly Fujie.
    100. The complaint alleged misconduct due to the failure of the
    above-named attorneys to disclose to Plaintiff Granda the nature of
    the close personal relationship between the State Bar of California,
    CaliforniaALL, Judy Johnson, Judge England and his spouse — Terrie
    Flournoy-England.
    101. Plaintiff alleges the entire complaint filed by him was
    factually accurate, truthful, and was brought in good faith.
    Accompanying the complaint dated May 31 2011 were 11 exhibits in
    support.
    102. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    the State Bar of California received said complaint and rather than
    assign an outside investigator due to the fact it was against their
    own attorneys, summarily dismissed it.
    103. On July 28, 2011, State Bar employee Jill Sperber wrote to
    Plaintiff informing him that:
    “I have determined that your complaint fails to present stuffiest
    facts to substantiate an investigation.”
    "The State Bar had no involvement with CaliforniaALL once it was
    incorporated and operating."
    “Several of the informational items that you list are not factually
    accurate a) CaliforniaALL and State Bar are partners and B) a sub-rosa
    transfer of funds from State Bar to CaliforniaALL took place.”
    104. Sperber never alleged that the complaint filed by Plaintiff was
    frivolous or “without merit.”
    105. Plaintiff submits that the 11 exhibits accompanying his
    complaint showed beyond any doubts that the California Bar and
    CaliforniaALL were partners, and that State Bar executive directors
    (Judy Johnson) and employee Patricia Lee were part of CaliforniaALL.
    As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
    the claim by Ms. Sperber that “The State Bar had no involvement with
    CaliforniaALL once it was incorporated and operating” is false, that
    the State Bar Board of Governors continued to appoint directors to
    CaliforniaALL, and that CaliforniaALL never acknowledged the
    approximate $780,000 it obtained from the California Bar Foundation,
    demonstrating that the transfer was sub-rosa.
    Search-Seizure of CaliforniaALL Evidence By Investigators From Yolo
    County District Attorney
    106. On February 23, 2012, eight armed investigators from the Yolo
    County District Attorney’s office arrived at Plaintiff’s place of
    residence, searched the premises, and confiscated two computers, flash
    drives, and documents pursuant to an invalid search warrant issued by
    Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall.
    107. The invalid search warrant listed the names of Joe Dunn (of
    Voice of OC) ,Thomas Girardi (of Voice of OC, In Re Girardi) , Judy
    Johnson, Holly Fujie, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps, James Towery,
    Howard Dickstein, Jeannine English, and State Bar attorneys Mark
    Torres Gil, Lawrence Yee, and Rachel Grunberg.
    108. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that
    accompanying the DA officers was a private citizen named Tom Layton.
    109. Plaintiff was told that by the investigators and Michael Cabral
    that the State Bar Board of Governors was pressing criminal charges
    against Plaintiff for, among other things, violations of B & P
    Section 6043.5 (filing false and malicious ethics complaints) because
    of the ethics complaint Plaintiff submitted in connection with U.C.
    Davis School of Law quadriplegic law student Sara Granda.
    110. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges that,
    in approximately early 2011, once Plaintiff unearthed the various acts
    of misconduct described above — such as In Re Girardi, Fogel v.
    Farmers, Voice of OC, and especially fraud dealing with CaliforniaALL
    (an entity Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
    was launched, represented, directed, or benefited by extremely
    powerful politicians such as California Attorney General Kamala
    Harris, Jerry Brown, Darrel Steinberg, Kevin Johnson, Joe Dunn, and
    Obama for America; governmental officials such as CPUC’s Michael
    Peevey, Geoffrey Brown; powerful law firms such as DLA Piper, Morrison
    & Foerster, Munger Tolles, Dentons, and Girardi & Keese; major utility
    companies such as PG&E, Verizon, and Southern California Edison; major
    corporations such as Accenture, Fulcrum Property/Mark Friedman, Cache
    Creek Casino/Marshall McKay, LPFI/ Freada Kapor; and members of the
    California Judicial Council (such as Mark Robinson, Tani Cantil), an
    understanding was reached to silence Plaintiff at any cost, to
    retaliate against him because of his speech-related activates, to try
    to intimidate him, and to confiscate all the incriminating evidence he
    had gathered.
    111. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest — a “bundler” for Barack Obama
    who served as president of the State Bar of California and was aware
    of Plaintiff’s discovery of CaliforniaALL due to the fact that
    Plaintiff requested documents and sought an investigation —
    immediately informed Keker & Van Nest, John Keker and associate Chris
    Young of Plaintiff’s discoveries.
    112. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    Keker & Van Nest associate Chris Young — who caused the launching of
    CaliforniaALL two years prior while serving as Obama for America
    California Deputy Finance Director, and who later worked with Jeffrey
    Bleich as White House Adviser, and who later worked with Mark
    Friedman on the election campaign of Kevin Johnson — panicked. As
    such, Chris Young’s attorney profile was quickly removed from the
    KVN.COM web-site. This fraud was only discovered by Plaintiff months
    later.
    Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that State Actor Streeter, who also served as a Director of the
    California Bar Foundation, conspired with nongovernmental agents of
    CaliforniaALL, original actors Freada Kapor and Mary Ann Todd of
    Munger Tolles (on behalf of Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
    Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway), Douglas Winthrop of Howard
    Rice, Holly Fujie of Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee of Morrison &
    Foerster, and Richard Tom of Southern California Edison to injure
    Plaintiff, to retaliate against him because of his speech-related
    activates, and to confiscate all the incriminating evidence he had
    gathered.
    113. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    Streeter — who served as a “bundler” for Barack Obama’s campaign —
    was also motivated to silence Plaintiff lest information he possessed
    would cause President Obama to lose his re-election bid.
    114. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that Joe Dunn reached an understanding with Erwin Chemerinsky of
    Voice of OC, as well as original Voice of OC directors Thomas Girardi
    and James Brosnahan of Morrison & Forester, to misuse his authority as
    a state actor to silence and retaliate against Plaintiff.
    115. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore alleges
    that James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster and Jon Streeter of Keker
    & Van Nest met with Judicial Council members Tani Cantil, David
    Rosenberg, Angela Davis, and Mark Robinson to discuss potential
    courses of action. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and
    therefore alleges that, during said meeting, an agreement was reached
    by which David Rosenberg — who also serves as a judge with the Yolo
    County Superior Court — would “clear the way” for the issuance of a
    search warrant of Plaintiff’s home lacking in probable cause.
    Moreover, Plaintiff is also informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that due to concerns of leaks by disc rental Judicial Council
    employees expressed by Tani Cantil, Rosenberg agreed to unlawfully
    arrange for the search warrant to also include the names of Joseph
    Dunn and Starr Babcock in order to ascertain Plaintiff’s sources of
    information, if any.
    116. As such, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that, acting to serve their own financial interest and on
    behalf of CaliforniaALL actors named above and pursuant to a
    widespread conspiracy between private citizens and state actors, and
    while acting under color of state law, the entire State Bar of
    California Board of Governors (including Jon Streeter of Keker & Van
    Nest — acting also pursuant to a separate conspiracy with KVN, John
    Keker, Chris Young, Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property), and California
    Bar Foundation directors Mary Ann Todd , Holly Fujie, Douglas
    Winthrop; Joe Dunn of Voice of OC, Jeannine English and George Davis
    of AARP, Laura Chick of Obama for America, Alec Chang of Skadden Arps
    –- acting on behalf client Tom Girardi, Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler &
    Kreindler) chose to adopt a plan by which they would unlawfully use
    the fact that they are also clothed with the authority of state law to
    knowingly and maliciously press false criminal charges against
    Plaintiff for the alleged violation of California Business &
    Professions 6043.5 which reads:
    (a)Every person who reports to the State Bar or causes a complaint to
    be filed with the State Bar that an attorney has engaged in
    professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false
    and malicious, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    (b)The State Bar may, in its discretion, notify the appropriate
    district attorney or city attorney that a person has filed what the
    State Bar believes to be a false and malicious report or complaint
    against an attorney and recommend prosecution of the person under
    subdivision (a).
    117. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    the objective of the conspiracy was to knowingly and maliciously
    submit a false criminal complaint to the Yolo County District Attorney
    against Plaintiff, and for a search/seizure to be executed on
    Plaintiff’s home to confiscate all evidence he had gathered in regard
    to the above-described matters, and in order to retaliate and
    intimidate him into silence, especially in matters dealing with In Re
    Girardi, Fogel v. Farmers, Voice of OC, and CaliforniaALL.
    118. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    around February of 2012, as an overt act in furtherance of said
    conspiracy, representatives of the State Bar of California knowingly,
    maliciously, and without probable cause pressed false criminal charges
    against Plaintiff alleging, inter alia, violation of California
    Business & Professions 6043.5
    SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200
    Predicated on California Penal Codes 148.5 and 182
    (Against Defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
    of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
    Todd, Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson, Edison
    International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard Rice,
    Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster,
    James Brosnahan, Richard Tom, Southern California Edison, Wilson
    Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties, Mark Robinson, and Does 1
    – 100)

