Judges shouldn't have their compensation cut. There is no fat to cut in the courts, but slabs of it are kept out of sight in other agencies. The State Parks and Recreation Department was caught sitting on $54 Million in extra funds while 70 state parks across California struggled to stay open. Since the Parks Department only had a $22 million budget shortfall, that leaves $32 million that could be given to the courts. Furthermore, I think judges' pay should be raised; then we could replace some of the floundering judges with more competent jurists.
Judges keep car perks
By Dave Maass
City Beat
Sep 25, 2012
Through a summer-long media blitz, San Diego County Superior Court officials warned the public about drastic, near-cataclysmic reductions in services on the horizon.
“The cuts envisioned by our budget reduction plan will affect every judge, court employee and ultimately the litigants, court users and citizens in San Diego County,” Presiding Judge Robert Trentacosta said in a June statement. “These cuts will significantly reduce or eliminate access to our court system and are devastating to those of us who have worked so hard to convince the Governor and Legislature that such cuts threaten the stability of our third branch of government.”
The California budget crisis has trickled down to the local justice level, with the San Diego County court looking to make up a $33-million shortfall in what had been a $190-million budget. The court was ordered to drain its rainy-day reserves—roughly $22 million—leaving $11 million left to slice in the coming fiscal year, with even bigger cuts predicted in the next cycles.
As fall arrives, the court has begun shutting down outlying courtrooms, shortening hours, laying off some employees and furloughing others.
But the Superior Court did not cut one line item: nearly $1 million per year in transportation allowances set aside for judges and executive managers.
San Diego judges each receive $572 per month ($6,864 annually) in car stipends, while the presiding judge, assistant presiding judge and supervising judges each collect $674 per month ($8,088 annually).
Between the 126 current judges, that’s $903,427 per year in vehicle allowances. Nine administrators collected a combined $59,472 per year, bringing the figure to $962,899. Another $8,281 was reimbursed for out-of-county travel.
The 24-year-old practice is particular to San Diego County as a carryover from when the county government paid for the courts and the benefit was tied to the Board of Supervisors’ compensation package. Now, the state funds the court, and there’s no mandate from Sacramento to provide these vehicle allowances...
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Another crazy election for San Diego Superior Court judge
I agree with Bonnie Dumanis on this one, “I think what we are seeing now is an assault on the judiciary.”
Judging San Diego’s Judicial Candidates (Video)
By Ryann Grochowski
KPBS
September 17, 2012
...Vying for a seat on the Superior Court bench is veteran prosecutor Robert Amador who has judges, lawyers, Democrats and Republicans on his side. His opponent is Jim Miller Jr., a private practitioner from El Cajon who touts his diverse legal experience and conservative credentials.
Who to vote for? The county bar association is pressing to be the credible voice. It rated Amador well qualified and Miller not qualified. Some of the most high-profile legal names in the county are urging voters to pay attention to the bar. Miller and the Republican Party, though, say not so fast: there is more to the story.
A crowd gathered early one Monday evening late last month to eat hors d'oeuvres, drink cocktails and write checks for Amador.
There was an urgency among the dozens of lawyers and judges. They said they want to ensure voters don’t make the same mistake they made in June: electing a candidate the county bar association deemed as “lacking qualifications.”
“I’m as guilty as probably a lot of us in this room for taking that race for granted,” county Sheriff William Gore told the crowd. “And we saw what happened. We can’t let that happen again.”
“What happened” was the election of Gary Kreep, a conservative, constitutional lawyer in private practice and member of the “birther” movement. He beat prosecutor Garland Peed by less than 2,000 votes.
That race for county judge became known across the country as the one with the funny name: Kreep versus Peed. National political commentator Rachel Maddow came to tears with laughter as she described it.
But the people at the fundraiser for deputy district attorney Amador weren’t laughing.
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told the group: “I think what we are seeing now is an assault on the judiciary.”
In California, Superior Court is the official name for the county-level court that presides over civil, criminal, family, juvenile and probate cases. Superior Court judges can decide life in prison, they can assess millions of dollars in damages and they can decide custody of children.
There are more than 110 active Superior Court judges in San Diego County. Some are appointed by the governor and then subject to election by the voters. Others, like Amador and Miller, run for an open seat outright. Judges serve six-year terms.
Amador, who is 55 and a 29-year deputy district attorney, says he is the best candidate because he has proven himself in tough situations, including the prosecution of a death penalty case. By his count, he has handled more than 100 jury trials and 250 court trials. He admits to a lack of experience in the civil realm, but believes his criminal law expertise carries over to civil cases.
“I think until you’ve actually done a lot of things in the criminal justice system, you’re not really prepared to be a judge,” he said.
Miller, 42, is an attorney in El Cajon specializing in family law, a practice he took over after his father’s unexpected death in 2009. Miller’s legal experience is broad; he emphasizes his work in the five areas of the county court. He touts his “outsider” status with pride. He believes his civil law background is sorely needed in courts overrun with judges who were once prosecutors and other government attorneys.
“They don’t want somebody coming in who’s going to upset their apple cart,” he said.
Miller and his wife have four children. His eldest stepdaughters graduated from his alma mater, Valhalla High School in El Cajon.
...A registered Republican, Amador has some support from the other side -- the county Democratic party, while not endorsing Amador, passed a resolution advising Democrats not to vote for Miller. His list of endorsements includes high-profile members of both parties, as well as independents.
Miller is backed by the county and state Republican Party, the Lincoln Club of San Diego and many local tea party groups, including the Chula Vista Patriots and the Fallbrook Tea Party. Miller said he was happy to see Kreep, a tea party-backed constitutional lawyer who does not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen, elected to the bench...
Jim Miller Jr.
Age: 42
Education: Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego State University
Bar Rating: Lacking qualifications
Key Endorsements: Republican Party of San Diego, Lincoln Club of San Diego, California Republican Party, councilman and mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio, several tea party organizations.
Judging San Diego’s Judicial Candidates (Video)
By Ryann Grochowski
KPBS
September 17, 2012
...Vying for a seat on the Superior Court bench is veteran prosecutor Robert Amador who has judges, lawyers, Democrats and Republicans on his side. His opponent is Jim Miller Jr., a private practitioner from El Cajon who touts his diverse legal experience and conservative credentials.
Who to vote for? The county bar association is pressing to be the credible voice. It rated Amador well qualified and Miller not qualified. Some of the most high-profile legal names in the county are urging voters to pay attention to the bar. Miller and the Republican Party, though, say not so fast: there is more to the story.
A crowd gathered early one Monday evening late last month to eat hors d'oeuvres, drink cocktails and write checks for Amador.
There was an urgency among the dozens of lawyers and judges. They said they want to ensure voters don’t make the same mistake they made in June: electing a candidate the county bar association deemed as “lacking qualifications.”
“I’m as guilty as probably a lot of us in this room for taking that race for granted,” county Sheriff William Gore told the crowd. “And we saw what happened. We can’t let that happen again.”
“What happened” was the election of Gary Kreep, a conservative, constitutional lawyer in private practice and member of the “birther” movement. He beat prosecutor Garland Peed by less than 2,000 votes.
That race for county judge became known across the country as the one with the funny name: Kreep versus Peed. National political commentator Rachel Maddow came to tears with laughter as she described it.
But the people at the fundraiser for deputy district attorney Amador weren’t laughing.
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told the group: “I think what we are seeing now is an assault on the judiciary.”
In California, Superior Court is the official name for the county-level court that presides over civil, criminal, family, juvenile and probate cases. Superior Court judges can decide life in prison, they can assess millions of dollars in damages and they can decide custody of children.
There are more than 110 active Superior Court judges in San Diego County. Some are appointed by the governor and then subject to election by the voters. Others, like Amador and Miller, run for an open seat outright. Judges serve six-year terms.