    119. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 - 118
    as though fully set forth herein.
    120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
    alleges that Defendants willfully and knowingly conspired and agreed
    among themselves to a scheme by which they agreed to violate
    Plaintiff’s legal rights in violations of California Penal Codes 148.5
    and 182. This constitutes unfair and unlawful acts pursuant to
    California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200.
    121. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
    performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
    encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
    participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
    controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
    above-described acts.
    122. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts
    of Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
    has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
    __________________________________

    123. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that on
    February 21, 2012 Chief Investigator of Yolo County District Attorney
    Bruce Naliboff presented to Yolo County Superior Court Judge Timothy
    Fall an invalid and meaningless “Statement of Probable Cause” in
    support of a search warrant stating, inter alia, that a search of
    Plaintiff’s residence and vehicle may reveal both written and
    electronically recorded information of criminal conduct because
    Plaintiff’s ethics complaint dealing with Sara Granda constituted a
    misdemeanor in violation of B & P Section 6043.5, filing false and
    malicious ethics complaints.
    124. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that in
    seeking to obtain a search warrant in connection with the ethics
    complaint, Naliboff was acting pursuant to false advice and
    information he obtained from Assistant District Attorney Michael
    Cabral, who knew no probable cause existed in support of this claim.
    125. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    Cabral knew that no probable cause existed to seek a search warrant in
    connection with the ethics complaint filed by Plaintiff and, further,
    that he knew that the ethics complaint submitted by Plaintiff were (a)
    valid, truthful, and meritorious; (b) protected by the First
    Amendment; (c) did not constitute a crime warranting the search and
    seizure of Plaintiff’s property; and (d) did not contain any facts
    whatsoever to suggest that they were “false and malicious”.
    126. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    Cabral intentionally misled Naliboff, who in turn, misled Judge Falk
    into believing there had been a WRITTEN criminal complaint originating
    from the State Bar of California against Plaintiff when no such
    WRITTEN complaint existed.
    127. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that,
    nevertheless, Cabral deliberately and maliciously instructed Naliboff
    to seek a search warrant while misleading Naliboff and by giving him
    false legal advice that probable cause existed to support the warrant,
    despite the fact that there was absolutely no corroborating evidence
    in support of probable cause.
    128. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
    Cabral allowed investigators to bring along a private citizen (Tom
    Layton) during the execution of the warrant on February 23, 2012.
    129. During the search, which lasted approximately three hours,
    Cabral constantly called the deputies executing the warrant with
    questions and instructions. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
    therefore alleges that Cabral also directed, participated, and
    controlled the actual search and seizure.
    130. During the search of Plaintiff’s home, investigator Peter Martin
    stated to Plaintiff that all documents referring to the State Bar of
    California will be confiscated. Despite protests from Plaintiff,
    Martin confiscated documents sent to Plaintiff by the IRS in
    connection with a complaint he had made against Voice of OC and
    CaliforniaALL.
    131. Plaintiff asked Martin why he was taking all those documents,
    and Martin stated that any and all documents referencing or relating
    to the State Bar of California are being confiscated. When Plaintiff
    pointed out to him that the document issued by the IRS mentions
    neither the State Bar of California nor any person listed on the
    warrant, Martin stated that the document would be confiscated
    nevertheless.
    132. During the interaction with Martin, Plaintiff felt intimidated
    and threatened, and retaliated against because Plaintiff exercised his
    First Amendment right to complain against Voice of OC to the IRS.

    SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    BANE ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1
    (Against defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
    of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
    Todd , Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
    Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard
    Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison &
    Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern
    California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties,
    Mark Robinson, and Does 1 - 100 )

    133. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate here the allegations in
    Paragraphs 1-132 above, as
    though fully set forth.

    134. Defendants’ above-described conduct constitute interference, by
    threats, intimidation, and coercion, with Plaintiffs’ exercise and
    enjoyment of his freedom of expression rights secured by the
    Constitution and laws of the United States and California, in
    violation of California Civil Code § 52.1. Specifically, defendants
    set in motion a course of action with the intent to retaliate,
    intimidate, and suppress Plaintiff exercise of those rights.

    135. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
    performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
    encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
    participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
    controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
    above-described acts.

    136. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of
    Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
    has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
    Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David
    Rosenberg conspired with Michael Cabral to add the names of Starr
    Babcock and Joseph Dunn to the search warrant in order to also
    intimidate and silencePlaintiff. Plaintiff had never committed any
    alleged crimes against Joseph Dunn or Starr Babcock, and there was no
    probable cause to include the names of Starr Babcock and Joseph Dunn
    in the search warrant.

    137. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, if
    Judge Falk had not been misled and had been presented with the
    complete truth when the DA’s office was seeking the search warrant for
    Plaintiff’s home, Judge Falk would not have signed the search warrant
    in connection with the ethics complaint or with the names of Starr
    Babcock and Joseph Dunn.

    EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Violation of First Amendment/Free Speech Rights
    (Against Defendants Keker & Van Nest, John Keker, Chris Young, Voice
    of OC, Erwin Chemerinsky, Skadden Arps, Freada Kapor Klein, Mary Ann
    Todd , Munger Tolles, Jeff Bleich, Bradley Phillips, Ron Olson,
    Edison International, Berkshire Hathaway, Douglas Winthrop, Howard
    Rice, Holly Fujie, Buchalter Nemer, Raj Chatterjee, Morrison &
    Foerster, James Brosnahan, Thomas Girardi, Richard Tom , Southern
    California Edison , Wilson Sonsini, Mark Friedman, Fulcrum Properties,
    Mark Robinson, and Does 1 - 100 )

    138 Plaintiff incorporates paragraph by reference paragraphs 1 -
    137 as though fully set forth herein.

    139. Defendants’ above-described conspiracies between state and
    private actors, as well as the misuse of state power, and the attempt
    to silence Plaintiffs constitute interference with his freedom of
    expression rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
    States and California, in violation of 42 USC 1983. .

    140. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have directly
    performed, or aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured,
    encouraged, promoted, instigated, advised, willfully caused,
    participated in, enabled, contributed to, facilitated, directed,
    controlled, assisted in, or conspired in the commission of the
    above-described acts.

    141. As a proximate result of the unfair and unlawful acts of
    Defendants, as alleged above, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact and
    has lost money or property in an amount to be proven at trial.
    Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that David
    Rosenberg conspired with Michael Cabral to add the names of Starr
    Babcock and Joseph Dunn to the search warrant. Plaintiff had never
    committed any alleged crimes against Joseph Dunn or Starr Babcock, and
    there was no probable cause to include the names of Starr Babcock and
    Joseph Dunn in the search warrant.

    142. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, if
    Judge Falk had not been misled and had been presented with the
    complete truth when the DA’s office was seeking the search warrant for
    Plaintiff’s home, Judge Falk would not have signed the search warrant
    in connection with the ethics complaint or with the names of Starr
    Babcock and Joseph Dunn.

    NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
    42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Predicated on Fourth Amendment Rights/Unreasonable
    Search and Seizure
    (Against Defendants Michael Cabral, Peter Martin, David Rosenberg,
    and Does 1-100)

    143 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate here the allegations in
    Paragraphs 1-142 above, as
    though fully set forth.

    144. Defendants’ above-described conduct has violated and continues
    to violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and
    seizures under the fourth amendment to the US Constitution..
    As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been injured in an
    amount to be proven at trial.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment
    against Defendants as follows:
    1. For general and special damages under all causes of action where
    available by law;
    2. For costs of suit;
    3. For prejudgment interest;
    4. For an injunction directing Defendants to comply with 26 U.S.C. §
    6104(d); and
    5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
    Plaintiff also demands a jury trial in this matter.
    DATED: February 24, 2014

  • Amid Concerns of Cover-Up by DOJ’s Lanny Breuer YR Submit Narrative to FBI Re DOJ’s Tony West, Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, HUD’s Ophelia Basgal, Keker & Van Nest’s Chris Young, Kamala Harris, Phantom Non-Profit CaliforniaALL, Obama for America :

    Per our telephone conversation, following is a narrative describing the suspicious circumstances relating to non-profit entity CaliforniaALL (FEIN Number 51-0656213), Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, United States Department of Justice’s Tony West, Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Ophelia Basgal, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster, and Chris Young of Keker & Van Nest.

    The narrative is divided to 4 parts: 1. General Introduction; 2. Introduction of Actors; 3. Fortuitous Discovery of CaliforniaALL; and 4. Factual Background Regarding CaliforniaALL.

    1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION:

    As described below, my inquiry began close to one year ago when I stumbled upon unusually large and highly peculiar financial transactions in conjunction with what appeared to me to be clear attempts to conceal and mislead. I immediately notified various entities, including submitting a tip to your agency. Due to circumstances which cannot be viewed as mere coincidence, I was under the impression that funds might have been misappropriated by Voice of OC — specifically, by its founders 1) Joe Dunn and 2) Martha Escutia (both former state senators who were overseeing utility companies and the CPUC and investigating the California energy crisis), and 3) Thomas Girardi and 4) James Brosnahan who were litigating cases involving the California energy crisis on opposite sides, and/or Geoffrey Brown, former Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission and 2007 Director of the California Bar Foundation (the “Foundation”) during the time of the suspicious transfer of funds to CaliforniaALL (an entity of which CPUC’s Peter Arth was one of the main initiators).

    However futile, I also asked the State Bar of California to investigate this matter. Within a few hours of sending the request, Geoffrey Brown sent me a demand to cease and desist from insisting that he had done anything wrong under threat of litigation. In essence, Brown wanted me to ignore the circumstances dealing with the fact that he was both a CPUC Commissioner and a Director with the Foundation when it quietly made the largest grant in its history to an entity that was conceived by CPUC’s Peter Arth to absorb hundreds of thousands of dollars from utility companies.

    While the Foundation alleges that the source of the (relatively) large sum of $774,247 which it transferred to CaliforniaALL was from four utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Edison International, and Verizon Wireless — as reflected in the Foundation’s 2008 Annual Report and tax return showing contributions to CaliforniaALL), there is no corresponding entry in any Foundation tax return (for tax years 2007 or 2008), nor any mention in the Annual Report, showing the initial receipt of those funds. These facts raised suspicions that money may have been misappropriated from the Foundation, and places those individuals who controlled the Foundation (Jeffrey Bleich, Annette Carnegie, Douglas Winthrop, Ruthe Catolico Ashley, Geoffrey Brown, and others), who “legally” created CaliforniaALL (James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young and the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster), who controlled the money (Ophelia Basgal of PG&E; Douglas Winthrop, attorney for PG&E; Jeffrey Bleich, attorney for Verizon Wireless; and Edison (client of James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, and Annette Carnegie), who controlled CaliforniaALL (Ruthe Ashley, Ophelia Basgal), and who controlled the finances for the Obama for America’s 2008 campaign (Jeffrey Bleich, Tony West, and Chris Young) in a very awkward position.

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

    Nevertheless, I continued with the inquiry as large pieces of the puzzle were missing, and in fact stated so in a letter seeking information about one of the actor’s employment history. However, within the past several weeks, I believe that I finally managed to put all the pieces together. In my opinion, and based on the information I’ve discovered, it appears that funds were misappropriated and/or laundered through the California Bar Foundation by various individuals through the misuse of CaliforniaALL. Although other potential explanations certainly exist, based on these individuals’ involvement in the “Obama for America” 2008 presidential campaign (as discussed below), one likely possibility is that the funds were unlawfully misdirected to that campaign.

    PART 2: INTRODUCTION OF MAIN ACTORS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. Basgal served as a director of CaliforniaALL.