Amador, who is 55 and a 29-year deputy district attorney, says he is the best candidate because he has proven himself in tough situations, including the prosecution of a death penalty case. By his count, he has handled more than 100 jury trials and 250 court trials. He admits to a lack of experience in the civil realm, but believes his criminal law expertise carries over to civil cases.
“I think until you’ve actually done a lot of things in the criminal justice system, you’re not really prepared to be a judge,” he said.
Miller, 42, is an attorney in El Cajon specializing in family law, a practice he took over after his father’s unexpected death in 2009. Miller’s legal experience is broad; he emphasizes his work in the five areas of the county court. He touts his “outsider” status with pride. He believes his civil law background is sorely needed in courts overrun with judges who were once prosecutors and other government attorneys.
“They don’t want somebody coming in who’s going to upset their apple cart,” he said.
Miller and his wife have four children. His eldest stepdaughters graduated from his alma mater, Valhalla High School in El Cajon.
...A registered Republican, Amador has some support from the other side -- the county Democratic party, while not endorsing Amador, passed a resolution advising Democrats not to vote for Miller. His list of endorsements includes high-profile members of both parties, as well as independents.
Miller is backed by the county and state Republican Party, the Lincoln Club of San Diego and many local tea party groups, including the Chula Vista Patriots and the Fallbrook Tea Party. Miller said he was happy to see Kreep, a tea party-backed constitutional lawyer who does not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen, elected to the bench...
Jim Miller Jr.
Age: 42
Education: Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego State University
Bar Rating: Lacking qualifications
Key Endorsements: Republican Party of San Diego, Lincoln Club of San Diego, California Republican Party, councilman and mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio, several tea party organizations.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Stenographers to be cut from some San Diego Superior Court courtrooms
Justice slips further out of reach for lower middle class and poor people.
Stenographers to be cut from some courtrooms
By TERI FIGUEROA
North County Times
September 10, 2012
Important note: Starting Sept. 3, the San Diego Superior Court will close all business offices on Friday afternoons...
San Diego Superior Court officials said that by Nov. 1, budget cuts will force them to stop providing stenographic reporters in courtrooms that handle many civil cases.
And by January or so, court reporters may also disappear from some family law court hearings, where divorce and child custody matters are addressed.
Court officials will cut the jobs of 41 stenographic reporters, commonly called court reporters, who take verbatim notes of hearings. And without the reporters, there will be no record of who said what in court proceedings, which are already adversarial by nature.
Critics of the planned layoffs say not having a verbatim record troubles them, more so if there is no such record in the high-stakes personal cases, such as those dealing with child custody.
Without a verbatim record of the proceedings, litigants are hamstrung if they need to appeal. There will be no clear record to provide to the appellate court to review a judicial ruling. Also, having no record reduces a litigant's ammunition in a complaint about poor performance by an attorney or a judge in the courtroom.
So any party to a civil who wants a record will have to pay to hire a freelance court reporter. Can't afford it? Too bad. There will be no verbatim record of the proceedings.
Not everyone can afford to bring in a freelance court reporter, particularly those who are acting as their own attorneys in order to save money, critics said.
"The loss of court reporters in civil proceedings is going to put access to justice out of reach for average San Diegans. Shifting the cost of justice to those who can least afford it is an inappropriate solution to the state's budget problem," said David Garcias, the president of the local union representing the reporters at the local courts, in an emailed statement to the North County Times.
Even without court reporters, courtroom clerks will keep a record of rulings by the judge. But exactly what the judge said to attorneys, and exactly what a witness said on the stand, will be lost.
And forget about tape recording the civil proceedings for an official record. State law does not allow it.
Stenographic reporters and the service they provide will be the latest victims of the court's budget cuts, as officials look to reduce spending by $11 million this fiscal year, which started July 1. The courts will save about $6 million by slashing a third of the 120 or so of its court reporter jobs, said Michael Roddy, the executive director of San Diego Superior Court, which runs the county courts...
Eleven court reporters agreed to an early retirement and 30 court reporters will be laid off, Roddy said. Most will be gone by November. Other layoffs will probably take effect in January, he said.
"Court reporters play an invaluable role in providing checks and balances. These cuts put us one step closer to a two-tiered system of justice which offers transparency only to those who can afford it," said union board member Jim Partridge, who is also a stenographic reporter in the local courts, in an emailed statement to the North County Times.
Citing budget cuts, officials earlier this month shut down Vista's probate court and Ramona's small courthouse. They also closed court business offices at noon each Friday, and opened Vista's traffic court an hour later each weekday, at 8:30 a.m.
By next summer, local court officials said they plan to shut down small-claims offices and courtrooms in all branch courts ---- including Vista ---- in anticipation of deeper cuts in the fiscal year starting in July...
However, the courts are required to provide a court reporter for criminal matters.
Roddy said court officials are still working to keep the reporters in family courts as often as possible, citing concerns of local judges...
In about 90 percent of all cases in family court, at least one side does not have an attorney, usually because they can't afford one...
Court reporters use a special machine as they take verbatim notes in shorthand in the courtroom. Many of the reporters are also able to plug into a judge's computer to give the judge a real-time transcript of who said what. Many judges often refer to the live transcription during hearings, sometimes doing so as they make decisions regarding objections raised by lawyers.
In cutting court reporters, San Diego is following the blueprint laid out by Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, which cut court-reporter jobs in recent years.
Overall, officials say they will cut $11 million, or 5.8 percent of the budget. But next year, San Diego courts face a 17 percent revenue cut, with no reserves to help. Officials say courtroom closures and service cuts are required to operate the court system on a $157 million budget next year...
Stenographers to be cut from some courtrooms
By TERI FIGUEROA
North County Times
September 10, 2012
Important note: Starting Sept. 3, the San Diego Superior Court will close all business offices on Friday afternoons...
San Diego Superior Court officials said that by Nov. 1, budget cuts will force them to stop providing stenographic reporters in courtrooms that handle many civil cases.
And by January or so, court reporters may also disappear from some family law court hearings, where divorce and child custody matters are addressed.
Court officials will cut the jobs of 41 stenographic reporters, commonly called court reporters, who take verbatim notes of hearings. And without the reporters, there will be no record of who said what in court proceedings, which are already adversarial by nature.
Critics of the planned layoffs say not having a verbatim record troubles them, more so if there is no such record in the high-stakes personal cases, such as those dealing with child custody.
Without a verbatim record of the proceedings, litigants are hamstrung if they need to appeal. There will be no clear record to provide to the appellate court to review a judicial ruling. Also, having no record reduces a litigant's ammunition in a complaint about poor performance by an attorney or a judge in the courtroom.
So any party to a civil who wants a record will have to pay to hire a freelance court reporter. Can't afford it? Too bad. There will be no verbatim record of the proceedings.
Not everyone can afford to bring in a freelance court reporter, particularly those who are acting as their own attorneys in order to save money, critics said.
"The loss of court reporters in civil proceedings is going to put access to justice out of reach for average San Diegans. Shifting the cost of justice to those who can least afford it is an inappropriate solution to the state's budget problem," said David Garcias, the president of the local union representing the reporters at the local courts, in an emailed statement to the North County Times.
Even without court reporters, courtroom clerks will keep a record of rulings by the judge. But exactly what the judge said to attorneys, and exactly what a witness said on the stand, will be lost.
And forget about tape recording the civil proceedings for an official record. State law does not allow it.
Stenographic reporters and the service they provide will be the latest victims of the court's budget cuts, as officials look to reduce spending by $11 million this fiscal year, which started July 1. The courts will save about $6 million by slashing a third of the 120 or so of its court reporter jobs, said Michael Roddy, the executive director of San Diego Superior Court, which runs the county courts...
Eleven court reporters agreed to an early retirement and 30 court reporters will be laid off, Roddy said. Most will be gone by November. Other layoffs will probably take effect in January, he said.