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

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

    9. SARAH E. REDFIELD — Ms. Redfield is presently a professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law, and served as the interim director of CaliforniaALL. Events surrounding Redfield, as shown below, also appear to be imbued with fraud and deceit, and it appears her role was to create a subterfuge to justify the existence of CaliforniaALL. Since CaliforniaALL’s main achievement was the purported creation of a “Saturday Academy of Law” at UC Irvine ("SALUCI"), Ms. Redfield pretended to have engaged in Requests for Proposals ("RFP"), as well as falsely claiming that she “launched” SALUCI. For her services as interim executive director and an alleged consultant of CaliforniaALL, Professor Redfield was paid approximately $160,000 as an “independent contractor.” She gave very little, if anything, in return for the $160,000 she was paid. In fact, she took credit for the extremely hard work of others, especially that of Rob Vacario of Santa Ana who co-founded SALUCI several years earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    PART 2: FORTUTIOUS DISCOVERY OF CaliforniaALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In its 2008 Annual Report ( See ), the Foundation alludes to CaliforniaALL by stating:

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

    Also cleverly buried in the California Bar Foundation’s 2008 annual report was the following sentence (which should be scrutinized by your agency):

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

    AT & T

    Edison International

    PG & E Corporation Foundation

    Verizon”

    *

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

    PART 3: FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

    Eventually, Cal PERS (Ashley’s employer), the CPUC, and the State Bar of California endorsed in principle the creation of CaAAL. For reasons that are not clear to me, CaAAL was apparently a secret project since the California Bar Journal never bothered to report about it, and a press release issued by the State Bar of California was only delivered to CaAAL. Specifically, on August 1, 2007, California Bar Journal’s editor Diane Curtis issued a very limited press release on behalf of the State Bar which I was only able to locate on CaAAL’s now defunct website (www.calall.org) stating:

    "STATE BAR JOINS DIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Saturday Law Academy RFP

    PLEASE NOTE:

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

    RFP PROPOSAL INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Voice of OC ignored my request for its tax records, whereupon I filed a complaint with the IRS. To date, I have not received a response from the IRS indicating that it has taken any steps to help me obtain those much needed records and impose the appropriate sanctions against Voice of OC.

    Nevertheless, I continued with the inquiry as large pieces of the puzzle were missing. Later, when Mr. Tony West was appointed third in command at the DOJ, I learned of his identity due to wide media coverage and his association with Morrison & Forester and James Brosnahan. From there, it became harder to ignore the common denominator of “Obama for America” involving Morrison & Foerster’s James Brosnahan, Tony West, Chris Young, Annette Carnegie, and Susan Mac Cormac, in conjunction with Geoffrey Bleich and Ruthe Ashley — which is that money was misappropriated or laundered through the Foundation.

    Thank you for your assistance. I will keep you updated if I obtain any further information. In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

  • 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 CIRCUMVENT NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER IN MATTER OF “IN RE GIRARDI”

    <p style="text-align: justify;">Contending that Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk, acting as Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, repeatedly sought to subvert justice by failing to disclose that those he was suppose to prosecute (Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack) were actually his and his firm’s clients, sources familiar with the situation claim plans are underway to seek the disbarment of Girardi, Lack and Falk.<br /><br />In a letter to Jerome Falk and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, complainant minced no words in accusing Falk (as well as Girardi and Lack) of egregious misconduct.</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;">As a service to the community, we shall publish* the communication, below:</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;">Dear Mr. Falk:<br /> <br /> This will serve as a formal meet and confer attempt regarding various matters, primarily relating to your repugnant and continuous deceitful actions taken in connection with your willingness to serve as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm’s clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) as part of a scheme to exploit your authority as special prosecutor for financial gain.<br /> <br /> In addition, this letter will serve to explore potential misconduct in connection with misrepresentations made to an official tribunal (i.e. the RAD Committee of the State Bar of California Board of Governors ("BOG")) that appointed a special master in proceedings I initiated against you.</p>
    <p><img src='https://seenthis.net/http://vietnam.eastmeetswest.org/images/staff&board/jfalk08.jpg" alt="" width="185" height="246" /><br /> <em>Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice (Image:courtesy photo)</em><br /> <br /> To illustrate my point, State Bar of California Board of Governors member William Gailey is a man of high honor with a prior distinguished career as a homicide detective with the Los Angeles Police Department. Presently, he operates his own investigation firm (<a href="http://www.gaileyassociates.com/William-Gailey.htm">Gailey Associates, Inc</a>.), which as I understand is one of the best in the country and offers a wide array of services, including industrial espionage and the like.<br /> <br /> Assume, hypothetically speaking only, that Mr. X is an industrialist and a client of Gailey Associates in connection with various business-related transactions. Assume also that Mr. X, while a client of Gailey Associates, was charged by the federal government for participating in a conspiracy to kidnap and murder Mr. Y, the owner of a competing business located in Los Angeles. Mr. X is tried and convicted and sentenced to serve a 30 year sentence in a federal correctional facility. However, after one year he is mysteriously pardoned by the U.S. president.<br /> <br /> Public and media pressure prompt the Los Angeles District Attorney to file an information against Mr. X for violations of State Penal Code provisions, including PC 182 and 187 in connection with the crimes Mr. X committed against Mr. Y. A shortage of qualified detectives prompts the DA to seek volunteer detectives, and Mr. Gailey is deputized, issued a badge, and appointed the role of lead detective in amassing the case against Mr. X on behalf of the People.<br /> <br /> Mr. Gailey shortly thereafter announces the closure of the investigation, and declares that, as far as he is concerned, Mr. X is innocent. As a second hypothetical, assume that with these facts in mind, Mr. Gailey is instead an attorney in private practice who is deputized to act as special prosecutor to try Mr. X, and likewise Mr. Gailey declares Mr. X to be innocent. <br /> <br /> If you don’t see anything wrong with the above two hypothetical examples, please delete this email; otherwise, keep reading because the above hypo is very similar to the scenario that ensued when you agreed to act as special prosecutor against your clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) on behalf of the People of the State of California to examine the grave and previously adjudicated attorney misconduct Messrs. Girardi and Lack committed against the Ninth Circuit in the litigation against the Dole Food Company.<br /> <br /> The misconduct on the part of Girardi and Lack was investigated by a special master (Senior Judge Hon. Wallace Tashima) appointed by the Ninth Circuit, and his recommendations were adopted by a panel of three Ninth Circuit judges after a full opportunity was afforded to Girardi and Lack to present defenses and bargain with a special prosecutor (Rory Little); these findings were memorialized in the published decision of <a href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fco%2020100713157.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-cu Re Girardi</a>. Some of the findings included that Lack and Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and that “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;"><img style="margin: 0px;" src='https://seenthis.net/http://data7.blog.de/media/249/6011249_eb1485d01e_m.jpeg" alt="UC Hastings Prof Rory Little" width="185" height="246" /><br /> <em><span style="font-size: 6px;">Rory Little, Ninth Circuit judicial aspirant and professor of law at U.C. Hastings. Professor Little <a href="http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/ninth-circuit-a.html">was appointed</a> special prosecutor in the matter of In Re Girardi by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Prior to entering academia, Professor Little served as a federal prosecutor for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force, prosecuting cases of labor racketeering, money-laundering, narcotics and other organized criminal activity. (image:courtesy photo)</span></em></p>
    <p>As you surely recall, the Ninth Circuit also ordered Girardi and Lack to report the findings to the State Bar of California. Because Howard Miller of Girardi &amp; Keese served as President of the State Bar, the Bar disqualified itself and you were appointed as Special Prosecutor by the State Bar to further look into this matter on behalf of the People.<br /> <br /> Despite ample opportunities, you (nor Lack, Girardi, or members of your firm whom I contacted on several occasions in search of information) mentioned that Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack were your and your firm’s clients. <br /> <br /> Shortly thereafter, when you had issued the decision to “exonerate” Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack (as memorialized in a <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/01/31/jerome-falk-s-letter-to-robert-baker-10474846/">"Dear Bob" letter you sent Mr. Robert Baker</a> of Baker Keener &amp; Nahara), I immediately protested by filing both an ethics complaint with the State Bar of California, and asking the BOG to inquire into the matter. Named in the complaint were yourself, Douglas Wintrhrop, Howard Miller, and <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/06/16/d-e-v-e-l-o-p-i-n-g-james-towery-california-bar-embattled-chief-prosecutor-to-resign-11327086/">James Towery</a>.<br /> <br /> At that time, I was unaware that Girardi and Lack were your clients, and the ethics complaint alleged you were biased because of your and your firm’s ongoing business relationship with Skadden Arps and partner Tom Nolan, who served as Girardi’s defense counsel in the matter of In Re Girardi. Also, I argued that since the State Bar of California had disqualified itself, you and your firm should also have been disqualified as the managing partner of your firm (Douglas Wintrhrop) is an officer of the State Bar of California, and was appointed to the position by the BOG headed by Howard Miller of Girardi &amp; Keese.<br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Hawley immediately appointed himself the point of contact, and only several months ago informed me that the complaint was assigned to RAD, which in turn appointed a special master who examined the complaint and found no ethical violations; <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/21/rad-committee-of-state-bar-of-california-adopts-finding-of-no-misconduct-by-james-towery-howard-rice-s-jerry-falk-and-doug-winthrop-11520291/">RAD voted to accept this conclusion</a>.</p>
    <p><a title="Mr Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese" href="http://www.blog.co.uk/media/photo/mr_tom_girardi_of_girardi_keese/6013138"> src='https://seenthis.net/http://data7.blog.de/media/138/6013138_3f41726fe7_m.jpeg" alt="Mr Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese" width="185" height="246" /></a><img src='https://seenthis.net/http://data7.blog.de/media/469/5853469_a9876fa02a_m.jpeg" alt="State Bar of California’s Robert Hawley " width="185" height="246" /><br /> <em>Mr. Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and State Bar of California <br /> Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Robert A. Hawley.</em><br /> <br /> Subsequently, and fortuitously, I <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/08/25/pamela-phillips-sean-selegue-douglas-winthrop-and-jerome-falk-of-howard-rice-candy-falk-rabkin-under-extreme-scrutiny-as-new-evidence-discovered-11728161/">very recently discovered</a> that Lack and Girardi were clients of your firm. I <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/08/30/howard-rice-canady-falk-rabkin-s-jerome-falk-douglas-winthrop-sean-selegue-and-pamela-phillips-assailed-by-complainant-re-state-bar-of-california-11752294/">inquired with Mr. Hawley</a> whether this fact was known to the RAD and Special Master investigating my complaint. The inquiry to Mr. Hawley was ignored, ipso facto terminating his role as point of contact.<br /> <br /> Mr. Hawley’s lack of response lends credence to my belief that since you knew of the complaint and never informed the Special Master or RAD, you are also liable for defrauding and misrepresenting events to a tribunal. If you have facts to the contrary, please forward them to me ASAP.<br /> <br /> Note that subsequent to the discovery of the attorney-client relationship between you and Lack/Girardi, I again wrote SeLegue and Philips seeking additional clarification, and no response was forthcoming. It had occurred to me that, given that Girardi and Lack are clients of your firm, any insinuation of misconduct I may previously have alleged on the part of SeLegue and Philips were improper; as such, these insinuations are hereby withdrawn as I now understand that SeLegue and Philips were acting in the best interest of their clients — Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.</p>
    <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: #000000; font-family: ’Times New Roman’; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #020000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px;"> </span></span></p>
    <p>Nevertheless, the serious nature of the offenses and the harm caused by your corrupt activities (as well as the corrupt activities of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, primarily as a result of their failure to speak up and reject your appointment) leaves me no choice but to, again, seek discipline against you, Walter Lack, and Thomas Girardi. Additional factors surrounding Thomas Girardi and Girardi &amp; Keese have also become relevant, including the recent malpractice suits filed by Gutierez and <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/03/tom-girardi-lashes-out-at-victim-as-girardi-keese-sued-for-legal-malpractice-12110166/">Demeter Energy</a>; the secretive<a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/04/05/ethics-complaint-filed-with-california-state-bar-against-skadde"> attorney-client relationship between Girardi &amp; Keese and Skadden Arps</a> in the Fogel vs. Farmers matter, the identity and nature of the firms defending MGA in the litigation against Mattel; <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/21/complainant-reply-to-rad-committee-s-decision-as-was-communicated-to-state-bar-s-robert-hawley-11520925/">Alec Chang’s membership on RAD</a>; the overall corruption within the State Bar of California manifested in its unwillingness to prosecute Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack; Girardi’s unsettling<a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/30/muslim-community-of-orange-county-mulls-aiding-ronald-gottschal"> friendship with Ronald George</a> and “mentoring” of former crack-addict Mike Nisperos. These factors, coupled with my impression that the firms of Girardi &amp; Keese, Skadden Arps, and Howard Rice have somehow exempted themselves from complying with the rules, make clear that I must press ahead to ensure that you, Walter Lack, and Thomas Girardi are held fully accountable and otherwise prevented from practicing before any federal or state court.<br /> <br /> As such, in the near future the federal district court, appellate court, and U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to investigate your misconduct (and that of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), and to otherwise permanently remove your names from the roll of members allowed to practice before each of those courts. <br /> <br /> Particularly, I plan to ask the Ninth Circuit to appoint a Special Master to investigate the matter, and to reopen the matter of In Re Girardi to examine whether Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi fully complied with the order in the matter of In Re Girardi and to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California. It is my position that the order to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California included an implied covenant that any State Bar of California proceedings would be conducted in good faith and in conformity with all rules and duties and principles consistent with the fair administration of justice. By not speaking up when you were appointed, Messrs. Girardi and Lack further aggravated matters and, arguably, violated the order handed down by the Ninth Circuit.</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;"><img style="margin: 0px;" src='https://seenthis.net/http://data6.blog.de/media/317/4844317_33623fac42_m.jpeg" alt="" width="185" height="246" /><br /> <span style="color: #000000;"><em><span style="background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><span style="font-size: 8px;">Mr. Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack. In the matter of In Re Girardi, the Ninth Circuit adjudicated: “with respect to Respondents Lack and Traina, we conclude that the mitigating factors can affect only the length of the suspension we impose. Although Lack’s involvement in the enforcement proceedings was more long-standing than Traina’s, each was specifically responsible for the falsehoods presented to this court. Consequently, each is suspended from the practice of law in this court for six months, effective on the filing date of this order. Fed. R.App. P. 46(c). Respondents Lack and Traina may each file a petition for reinstatement after the period of suspension pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(h). Each shall file the petition using this docket number and include evidence that he is in good standing, with no discipline pending, in all courts and bars to which he is admitted.” (Image:courtesy photo)</span></span></span></em></span><br /><br /> <br /> Similarly, when Walter Lack sought to reinstate himself via a motion advanced to Ninth Circuit Commissioner Shaw, he relied heavily on the fact that the State Bar of California decided not to discipline him. In aggravation and while exponentially compounding his lack of credibility, Mr. Lack conveniently failed to mention that he and you (who represented the State Bar of California) have an attorney-client relationship, and that your decision to not prosecute him was the fruit of an unlawful and highly unethical scheme.<br /> <br /> In addition, please note that I plan to file a writ with the California Supreme Court seeking to invalidate your decision, and asking the Court to order the State Bar of California to commence proceedings consistent with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct against you, Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, and your respective firms, and to otherwise take action on the original complaint I submitted to the Intake Office which was never processed.<br /> <br /> The writ will be filed prior to the end of this year so as to allow the Court to also address separate matters, and to otherwise maintain jurisdiction over <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/03/09/californiaall-part-7-state-bar-of-california-board-of-governors-asked-to-investigate-foundation-refusal-to-comply-with-irs-rules-and-policies-10792916/">Douglas Winthrop (also of Howard Rice) and Holly Fujie</a> in their capacities as President and Vice President of the California Bar Foundation, and in connection with the overall circumstances, particularly the hush-hush and unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Foundation to sham charity <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/08/orange-county-investigative-news-agency-voice-of-oc-asked-to-produce-all-documents-submitted-to-the-internal-revenue-service-within-the-past-thre-11803606/">CaliforniaALLa>. <br /> <br /> Hence, at your earliest convenience I ask that you provide information, as well as, if you wish, any memorandum containing legal authority explaining why your actions did not constitute professional misconduct. <br /> <br /> Below is a synopsis of the various acts of misconduct I intend to allege. If you believe I am wrong, legally or factually, please so advise as soon as possible:<br /> <br /> Your first act of misconduct took place once the State Bar initially contacted you. Rather than rejecting the appointment, you intentionally, deliberately, and with aforethought accepted the assignment, knowing full well that you were unable to take a position adverse to your clients Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and also knowing full well that you would exonerate both of them regardless of the weight of the evidence. In doing so, you hoped to maintain your attorney-client relationship with Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi in order to obtain a future stream of business from them, as well as from Thomas Girardi’s defense lawyer — your confederate, Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps. By doing so, you have completely breached the duties expected of a prosecutor. Moreover, while temporarily holding public office, you placed your financial interests, as well as the financial interest of your firm, before those of the People, causing injury to the federal judiciary, the Dole Food Company, the State Bar of California, the People of the State of California, the fair administration of justice, myself, and frankly, even your own clients Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.<br /> <br /> Your second act of misconduct involved the hampering of an investigation, and misleading a tribunal (i.e. the BOG/RAD and the appointed Special Master) by not fully disclosing the attorney-client relationship.<br /> <br /> Thirdly, and in aggravation, even to this date, and after members of your firm were informed of the recent discovery and you had ample opportunity to admit you mistakes, you still have not taken any action to remedy the situation. Instead, you appear to hope that by ignoring the problem, it will somehow disappear. It shall not.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information or clarification of the above-described facts.</p>
    <p>*Links and photos inserted by <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/">The Leslie Brodie Report</a>.</p>