"Court reporters play an invaluable role in providing checks and balances. These cuts put us one step closer to a two-tiered system of justice which offers transparency only to those who can afford it," said union board member Jim Partridge, who is also a stenographic reporter in the local courts, in an emailed statement to the North County Times.
Citing budget cuts, officials earlier this month shut down Vista's probate court and Ramona's small courthouse. They also closed court business offices at noon each Friday, and opened Vista's traffic court an hour later each weekday, at 8:30 a.m.
By next summer, local court officials said they plan to shut down small-claims offices and courtrooms in all branch courts ---- including Vista ---- in anticipation of deeper cuts in the fiscal year starting in July...
However, the courts are required to provide a court reporter for criminal matters.
Roddy said court officials are still working to keep the reporters in family courts as often as possible, citing concerns of local judges...
In about 90 percent of all cases in family court, at least one side does not have an attorney, usually because they can't afford one...
Court reporters use a special machine as they take verbatim notes in shorthand in the courtroom. Many of the reporters are also able to plug into a judge's computer to give the judge a real-time transcript of who said what. Many judges often refer to the live transcription during hearings, sometimes doing so as they make decisions regarding objections raised by lawyers.
In cutting court reporters, San Diego is following the blueprint laid out by Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, which cut court-reporter jobs in recent years.
Overall, officials say they will cut $11 million, or 5.8 percent of the budget. But next year, San Diego courts face a 17 percent revenue cut, with no reserves to help. Officials say courtroom closures and service cuts are required to operate the court system on a $157 million budget next year...
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Crazy county judge makes Lubbock a national laughingstock
Missed the video that started this “war”? Here it is.
‘Crazy county judge makes Lubbock a national laughingstock
Rick Dunham
Chron.com
August 2012
That'll be the day...
Where is Buddy Holly when you need him?
Instead of one of the greatest Texas singers of all time, Lubbock is now known nationally (and internationally) for the words of a local Republican politician who declared that President Obama’s re-election might trigger a civil war and a United Nations invasion of Texas.
There were two basic reactions to the words of Lubbock County Judge Tom Head, which became a YouTube sensation after he uttered them on a local Fox TV affiliate: Did he really say those things? (Yep!) And what should we do about it? (Dunno.)
“It’s really up to Judge (Tom) Head to do the right thing and resign and stop embarrassing Lubbock County,” Lubbock County Democratic chair Kenny Ketner told CNN. “I wish we were getting worldwide attention for something better than a crazy county judge. But what are you going to do?”
If you’re the Texas Democratic Party, you definitely know what to do. State Democratic chair Gilberto Hinojosa issued a blistering statement questioning, among other things, the county judge’s “mental competency.”
“Judge Head’s statements on the United Nations invasion raise serious questions about his mental competency to hold elected office,” Hinojosa declared. “[Senate nominee] Ted Cruz is clearly in good company. Republican crazies have now taken over the Lubbock County courthouse.”
Hinojosa said Head’s talk is “not only ridiculous, it’s dangerous. It’s crystal clear that Judge Head should resign.”
In case you haven’t been near a computer, Head became a household name from Dallas to Dubai when he predicted a United Nations invasion of the Lone Star State if Barack Obama wins re-election this fall.
“I’m thinking the worst,” he told Fox34. “Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations. We’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.”
In response to Head’s warnings, Lubbock lawyer Rod Hobson adorned the outside of his Lubbock office with U.N. flags to express his horror (or sense of humor).
“”Well you can either laugh or you can cry. When I saw the story I thought, once again, Lubbock is going to be the laughingstock of the entire nation,” Hobson told Fox34. “It’s like the light’s on, but no one is home. … I’d just like to think he’s off his meds.”
Meanwhile, Texas Democrats (suffering perhaps from Todd Akin overload) shifted their sights to Texas’ own Republican embarrassment.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions here,” Texas Democratic chair Hinojosa continued. “Does Judge Head expect the United Nations to come in riding a couple of combines? Does Lubbock also need an Air Force? A Navy? Will the revenues from this tax increase be put into a dedicated account to fight the U.N. invasion? Will the money be returned to taxpayers if the U.N. army doesn’t make it into Lubbock County? What will happen if the Sweetwater militia defeats the vicious blue-beanie peace-keepers before they reach Lubbock?”
Head, meanwhile, tried to clarify his views at a Wednesday meeting of his commissioners court.
“My remarks yesterday, worst case scenario in my opinion, and how do you prepare for it,” he said, according to Fox34. “Do I think those are going to happen, probably not.”
...Hinojosa couldn’t resist a low blow aimed at fair-and-balanced Fox News.
“I guess this is what happens when you get all your information from Fox News,” the Democratic chief concluded. “This would be truly funny if it were a skit on SNL. The fact that these were serious utterances by a supposedly responsible elected official make the entire episode horribly sad, but unfortunately, not even slightly unusual in today’s Republican Party.”
Monday, August 20, 2012
Deloitte says accountant's suicide unrelated to Standard Chartered
Deloitte says accountant's suicide unrelated to Standard Chartered
Aug 19, 2012
(Reuters)
Deloitte LLP said Sunday that the suicide of a New York accountant was unrelated to work for British bank Standard Chartered Plc.
Daniel Pirron, 57, was found dead of a gunshot to the head on August 13 after a passerby noticed the body in a Fairfield, Connecticut parking lot, a Fairfield Police spokeswoman said Sunday. A .38-caliber handgun, found near his body, was registered to Pirron.
Pirron worked as an accountant in the general counsel's office of Deloitte in New York City. In the wake of the death, The Telegraph newspaper in London suggested there was a link between Pirron's death and Deloitte's work for Standard Chartered, which drew the scrutiny of New York's banking regulator.
Standard Chartered on August 14 settled with the New York Department of Financial Services for $340 million after an inquiry into the bank's transactions tied to Iran. That inquiry had questioned work Deloitte had done for the bank. Deloitte has said its work was proper.
In a statement, a Deloitte spokesman on Sunday said, "Dan was a highly respected member of our office of general counsel who made many contributions to our firm. However, Dan was not involved in any way on our work for Standard Chartered Bank. Our thoughts are with his family at this very difficult time."
In an interview, Daniel Pirron's older brother, Michael, said Daniel had shown no sign he was considering suicide and that the timing of his brother's death raised questions as to whether it was related to work for Deloitte.
Michael Pirron said he didn't know specifically the cases his brother was handling for Deloitte. Michael Pirron said his brother was the main financial supporter for two daughters who are approximately 22 and 24 years old. "He loved his work," Michael Pirron said.
Aug 19, 2012
(Reuters)
Deloitte LLP said Sunday that the suicide of a New York accountant was unrelated to work for British bank Standard Chartered Plc.
Daniel Pirron, 57, was found dead of a gunshot to the head on August 13 after a passerby noticed the body in a Fairfield, Connecticut parking lot, a Fairfield Police spokeswoman said Sunday. A .38-caliber handgun, found near his body, was registered to Pirron.
Pirron worked as an accountant in the general counsel's office of Deloitte in New York City. In the wake of the death, The Telegraph newspaper in London suggested there was a link between Pirron's death and Deloitte's work for Standard Chartered, which drew the scrutiny of New York's banking regulator.
Standard Chartered on August 14 settled with the New York Department of Financial Services for $340 million after an inquiry into the bank's transactions tied to Iran. That inquiry had questioned work Deloitte had done for the bank. Deloitte has said its work was proper.
In a statement, a Deloitte spokesman on Sunday said, "Dan was a highly respected member of our office of general counsel who made many contributions to our firm. However, Dan was not involved in any way on our work for Standard Chartered Bank. Our thoughts are with his family at this very difficult time."
In an interview, Daniel Pirron's older brother, Michael, said Daniel had shown no sign he was considering suicide and that the timing of his brother's death raised questions as to whether it was related to work for Deloitte.
Michael Pirron said he didn't know specifically the cases his brother was handling for Deloitte. Michael Pirron said his brother was the main financial supporter for two daughters who are approximately 22 and 24 years old. "He loved his work," Michael Pirron said.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Birther Gary Kreep pays to hoodwink voters, then denies being elected by uninformed voters
How much more proof do we need that judges should be appointed, not elected? We now have a judge who got elected by deceptive campaign tactics. How can we expect him to uphold the law?
Gary Kreep paid to fool voters, then denied that his win was a result of uninformed electorate.
ELECTION: Kreep says right-wing views won't affect rulings as judge
WINNING CANDIDATE HAS CHALLENGED OBAMA'S BIRTHPLACE, LEGITIMACY
June 23, 2012
By TERI FIGUEROA
Voters in San Diego County appear to have elected a conservative activist lawyer to a judgeship with the San Diego Superior Court.
Gary Kreep, 61 ---- known for taking on right-wing causes ---- said Friday that his views will not color his decisions on the bench.
According to the unofficial tally, Kreep surpassed his opponent, veteran prosecutor Garland Peed, by 1,702 votes in a judicial contest in which more than 406,000 ballots were cast. Kreep garnered 50.21 percent of the votes to Peed's 49.79 percent.
The result caught political observers by surprise, because prosecutors tend to be shoo-in candidates in judicial races....
Kreep says he used old-fashioned methods ---- shoe leather and slate mailers ---- to reach out to voters. He even ended up on a slate mailer urging voters to back Obama...
He credits grass-roots supporters, robo-calls, endorsements and slate mailers in a campaign he said he financed with about $55,000 of his own money.
As for those slate mailers, in an effort to reach out to Democratic voters, it turned out he bought into one with an Obama endorsement. It was especially ironic because, as an attorney, Kreep has worked on a couple of federal civil suits challenging Obama's eligibility to be president based on his birthplace.
Dismissing criticism
The San Diego County Bar Association rated Kreep as "lacking qualifications" to become a judge, a rating Kreep disputed as a decision rooted in politics.
He dismissed criticisms by people who said his apparent win is the result of an uninformed electorate.
"That implies that the voters are too stupid to know who they are voting for. That is an elitist, obnoxious view," Kreep said...
Gary Kreep paid to fool voters, then denied that his win was a result of uninformed electorate.
ELECTION: Kreep says right-wing views won't affect rulings as judge
WINNING CANDIDATE HAS CHALLENGED OBAMA'S BIRTHPLACE, LEGITIMACY
June 23, 2012
By TERI FIGUEROA
Voters in San Diego County appear to have elected a conservative activist lawyer to a judgeship with the San Diego Superior Court.
Gary Kreep, 61 ---- known for taking on right-wing causes ---- said Friday that his views will not color his decisions on the bench.
According to the unofficial tally, Kreep surpassed his opponent, veteran prosecutor Garland Peed, by 1,702 votes in a judicial contest in which more than 406,000 ballots were cast. Kreep garnered 50.21 percent of the votes to Peed's 49.79 percent.
The result caught political observers by surprise, because prosecutors tend to be shoo-in candidates in judicial races....
Kreep says he used old-fashioned methods ---- shoe leather and slate mailers ---- to reach out to voters. He even ended up on a slate mailer urging voters to back Obama...
He credits grass-roots supporters, robo-calls, endorsements and slate mailers in a campaign he said he financed with about $55,000 of his own money.
As for those slate mailers, in an effort to reach out to Democratic voters, it turned out he bought into one with an Obama endorsement. It was especially ironic because, as an attorney, Kreep has worked on a couple of federal civil suits challenging Obama's eligibility to be president based on his birthplace.
Dismissing criticism
The San Diego County Bar Association rated Kreep as "lacking qualifications" to become a judge, a rating Kreep disputed as a decision rooted in politics.
He dismissed criticisms by people who said his apparent win is the result of an uninformed electorate.
"That implies that the voters are too stupid to know who they are voting for. That is an elitist, obnoxious view," Kreep said...
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Jacques Rivera, Man Who Spent 21 Years In Prison On Wrongful Conviction, Sues Chicago Police
Jacques Rivera, Man Who Spent 21 Years In Prison On Wrongful Conviction, Sues Chicago Police
Huffington Post
06/07/2012
Jacques Rivera, 47, was released from prison last fall.
A Chicago man who served 21 years in prison on a murder charge for which he was later exonerated filed suit Thursday against the city of Chicago and its police department.
Attorneys representing Jacques Rivera, 47, claim that Chicago police falsified evidence and manipulated a witness before their client was convicted in 1988 of fatally shooting Felix Valentin, a gang member, and sentenced to serve 80 years in a maximum security prison.
Locke Bowman, an attorney whose firm is representing Rivera, said his client "suffered a grave injustice at the hands of Chicago police" and deserves to be compensated for it, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Last fall, the purported crime's only eyewitness recanted his testimony that identified Rivera as the killer. The charges were dropped and Rivera was, essentially, a free man again. The witness, Orlando Lopez, was 12 years old at the time of the alleged crime.
Bowman further described such behavior leading to wrongful convictions as "a pattern with the Chicago Police Department," NBC Chicago reports.
"The Police Department has never investigated any of these cases or disciplined an officer despite clear, egregious misconduct in many of these cases," Bowman said, according to NBC. "That's simply unacceptable."
Rivera's case was the subject of over a decade of work by the Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions.
When Rivera, a former Latin King, was released from prison last October, he said he planned to work with inner-city youth. But HuffPost Chicago blogger David Protess, president of the Chicago Innocence Project, reports that Rivera has struggled to get on his feet since his release.
Specifically, he's been unable to attain the $199,150 in financial restitution he is seeking under Illinois law because Cook County prosecutors have called on Rivera to further prove his innocence -- even after being exonerated.
The strange loophole is the subject of a bill proposed by state Sen. Donne Trotter (D-Chicago).
"I'm not really free yet. At 47, I live with my mother to make ends meet and I can't afford a vehicle to get to a job or the events I've been asked to speak at," Rivera told Protess last month. "Prosecutors are doing everything they can to prevent me from living my life."
Huffington Post
06/07/2012
Jacques Rivera, 47, was released from prison last fall.
A Chicago man who served 21 years in prison on a murder charge for which he was later exonerated filed suit Thursday against the city of Chicago and its police department.
Attorneys representing Jacques Rivera, 47, claim that Chicago police falsified evidence and manipulated a witness before their client was convicted in 1988 of fatally shooting Felix Valentin, a gang member, and sentenced to serve 80 years in a maximum security prison.
Locke Bowman, an attorney whose firm is representing Rivera, said his client "suffered a grave injustice at the hands of Chicago police" and deserves to be compensated for it, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Last fall, the purported crime's only eyewitness recanted his testimony that identified Rivera as the killer. The charges were dropped and Rivera was, essentially, a free man again. The witness, Orlando Lopez, was 12 years old at the time of the alleged crime.
Bowman further described such behavior leading to wrongful convictions as "a pattern with the Chicago Police Department," NBC Chicago reports.
"The Police Department has never investigated any of these cases or disciplined an officer despite clear, egregious misconduct in many of these cases," Bowman said, according to NBC. "That's simply unacceptable."
Rivera's case was the subject of over a decade of work by the Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions.
When Rivera, a former Latin King, was released from prison last October, he said he planned to work with inner-city youth. But HuffPost Chicago blogger David Protess, president of the Chicago Innocence Project, reports that Rivera has struggled to get on his feet since his release.
Specifically, he's been unable to attain the $199,150 in financial restitution he is seeking under Illinois law because Cook County prosecutors have called on Rivera to further prove his innocence -- even after being exonerated.