  • 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 CIRCUMVENT NINTH CIRCUIT ORDER IN MATTER OF “IN RE GIRARDI”

    <p style="text-align: justify;">Contending that Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk, acting as Special Prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California, repeatedly sought to subvert justice by failing to disclose that those he was suppose to prosecute (Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack) were actually his and his firm’s clients, sources familiar with the situation claim plans are underway to seek the disbarment of Girardi, Lack and Falk.<br /><br />In a letter to Jerome Falk and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, complainant minced no words in accusing Falk (as well as Girardi and Lack) of egregious misconduct.</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;">As a service to the community, we shall publish* the communication, below:</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;">Dear Mr. Falk:<br /> <br /> This will serve as a formal meet and confer attempt regarding various matters, primarily relating to your repugnant and continuous deceitful actions taken in connection with your willingness to serve as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm’s clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) as part of a scheme to exploit your authority as special prosecutor for financial gain.<br /> <br /> In addition, this letter will serve to explore potential misconduct in connection with misrepresentations made to an official tribunal (i.e. the RAD Committee of the State Bar of California Board of Governors ("BOG")) that appointed a special master in proceedings I initiated against you.</p>
    <p><img src='https://seenthis.net/http://vietnam.eastmeetswest.org/images/staff&board/jfalk08.jpg" alt="" width="185" height="246" /><br /> <em>Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice (Image:courtesy photo)</em><br /> <br /> To illustrate my point, State Bar of California Board of Governors member William Gailey is a man of high honor with a prior distinguished career as a homicide detective with the Los Angeles Police Department. Presently, he operates his own investigation firm (<a href="http://www.gaileyassociates.com/William-Gailey.htm">Gailey Associates, Inc</a>.), which as I understand is one of the best in the country and offers a wide array of services, including industrial espionage and the like.<br /> <br /> Assume, hypothetically speaking only, that Mr. X is an industrialist and a client of Gailey Associates in connection with various business-related transactions. Assume also that Mr. X, while a client of Gailey Associates, was charged by the federal government for participating in a conspiracy to kidnap and murder Mr. Y, the owner of a competing business located in Los Angeles. Mr. X is tried and convicted and sentenced to serve a 30 year sentence in a federal correctional facility. However, after one year he is mysteriously pardoned by the U.S. president.<br /> <br /> Public and media pressure prompt the Los Angeles District Attorney to file an information against Mr. X for violations of State Penal Code provisions, including PC 182 and 187 in connection with the crimes Mr. X committed against Mr. Y. A shortage of qualified detectives prompts the DA to seek volunteer detectives, and Mr. Gailey is deputized, issued a badge, and appointed the role of lead detective in amassing the case against Mr. X on behalf of the People.<br /> <br /> Mr. Gailey shortly thereafter announces the closure of the investigation, and declares that, as far as he is concerned, Mr. X is innocent. As a second hypothetical, assume that with these facts in mind, Mr. Gailey is instead an attorney in private practice who is deputized to act as special prosecutor to try Mr. X, and likewise Mr. Gailey declares Mr. X to be innocent. <br /> <br /> If you don’t see anything wrong with the above two hypothetical examples, please delete this email; otherwise, keep reading because the above hypo is very similar to the scenario that ensued when you agreed to act as special prosecutor against your clients (Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack) on behalf of the People of the State of California to examine the grave and previously adjudicated attorney misconduct Messrs. Girardi and Lack committed against the Ninth Circuit in the litigation against the Dole Food Company.<br /> <br /> The misconduct on the part of Girardi and Lack was investigated by a special master (Senior Judge Hon. Wallace Tashima) appointed by the Ninth Circuit, and his recommendations were adopted by a panel of three Ninth Circuit judges after a full opportunity was afforded to Girardi and Lack to present defenses and bargain with a special prosecutor (Rory Little); these findings were memorialized in the published decision of <a href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fco%2020100713157.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-cu Re Girardi</a>. Some of the findings included that Lack and Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and that “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;"><img style="margin: 0px;" src='https://seenthis.net/http://data7.blog.de/media/249/6011249_eb1485d01e_m.jpeg" alt="UC Hastings Prof Rory Little" width="185" height="246" /><br /> <em><span style="font-size: 6px;">Rory Little, Ninth Circuit judicial aspirant and professor of law at U.C. Hastings. Professor Little <a href="http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/ninth-circuit-a.html">was appointed</a> special prosecutor in the matter of In Re Girardi by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Prior to entering academia, Professor Little served as a federal prosecutor for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force, prosecuting cases of labor racketeering, money-laundering, narcotics and other organized criminal activity. (image:courtesy photo)</span></em></p>
    <p>As you surely recall, the Ninth Circuit also ordered Girardi and Lack to report the findings to the State Bar of California. Because Howard Miller of Girardi &amp; Keese served as President of the State Bar, the Bar disqualified itself and you were appointed as Special Prosecutor by the State Bar to further look into this matter on behalf of the People.<br /> <br /> Despite ample opportunities, you (nor Lack, Girardi, or members of your firm whom I contacted on several occasions in search of information) mentioned that Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack were your and your firm’s clients. <br /> <br /> Shortly thereafter, when you had issued the decision to “exonerate” Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack (as memorialized in a <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/01/31/jerome-falk-s-letter-to-robert-baker-10474846/">"Dear Bob" letter you sent Mr. Robert Baker</a> of Baker Keener &amp; Nahara), I immediately protested by filing both an ethics complaint with the State Bar of California, and asking the BOG to inquire into the matter. Named in the complaint were yourself, Douglas Wintrhrop, Howard Miller, and <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/06/16/d-e-v-e-l-o-p-i-n-g-james-towery-california-bar-embattled-chief-prosecutor-to-resign-11327086/">James Towery</a>.<br /> <br /> At that time, I was unaware that Girardi and Lack were your clients, and the ethics complaint alleged you were biased because of your and your firm’s ongoing business relationship with Skadden Arps and partner Tom Nolan, who served as Girardi’s defense counsel in the matter of In Re Girardi. Also, I argued that since the State Bar of California had disqualified itself, you and your firm should also have been disqualified as the managing partner of your firm (Douglas Wintrhrop) is an officer of the State Bar of California, and was appointed to the position by the BOG headed by Howard Miller of Girardi &amp; Keese.<br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Hawley immediately appointed himself the point of contact, and only several months ago informed me that the complaint was assigned to RAD, which in turn appointed a special master who examined the complaint and found no ethical violations; <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/21/rad-committee-of-state-bar-of-california-adopts-finding-of-no-misconduct-by-james-towery-howard-rice-s-jerry-falk-and-doug-winthrop-11520291/">RAD voted to accept this conclusion</a>.</p>
    <p><a title="Mr Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese" href="http://www.blog.co.uk/media/photo/mr_tom_girardi_of_girardi_keese/6013138"> src='https://seenthis.net/http://data7.blog.de/media/138/6013138_3f41726fe7_m.jpeg" alt="Mr Tom Girardi of Girardi & Keese" width="185" height="246" /></a><img src='https://seenthis.net/http://data7.blog.de/media/469/5853469_a9876fa02a_m.jpeg" alt="State Bar of California’s Robert Hawley " width="185" height="246" /><br /> <em>Mr. Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and State Bar of California <br /> Deputy Executive Director, Mr. Robert A. Hawley.</em><br /> <br /> Subsequently, and fortuitously, I <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/08/25/pamela-phillips-sean-selegue-douglas-winthrop-and-jerome-falk-of-howard-rice-candy-falk-rabkin-under-extreme-scrutiny-as-new-evidence-discovered-11728161/">very recently discovered</a> that Lack and Girardi were clients of your firm. I <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/08/30/howard-rice-canady-falk-rabkin-s-jerome-falk-douglas-winthrop-sean-selegue-and-pamela-phillips-assailed-by-complainant-re-state-bar-of-california-11752294/">inquired with Mr. Hawley</a> whether this fact was known to the RAD and Special Master investigating my complaint. The inquiry to Mr. Hawley was ignored, ipso facto terminating his role as point of contact.<br /> <br /> Mr. Hawley’s lack of response lends credence to my belief that since you knew of the complaint and never informed the Special Master or RAD, you are also liable for defrauding and misrepresenting events to a tribunal. If you have facts to the contrary, please forward them to me ASAP.<br /> <br /> Note that subsequent to the discovery of the attorney-client relationship between you and Lack/Girardi, I again wrote SeLegue and Philips seeking additional clarification, and no response was forthcoming. It had occurred to me that, given that Girardi and Lack are clients of your firm, any insinuation of misconduct I may previously have alleged on the part of SeLegue and Philips were improper; as such, these insinuations are hereby withdrawn as I now understand that SeLegue and Philips were acting in the best interest of their clients — Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.</p>