The strange loophole is the subject of a bill proposed by state Sen. Donne Trotter (D-Chicago).
"I'm not really free yet. At 47, I live with my mother to make ends meet and I can't afford a vehicle to get to a job or the events I've been asked to speak at," Rivera told Protess last month. "Prosecutors are doing everything they can to prevent me from living my life."
Monday, June 4, 2012
Melissa Lewis Joins Stutz Artiano's Employment Practice
Here's my question: if my website has damaged Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm's business so much that they felt they had to sue me for defamation, then why does it seem that Stutz is constantly adding more lawyers? How did Stutz calculate that it has suffered significant damage from my website and blogs?
PRESS RELEASE
Lewis Joins Stutz Artiano's Employment Practice
SAN DIEGO
MARKETWIRE via COMTEX
June 4, 2012
Melissa A. Lewis has joined the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC as an Associate. Ms. Lewis graduated Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Summa Cum Laude, Valedictorian. She is a graduate of Hawaii Pacific University and Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, graduating with honors. Ms. Lewis joins the Employment Practice Group at Stutz Artiano, representing employers in all aspects of the employment relationship, including litigation, administrative hearings, advisory, development of policies and procedures, preparation of handbooks, employee and supervisor training and conducting internal investigations.
PRESS RELEASE
Lewis Joins Stutz Artiano's Employment Practice
SAN DIEGO
MARKETWIRE via COMTEX
June 4, 2012
Melissa A. Lewis has joined the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz APC as an Associate. Ms. Lewis graduated Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Summa Cum Laude, Valedictorian. She is a graduate of Hawaii Pacific University and Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, graduating with honors. Ms. Lewis joins the Employment Practice Group at Stutz Artiano, representing employers in all aspects of the employment relationship, including litigation, administrative hearings, advisory, development of policies and procedures, preparation of handbooks, employee and supervisor training and conducting internal investigations.
Discovery suddenly stayed in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz defamation suit against this blogger
See all posts re Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins
I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.
June 1, 2012
Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Dear Commander Fotheringham:
I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.
My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.
I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:
Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.
I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.
And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.
The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.
But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.
For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.
Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.
I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.
June 1, 2012
Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Dear Commander Fotheringham:
I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.
My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.
I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:
Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.
I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.
And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.
The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.
But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.
For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.
Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.
Friday, June 1, 2012
VISTA: Students get a taste of justice
See all posts re Judge Richard Cline.
VISTA: Students get a taste of justice
August 03, 2011
By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN
North County Times
Twenty-six middle school students got a taste of justice at the Vista Courthouse Tuesday through a program that introduces them to the legal system.
One student defended herself against charges of theft, and was ultimately led away in handcuffs for drug possession. Another student, her alleged accomplice, sat silent on the advice of his attorneys. The accuser was reprimanded by the judge for name-calling on the witness stand.
The gifted and talented students, whom their instructor, Gregg Primeaux, called "future leaders of the community," were role-playing a trial in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Richard Cline, a co-founder of the civics curriculum, "On My Honor."
"I learned a lot about how the court works," said Miranda Colvin, 12, the seventh-grader from Aviara Oaks Middle School who played the defendant. "It was really fun because I got to put on handcuffs."
The program began in 1999 with a fourth-grade field trip to the courts, and expanded into a series of regionwide events, including "Youth in Court Day" and, more recently, the week-long summer symposium for gifted students. The programs are sponsored jointly by the San Diego Superior Court, the North County Bar Association, Cal State San Marcos, and local schools.
Cline said he developed the curriculum to supplement dwindling civics education, and counterbalance what he considers the poor depiction of judicial proceedings on television.
"It teaches students factual information about the (legal) process by participating in an active trial," Cline said. "And hopefully it teaches them respect for the law."
During the summer program, gifted students in grades 5-9 prepare a case with attorneys and judges, investigate case studies using technology labs, present legal arguments, debate complex issues, select jury members, explore rights and responsibilities as citizens, and take a tour of the court facilities.
"We wanted to bring a higher critical thinking opportunity for them during the summer, within the courts," Primeaux said, adding that the program aims to both cultivate legal literacy and inspire future legal professionals.
During the mock trial, a student, Emily, faced theft charges for allegedly stealing $200 of charitable donations from a teacher's desk during lunch hour. Fellow students testified that they suspected her of taking the cash, noting that they saw her in the classroom and watched her buy a new iPod.
However, they acknowledged they never saw her steal the money, and school administrators admitted that while they found the new iPod in her backpack, she told them she earned the money through odd jobs.
Throughout the mock trial, Cline offered judicial guidance on examining the evidence, and at one time reproached a witness, Colleen, for calling Emily a "liar and a loser" on the stand.
A dozen student jurors then weighed the testimony and declared Emily not guilty. In a final twist, however, Cline announced that a court search of Emily's backpack turned up a white, powdery substance found to be methamphetamine, and a student actor playing bailiff escorted her out of court in handcuffs...
[Maura Larkins comment: This seemed to be a real exercise in critical thinking--until that "final twist". Shame on the adults for pulling that parlor trick. The students were deprived of the full understanding of how inexact our justice system is.]
VISTA: Students get a taste of justice
August 03, 2011
By DEBORAH SULLIVAN BRENNAN
North County Times
Twenty-six middle school students got a taste of justice at the Vista Courthouse Tuesday through a program that introduces them to the legal system.
One student defended herself against charges of theft, and was ultimately led away in handcuffs for drug possession. Another student, her alleged accomplice, sat silent on the advice of his attorneys. The accuser was reprimanded by the judge for name-calling on the witness stand.
The gifted and talented students, whom their instructor, Gregg Primeaux, called "future leaders of the community," were role-playing a trial in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Richard Cline, a co-founder of the civics curriculum, "On My Honor."
"I learned a lot about how the court works," said Miranda Colvin, 12, the seventh-grader from Aviara Oaks Middle School who played the defendant. "It was really fun because I got to put on handcuffs."
The program began in 1999 with a fourth-grade field trip to the courts, and expanded into a series of regionwide events, including "Youth in Court Day" and, more recently, the week-long summer symposium for gifted students. The programs are sponsored jointly by the San Diego Superior Court, the North County Bar Association, Cal State San Marcos, and local schools.
Cline said he developed the curriculum to supplement dwindling civics education, and counterbalance what he considers the poor depiction of judicial proceedings on television.
"It teaches students factual information about the (legal) process by participating in an active trial," Cline said. "And hopefully it teaches them respect for the law."
During the summer program, gifted students in grades 5-9 prepare a case with attorneys and judges, investigate case studies using technology labs, present legal arguments, debate complex issues, select jury members, explore rights and responsibilities as citizens, and take a tour of the court facilities.
"We wanted to bring a higher critical thinking opportunity for them during the summer, within the courts," Primeaux said, adding that the program aims to both cultivate legal literacy and inspire future legal professionals.
During the mock trial, a student, Emily, faced theft charges for allegedly stealing $200 of charitable donations from a teacher's desk during lunch hour. Fellow students testified that they suspected her of taking the cash, noting that they saw her in the classroom and watched her buy a new iPod.
However, they acknowledged they never saw her steal the money, and school administrators admitted that while they found the new iPod in her backpack, she told them she earned the money through odd jobs.
Throughout the mock trial, Cline offered judicial guidance on examining the evidence, and at one time reproached a witness, Colleen, for calling Emily a "liar and a loser" on the stand.
A dozen student jurors then weighed the testimony and declared Emily not guilty. In a final twist, however, Cline announced that a court search of Emily's backpack turned up a white, powdery substance found to be methamphetamine, and a student actor playing bailiff escorted her out of court in handcuffs...
[Maura Larkins comment: This seemed to be a real exercise in critical thinking--until that "final twist". Shame on the adults for pulling that parlor trick. The students were deprived of the full understanding of how inexact our justice system is.]
California courts agency called dysfunctional
California courts agency called dysfunctional
May 30, 2012
Associated Press
A blistering new report quietly released over the Memorial Day Weekend called for the overhaul of California's Administrative Office of the Courts, which it described as dysfunctional, secretive and top-heavy with overpaid executives.
The report was prepared by a committee of state judges appointed last year by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to investigate claims the administrative arm of the courts had grown too large and costly amid severe budget cuts. The chief justice released the nearly 300-page report late Friday night. The report chided the AOC for claiming in February that it employed "more than 750" when it concluded that the AOC has grown from 430 workers in 2002 to more than 1,100 last year with hundreds earning six figure salaries amid a supposed hiring freeze. AOC managers conceded they got around the hiring freeze by employing temporary and contract workers.
The report also said the AOC appeared guilty of violating its own work rules by allowing some workers to telecommute from long distances, including one attorney who works from Switzerland.
The report criticized the agency for a lack of transparency.
"The AOC's reporting of staffing levels has been misleading, leading to mistrust of the AOC," the report said. "Disingenuously suggesting that AOC staffing levels have been reduced in response to branch-wide budget and staffing cuts has led to further mistrust and cynicism."
The report calls for staffing cuts to fewer than 700 employees and for the agency's headquarter to be moved from San Francisco to Sacramento.
""The organization needs to be right-sized," the report concluded.
The release of the report also comes amid Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to cut $544 million from the third branch's budget.
In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, the chief justice said the report will be considered next month by the Judicial Council, an appointed body that oversees the AOC. She said the report was a look at the past and didn't consider the AOC's current plans to grapple with deep budget cuts. She also defended the public release of the document, saying she released it as soon as she received it.
One of the agency's chief critics, the Alliance of California Judges, applauded the findings.
"The nearly 300-page report is an A-to-Z indictment of an out of control organization," the group wrote in an email Monday alerting media and others to the report's release. "It is an absolute `must read' for everyone concerned about the functionality and credibility of our judicial branch." The group called for even more staff cuts.
May 30, 2012
Associated Press
A blistering new report quietly released over the Memorial Day Weekend called for the overhaul of California's Administrative Office of the Courts, which it described as dysfunctional, secretive and top-heavy with overpaid executives.
The report was prepared by a committee of state judges appointed last year by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to investigate claims the administrative arm of the courts had grown too large and costly amid severe budget cuts. The chief justice released the nearly 300-page report late Friday night. The report chided the AOC for claiming in February that it employed "more than 750" when it concluded that the AOC has grown from 430 workers in 2002 to more than 1,100 last year with hundreds earning six figure salaries amid a supposed hiring freeze. AOC managers conceded they got around the hiring freeze by employing temporary and contract workers.
The report also said the AOC appeared guilty of violating its own work rules by allowing some workers to telecommute from long distances, including one attorney who works from Switzerland.
The report criticized the agency for a lack of transparency.
"The AOC's reporting of staffing levels has been misleading, leading to mistrust of the AOC," the report said. "Disingenuously suggesting that AOC staffing levels have been reduced in response to branch-wide budget and staffing cuts has led to further mistrust and cynicism."
The report calls for staffing cuts to fewer than 700 employees and for the agency's headquarter to be moved from San Francisco to Sacramento.
""The organization needs to be right-sized," the report concluded.
The release of the report also comes amid Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to cut $544 million from the third branch's budget.
In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, the chief justice said the report will be considered next month by the Judicial Council, an appointed body that oversees the AOC. She said the report was a look at the past and didn't consider the AOC's current plans to grapple with deep budget cuts. She also defended the public release of the document, saying she released it as soon as she received it.
One of the agency's chief critics, the Alliance of California Judges, applauded the findings.
"The nearly 300-page report is an A-to-Z indictment of an out of control organization," the group wrote in an email Monday alerting media and others to the report's release. "It is an absolute `must read' for everyone concerned about the functionality and credibility of our judicial branch." The group called for even more staff cuts.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Shame Of Lorain, Ohio - Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen Convicted Of Non-Existent Crimes
The Shame Of Lorain, Ohio - Nancy Smith And Joseph Allen Convicted Of Non-Existent Crimes
By Lona Manning
Justice Denied
SUMMER 2005
Margie Grover brought her 4- year-old daughter Nicole to a Lorain, Ohio hospital on May 7, 1993. She claimed that her daughter, who attended the Lorain Head Start had come home and said, “We didn’t go to school today.” Furthermore the anxious mother said that Nicole told her that the bus driver, Nancy Smith, had taken the children to see a man named “Joseph,” who tied her up, taped her eyes, and molested her with a stick. Grover said she found a piece of a branch in the girl’s clothing.
Officers attending at the hospital noted that most of the information was provided by the mother and the attending nurse, not by the little girl herself. The officers reported that Nicole was physically unharmed. The case was assigned to Detective Tom Cantu of Lorain’s Youth and Gang unit. Cantu, a 20+ year veteran of the Lorain PD and an ex-Marine, was named 1992’s Ohio “Policemen of the Year” by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
When Cantu started the investigation, he had an accused person, her unknown accomplice by the name of “Joseph,” an unknown crime scene location, and a definite date. It was clear to Cantu that the incident couldn’t have happened as Nicole (or was it her mother?) described.
Smith’s bus log and the odometer readings confirmed that she had driven her usual route on May 7, and Nicole’s teacher had marked Nicole “present.” Sherry Hagerman, the aide on Smith’s bus that week, confirmed that nothing had happened. At the time of the incident Smith had gone to her second job, driving for the YMCA Meals-onWheels program. Her supervisor confirmed that Smith was a reliable driver and she had shown up for work as usual that day. Cantu spoke to Smith’s co-workers, neighbors, and friends. They scoffed at the idea that Smith was a child molester. She was a single mother with four teenage children and she had three part-time jobs that often kept her working for 12 hours a day.
Cantu interviewed Nicole on May 13, but most of the information came from her mother, who insisted that her daughter was telling her a lot of details at home.
In front of Cantu, however, Nicole hesitated, saying, “I forgot,” “I don’t remember that,” and “Can we go home now?” After repeated questioning she finally agreed that she had seen ““Joseph’s” pee pee.”
Cantu went to the Head Start school on May 25 and questioned 11 children, aged 3 to 5 who were on Smith’s bus route. His police report for that day notes, “The children were questioned if Nancy had ever touched them in a bad way, or in any way which would hurt, or upset them, and each one stated that she has never touched them. The children were asked if they knew anyone named “Joseph,” and they all indicated that they did not. All of the children stated that they liked Nancy and that she was nice.”
Nicole’s mother had been spreading alarm to other Head Start parents who then questioned their children. Had they heard of “Joseph”? Had they been taken to “Joseph’s” house? Cantu said that from the jumbled descriptions of “Joseph,” he couldn’t tell “if the guy was white, black, or a white guy with black spots, or a white guy with black spots” One child said “Joseph” was a white man who painted his head and hands black. Several others said “Joseph” had blue eyes.
Cantu suspected that parents heavily influenced the children’s testimony. “One day they tell you one story, then they go home, and all of a sudden they have the same story.” Cantu recalled, “I took the kids to different houses where they said this thing happened and none of it panned out.
The kids gave descriptions of the interior of the house and different pictures that might have been in the house, [but] any house we went into, nothing matched anything the children stated.” He canvassed the neighborhood and asked if anyone had seen a bright yellow school bus parked there all afternoon. No one had.
Less than two weeks into the investigation the mayor summoned Cantu to his office and when he arrived Grover was already there complaining that no arrest had been made. Cantu got “into a tiff” with her, but he recommended proper police procedure. “I even told the mayor, ‘just because somebody accuses, they say Nancy Smith did it, I have to prove she did it, I can’t arrest her on your say-so.’” Cantu concluded, “There is no proof that a male suspect named “Joseph” exists at the present.” The Head Start semester ended on May 27 with a picnic in the park.