    <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: #000000; font-family: ’Times New Roman’; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #020000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px;"> </span></span></p>
    <p>Nevertheless, the serious nature of the offenses and the harm caused by your corrupt activities (as well as the corrupt activities of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, primarily as a result of their failure to speak up and reject your appointment) leaves me no choice but to, again, seek discipline against you, Walter Lack, and Thomas Girardi. Additional factors surrounding Thomas Girardi and Girardi &amp; Keese have also become relevant, including the recent malpractice suits filed by Gutierez and <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/11/03/tom-girardi-lashes-out-at-victim-as-girardi-keese-sued-for-legal-malpractice-12110166/">Demeter Energy</a>; the secretive<a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/04/05/ethics-complaint-filed-with-california-state-bar-against-skadde"> attorney-client relationship between Girardi &amp; Keese and Skadden Arps</a> in the Fogel vs. Farmers matter, the identity and nature of the firms defending MGA in the litigation against Mattel; <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/21/complainant-reply-to-rad-committee-s-decision-as-was-communicated-to-state-bar-s-robert-hawley-11520925/">Alec Chang’s membership on RAD</a>; the overall corruption within the State Bar of California manifested in its unwillingness to prosecute Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack; Girardi’s unsettling<a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/30/muslim-community-of-orange-county-mulls-aiding-ronald-gottschal"> friendship with Ronald George</a> and “mentoring” of former crack-addict Mike Nisperos. These factors, coupled with my impression that the firms of Girardi &amp; Keese, Skadden Arps, and Howard Rice have somehow exempted themselves from complying with the rules, make clear that I must press ahead to ensure that you, Walter Lack, and Thomas Girardi are held fully accountable and otherwise prevented from practicing before any federal or state court.<br /> <br /> As such, in the near future the federal district court, appellate court, and U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to investigate your misconduct (and that of Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), and to otherwise permanently remove your names from the roll of members allowed to practice before each of those courts. <br /> <br /> Particularly, I plan to ask the Ninth Circuit to appoint a Special Master to investigate the matter, and to reopen the matter of In Re Girardi to examine whether Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi fully complied with the order in the matter of In Re Girardi and to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California. It is my position that the order to report their misconduct to the State Bar of California included an implied covenant that any State Bar of California proceedings would be conducted in good faith and in conformity with all rules and duties and principles consistent with the fair administration of justice. By not speaking up when you were appointed, Messrs. Girardi and Lack further aggravated matters and, arguably, violated the order handed down by the Ninth Circuit.</p>
    <p style="text-align: justify;"><img style="margin: 0px;" src='https://seenthis.net/http://data6.blog.de/media/317/4844317_33623fac42_m.jpeg" alt="" width="185" height="246" /><br /> <span style="color: #000000;"><em><span style="background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><span style="font-size: 8px;">Mr. Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack. In the matter of In Re Girardi, the Ninth Circuit adjudicated: “with respect to Respondents Lack and Traina, we conclude that the mitigating factors can affect only the length of the suspension we impose. Although Lack’s involvement in the enforcement proceedings was more long-standing than Traina’s, each was specifically responsible for the falsehoods presented to this court. Consequently, each is suspended from the practice of law in this court for six months, effective on the filing date of this order. Fed. R.App. P. 46(c). Respondents Lack and Traina may each file a petition for reinstatement after the period of suspension pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(h). Each shall file the petition using this docket number and include evidence that he is in good standing, with no discipline pending, in all courts and bars to which he is admitted.” (Image:courtesy photo)</span></span></span></em></span><br /><br /> <br /> Similarly, when Walter Lack sought to reinstate himself via a motion advanced to Ninth Circuit Commissioner Shaw, he relied heavily on the fact that the State Bar of California decided not to discipline him. In aggravation and while exponentially compounding his lack of credibility, Mr. Lack conveniently failed to mention that he and you (who represented the State Bar of California) have an attorney-client relationship, and that your decision to not prosecute him was the fruit of an unlawful and highly unethical scheme.<br /> <br /> In addition, please note that I plan to file a writ with the California Supreme Court seeking to invalidate your decision, and asking the Court to order the State Bar of California to commence proceedings consistent with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct against you, Walter Lack, Thomas Girardi, and your respective firms, and to otherwise take action on the original complaint I submitted to the Intake Office which was never processed.<br /> <br /> The writ will be filed prior to the end of this year so as to allow the Court to also address separate matters, and to otherwise maintain jurisdiction over <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/03/09/californiaall-part-7-state-bar-of-california-board-of-governors-asked-to-investigate-foundation-refusal-to-comply-with-irs-rules-and-policies-10792916/">Douglas Winthrop (also of Howard Rice) and Holly Fujie</a> in their capacities as President and Vice President of the California Bar Foundation, and in connection with the overall circumstances, particularly the hush-hush and unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Foundation to sham charity <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/09/08/orange-county-investigative-news-agency-voice-of-oc-asked-to-produce-all-documents-submitted-to-the-internal-revenue-service-within-the-past-thre-11803606/">CaliforniaALLa>. <br /> <br /> Hence, at your earliest convenience I ask that you provide information, as well as, if you wish, any memorandum containing legal authority explaining why your actions did not constitute professional misconduct. <br /> <br /> Below is a synopsis of the various acts of misconduct I intend to allege. If you believe I am wrong, legally or factually, please so advise as soon as possible:<br /> <br /> Your first act of misconduct took place once the State Bar initially contacted you. Rather than rejecting the appointment, you intentionally, deliberately, and with aforethought accepted the assignment, knowing full well that you were unable to take a position adverse to your clients Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and also knowing full well that you would exonerate both of them regardless of the weight of the evidence. In doing so, you hoped to maintain your attorney-client relationship with Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi in order to obtain a future stream of business from them, as well as from Thomas Girardi’s defense lawyer — your confederate, Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps. By doing so, you have completely breached the duties expected of a prosecutor. Moreover, while temporarily holding public office, you placed your financial interests, as well as the financial interest of your firm, before those of the People, causing injury to the federal judiciary, the Dole Food Company, the State Bar of California, the People of the State of California, the fair administration of justice, myself, and frankly, even your own clients Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack.<br /> <br /> Your second act of misconduct involved the hampering of an investigation, and misleading a tribunal (i.e. the BOG/RAD and the appointed Special Master) by not fully disclosing the attorney-client relationship.<br /> <br /> Thirdly, and in aggravation, even to this date, and after members of your firm were informed of the recent discovery and you had ample opportunity to admit you mistakes, you still have not taken any action to remedy the situation. Instead, you appear to hope that by ignoring the problem, it will somehow disappear. It shall not.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information or clarification of the above-described facts.</p>
    <p>*Links and photos inserted by <a href="http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/">The Leslie Brodie Report</a>.</p>