The day afterwards, Grover, who had her identity concealed, appeared on a local newscast with the dramatic claim that a molester was stalking the Head Start kids — and nobody was doing anything about it. She said she wanted, “someone to do something about this case and get the ball rolling.”
She named a suspect, a white man her daughter had pointed out when he was cutting the grass outside his house. (He was soon cleared.)
After the accusations became public, Cantu took Smith for a lie detector test , which showed “she didn’t do that crime any more than me or the guy that gave the test.” Cantu concluded that there was no case against Smith, “There is no proof that a male suspect named “Joseph” exists.... all of the victims in the case have been interviewed with much inconsistency and lack of good evidence.” Shortly after Cantu made his recommendation that the investigation against Smith be concluded, he was promoted to sergeant and transferred out of the Youth/Gang unit.
The Lorain PD then assigned five officers to a special Head Start task force. The questioning of the children began again. One of those police reports states, “Amy was asked, did Joseph make you touch him? Amy stated, ‘No.’”
When Child Protective Services interviewed Nicole in May, she denied that anyone had touched her. After several months and more interviews, she agreed with detective Eladio Andujar that Nancy and “Joseph” had molested her.
Preschooler Johnny Givens got involved in the case at the end of May. His mother had seen the news reports and she remembered that her son had complained of a sore bottom the previous winter. The police report states, “[Johnny] was questioned if Nancy ever did anything to him, or if she had ever touched him, or ever touched his penis... [Johnny] stated that she had never done anything to him, and had never touched him in any way...”
Two weeks after Grover appeared on the local news, 4-year-old Jason Andrews’s mother reported that her son had told her he’d been molested right on the bus by someone named Alan. The police report notes: “He also stated that Alan looked like...Story continued HERE.)
By Lona Manning
Justice Denied
SUMMER 2005
Margie Grover brought her 4- year-old daughter Nicole to a Lorain, Ohio hospital on May 7, 1993. She claimed that her daughter, who attended the Lorain Head Start had come home and said, “We didn’t go to school today.” Furthermore the anxious mother said that Nicole told her that the bus driver, Nancy Smith, had taken the children to see a man named “Joseph,” who tied her up, taped her eyes, and molested her with a stick. Grover said she found a piece of a branch in the girl’s clothing.
Officers attending at the hospital noted that most of the information was provided by the mother and the attending nurse, not by the little girl herself. The officers reported that Nicole was physically unharmed. The case was assigned to Detective Tom Cantu of Lorain’s Youth and Gang unit. Cantu, a 20+ year veteran of the Lorain PD and an ex-Marine, was named 1992’s Ohio “Policemen of the Year” by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
When Cantu started the investigation, he had an accused person, her unknown accomplice by the name of “Joseph,” an unknown crime scene location, and a definite date. It was clear to Cantu that the incident couldn’t have happened as Nicole (or was it her mother?) described.
Smith’s bus log and the odometer readings confirmed that she had driven her usual route on May 7, and Nicole’s teacher had marked Nicole “present.” Sherry Hagerman, the aide on Smith’s bus that week, confirmed that nothing had happened. At the time of the incident Smith had gone to her second job, driving for the YMCA Meals-onWheels program. Her supervisor confirmed that Smith was a reliable driver and she had shown up for work as usual that day. Cantu spoke to Smith’s co-workers, neighbors, and friends. They scoffed at the idea that Smith was a child molester. She was a single mother with four teenage children and she had three part-time jobs that often kept her working for 12 hours a day.
Cantu interviewed Nicole on May 13, but most of the information came from her mother, who insisted that her daughter was telling her a lot of details at home.
In front of Cantu, however, Nicole hesitated, saying, “I forgot,” “I don’t remember that,” and “Can we go home now?” After repeated questioning she finally agreed that she had seen ““Joseph’s” pee pee.”
Cantu went to the Head Start school on May 25 and questioned 11 children, aged 3 to 5 who were on Smith’s bus route. His police report for that day notes, “The children were questioned if Nancy had ever touched them in a bad way, or in any way which would hurt, or upset them, and each one stated that she has never touched them. The children were asked if they knew anyone named “Joseph,” and they all indicated that they did not. All of the children stated that they liked Nancy and that she was nice.”
Nicole’s mother had been spreading alarm to other Head Start parents who then questioned their children. Had they heard of “Joseph”? Had they been taken to “Joseph’s” house? Cantu said that from the jumbled descriptions of “Joseph,” he couldn’t tell “if the guy was white, black, or a white guy with black spots, or a white guy with black spots” One child said “Joseph” was a white man who painted his head and hands black. Several others said “Joseph” had blue eyes.
Cantu suspected that parents heavily influenced the children’s testimony. “One day they tell you one story, then they go home, and all of a sudden they have the same story.” Cantu recalled, “I took the kids to different houses where they said this thing happened and none of it panned out.
The kids gave descriptions of the interior of the house and different pictures that might have been in the house, [but] any house we went into, nothing matched anything the children stated.” He canvassed the neighborhood and asked if anyone had seen a bright yellow school bus parked there all afternoon. No one had.
Less than two weeks into the investigation the mayor summoned Cantu to his office and when he arrived Grover was already there complaining that no arrest had been made. Cantu got “into a tiff” with her, but he recommended proper police procedure. “I even told the mayor, ‘just because somebody accuses, they say Nancy Smith did it, I have to prove she did it, I can’t arrest her on your say-so.’” Cantu concluded, “There is no proof that a male suspect named “Joseph” exists at the present.” The Head Start semester ended on May 27 with a picnic in the park.
The day afterwards, Grover, who had her identity concealed, appeared on a local newscast with the dramatic claim that a molester was stalking the Head Start kids — and nobody was doing anything about it. She said she wanted, “someone to do something about this case and get the ball rolling.”
She named a suspect, a white man her daughter had pointed out when he was cutting the grass outside his house. (He was soon cleared.)
After the accusations became public, Cantu took Smith for a lie detector test , which showed “she didn’t do that crime any more than me or the guy that gave the test.” Cantu concluded that there was no case against Smith, “There is no proof that a male suspect named “Joseph” exists.... all of the victims in the case have been interviewed with much inconsistency and lack of good evidence.” Shortly after Cantu made his recommendation that the investigation against Smith be concluded, he was promoted to sergeant and transferred out of the Youth/Gang unit.
The Lorain PD then assigned five officers to a special Head Start task force. The questioning of the children began again. One of those police reports states, “Amy was asked, did Joseph make you touch him? Amy stated, ‘No.’”
When Child Protective Services interviewed Nicole in May, she denied that anyone had touched her. After several months and more interviews, she agreed with detective Eladio Andujar that Nancy and “Joseph” had molested her.
Preschooler Johnny Givens got involved in the case at the end of May. His mother had seen the news reports and she remembered that her son had complained of a sore bottom the previous winter. The police report states, “[Johnny] was questioned if Nancy ever did anything to him, or if she had ever touched him, or ever touched his penis... [Johnny] stated that she had never done anything to him, and had never touched him in any way...”
Two weeks after Grover appeared on the local news, 4-year-old Jason Andrews’s mother reported that her son had told her he’d been molested right on the bus by someone named Alan. The police report notes: “He also stated that Alan looked like...Story continued HERE.)
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Supreme Court says double jeopardy does not protect against murder retrial
Supreme Court says double jeopardy does not protect against murder retrial
By Robert Barnes
May 24, 2012
Washington Post
Arkansas may retry a man for murder even though jurors in his first trial were unanimous that he was not guilty, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Alex Blueford, who is accused of killing his girlfriend’s 1-year-old son, is not protected by the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, the court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision.