  • http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/10/15/gwen-moore-shakedown-artist-focus-of-prior-fbi-sting-operation-

    Gwen Moore – “Shakedown Artist” Focus of Prior FBI Sting Operation — Now a Named-Defendant in Federal Civil Action

    Controversial former California assemblywoman Gwen Moore has been named a defendant in an action recently filed in federal court, TLR has learned.

    Also named as defendants, amongst many, are Douglas Winthrop, managing partner of embattled Howard Rice Nemerovsky Candy Falk & Rabkin; former Sacramento lobbyist Jeannine English; State Bar of California Deputy Executive Director Robert Hawley; and Judy Johnson, president of the California Consumer Protection Foundation ("CCPF").

    Moore, not a stranger to The Leslie Brodie Report, was “the author of special-interest bills to benefit phony companies set up by the FBI in the sting. They passed but were vetoed. Moore received $10,500 in campaign contributions from the businessmen, including $3,500 funneled through a lobbying firm and a $5,000 contribution, which she promptly returned,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

    The sting operation in question was conducted by the FBI’s Bribery and Special Interest unit, which was investigating corruption in the California State Legislature. The operation was also known as "Shrimpscam” because FBI agents posed as representatives of a West Sacramento-based shrimp processing company who gave campaign contributions to lawmakers in exchange for favorable legislation. A couple of the bills were actually passed by both the Assembly and Senate, but were ultimately vetoed by the Governor, who was tipped off in advance. (Source: Wikipedia.)

    The operation sent Board of Equalization member Paul Carpenter to prison. Three other members of the state legislature also spent time in jail: Pat Nolan, minority leader at the time of the raid; State Senator Joseph Montoya; and Assembly Member Frank Hill. (Source: Wikipedia.)

    According to media reports, the "scandal has shaken the political world in Sacramento and ignited new criticism of the way California’s “third house” - lobbyists - routinely doles out millions to open-handed legislators. The FBI scheme came to light after 30 FBI agents, armed with seven search warrants and accompanied by David Levi, the U.S. attorney for eastern California, descended on the Capitol. The agents went through the offices of four Southern California lawmakers: Assemblyman Patrick Nolan of Glendale, the leader of the house’s Republicans; Assemblyman Frank Hill, a Republican from Whittier and a former aide to former U.S. Sen. S.I. Hayakawa; Assemblywoman Gwen Moore, a Los Angeles Democrat who was the sponsor of the FBI’s bogus legislation, and state Sen. Joseph Montoya, an El Monte Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Business and Professions Committee."

    In a nine-count indictment, a federal grand jury charged Tyrone Netters, Moore’s former aide, with extortion, conspiracy, racketeering, money laundering and income tax evasion. Netters was later convicted of one count of violating RICO, three counts of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, four counts of money laundering, and one count of subscribing to a false tax return.

    More specifically, the conviction included charges of conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c); (2) conspiracy to affect commerce by extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1951; (3) extortion under color of official right and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1951 and 2; and (4) extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1951.

    TLR is closely monitoring the situation and will keep readers apprised of any developments in this civil action, entitled Baldwin v. State Bar of California.