Because the judge dismissed the jury when it was unable to reach agreement on lesser charges, Blueford was not officially cleared of any of the charges, the majority said, and thus may be retried.
“The jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.
The decision brought a sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
“Blueford’s jury had the option to convict him of capital and first-degree murder, but expressly declined to do so,” Sotomayor wrote. “That ought to be the end of the matter.”
The Double Jeopardy Clause is found in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and commands that no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense.
Blueford was tried for the death of Matthew McFadden Jr., who died in 2007 from head injuries. Arkansas prosecutors said Blueford intentionally caused the boy’s death, while Blueford maintained that he had accidentally knocked the child to the ground.
Blueford was charged with capital murder, although the state waived the death penalty. At trial, the judge instructed jurors that if they had reasonable doubt about whether he was guilty of capital murder, they should next consider the charge of first-degree murder. If they found reasonable doubt about that, they should then consider manslaughter, they were told, and after that, negligent homicide.
The jurors’ final option was to acquit Blueford of all charges.
After a few hours of deliberations, the jury reported that it might not be able to reach a decision. The forewoman told the judge that the jurors were unanimous against capital and first-degree murder, had split 9 to 3 against manslaughter and did not vote on negligent homicide.
The judge sent the jurors back for more deliberations, but half an hour later the forewoman reported no verdict. The court declared a mistrial.
All agree that Blueford can be retried on charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide, but Blueford claimed the murder charges were off the table because a jury had rejected them.
The Supreme Court majority disagreed...
By Robert Barnes
May 24, 2012
Washington Post
Arkansas may retry a man for murder even though jurors in his first trial were unanimous that he was not guilty, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Alex Blueford, who is accused of killing his girlfriend’s 1-year-old son, is not protected by the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, the court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision.
Because the judge dismissed the jury when it was unable to reach agreement on lesser charges, Blueford was not officially cleared of any of the charges, the majority said, and thus may be retried.
“The jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.
The decision brought a sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
“Blueford’s jury had the option to convict him of capital and first-degree murder, but expressly declined to do so,” Sotomayor wrote. “That ought to be the end of the matter.”
The Double Jeopardy Clause is found in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and commands that no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense.
Blueford was tried for the death of Matthew McFadden Jr., who died in 2007 from head injuries. Arkansas prosecutors said Blueford intentionally caused the boy’s death, while Blueford maintained that he had accidentally knocked the child to the ground.
Blueford was charged with capital murder, although the state waived the death penalty. At trial, the judge instructed jurors that if they had reasonable doubt about whether he was guilty of capital murder, they should next consider the charge of first-degree murder. If they found reasonable doubt about that, they should then consider manslaughter, they were told, and after that, negligent homicide.
The jurors’ final option was to acquit Blueford of all charges.
After a few hours of deliberations, the jury reported that it might not be able to reach a decision. The forewoman told the judge that the jurors were unanimous against capital and first-degree murder, had split 9 to 3 against manslaughter and did not vote on negligent homicide.
The judge sent the jurors back for more deliberations, but half an hour later the forewoman reported no verdict. The court declared a mistrial.
All agree that Blueford can be retried on charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide, but Blueford claimed the murder charges were off the table because a jury had rejected them.
The Supreme Court majority disagreed...
Prosecutors in botched case against Sen. Stevens suspended
Prosecutors in botched case against Sen. Stevens suspended
By Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY
May 24, 2012
Two Justice Department trial lawyers involved in the botched corruption prosecution of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens have been suspended without pay for "reckless professional misconduct'' in failing to disclose critical information to the senator's defense team.
Joseph Bottini, an assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska, was suspended for 40 days and James Goeke, an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington state, was suspended for 15 days, according to a summary of the findings released today by the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility.
The full 672-page report of the Justice Department's internal investigation was submitted to the Senate and House Judiciary committees.
The findings come two months after a special investigator appointed by federal Judge Emmet Sullivan found that the Stevens prosecution was "permeated by the systematic concealment'' of evidence favorable to the defense.
A jury convicted Stevens, a Republican, in 2008 on seven counts of lying on Senate financial disclosure statements. Days later, Stevens lost his re-election bid. In 2009, Sullivan threw out the conviction. Stevens died in a plane crash in August 2010.
By Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY
May 24, 2012
Two Justice Department trial lawyers involved in the botched corruption prosecution of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens have been suspended without pay for "reckless professional misconduct'' in failing to disclose critical information to the senator's defense team.
Joseph Bottini, an assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska, was suspended for 40 days and James Goeke, an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington state, was suspended for 15 days, according to a summary of the findings released today by the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility.
The full 672-page report of the Justice Department's internal investigation was submitted to the Senate and House Judiciary committees.
The findings come two months after a special investigator appointed by federal Judge Emmet Sullivan found that the Stevens prosecution was "permeated by the systematic concealment'' of evidence favorable to the defense.
A jury convicted Stevens, a Republican, in 2008 on seven counts of lying on Senate financial disclosure statements. Days later, Stevens lost his re-election bid. In 2009, Sullivan threw out the conviction. Stevens died in a plane crash in August 2010.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Court asked to discipline ex-prosecutor overseeing bailout
Court asked to discipline ex-prosecutor overseeing bailout
By Brad Heath
USA TODAY
May 18, 2012
Maryland regulators are asking the state's top court to discipline a former federal prosecutor — now helping to oversee the government's $700 billion bailout — for a secret arrangement targeting a prominent banker who had not broken the law.
Their request comes nearly five years after Justice Department officials were alerted that the lawyer, John Sellers, had reached a secret agreement with American Express' international banking arm barring the company from rehiring its former top executive. The department later withdrew that agreement and said in a rare public letter that it had no evidence that the banker, Sergio Masvidal , had done anything illegal.
The case is one of only a handful over the past decade in which state authorities in charge of regulating the legal profession have sought to discipline a federal prosecutor. It comes as lawmakers have expressed concern about the Justice Department's handling of misconduct by its attorneys. In April, a Senate committee said it "questions the judgment of the Department" in assigning some of the prosecutors responsible for the tainted corruption case against former senator Ted Stevens to other high-profile investigations.
An internal Justice Department probe concluded in October 2010 that Sellers had committed "reckless" misconduct by not telling his supervisors or a federal court judge about the side agreement. Sellers left the agency before it could take any action against him ; he landed a new job as an attorney for the special inspector general overseeing the federal bailout, state and federal records show .
A USA TODAY investigation in 2010 found that federal prosecutors rarely risk losing their jobs for misconduct, and that actions by state regulators are uncommon.
By Brad Heath
USA TODAY
May 18, 2012
Maryland regulators are asking the state's top court to discipline a former federal prosecutor — now helping to oversee the government's $700 billion bailout — for a secret arrangement targeting a prominent banker who had not broken the law.
Their request comes nearly five years after Justice Department officials were alerted that the lawyer, John Sellers, had reached a secret agreement with American Express' international banking arm barring the company from rehiring its former top executive. The department later withdrew that agreement and said in a rare public letter that it had no evidence that the banker, Sergio Masvidal , had done anything illegal.
The case is one of only a handful over the past decade in which state authorities in charge of regulating the legal profession have sought to discipline a federal prosecutor. It comes as lawmakers have expressed concern about the Justice Department's handling of misconduct by its attorneys. In April, a Senate committee said it "questions the judgment of the Department" in assigning some of the prosecutors responsible for the tainted corruption case against former senator Ted Stevens to other high-profile investigations.
An internal Justice Department probe concluded in October 2010 that Sellers had committed "reckless" misconduct by not telling his supervisors or a federal court judge about the side agreement. Sellers left the agency before it could take any action against him ; he landed a new job as an attorney for the special inspector general overseeing the federal bailout, state and federal records show .
A USA TODAY investigation in 2010 found that federal prosecutors rarely risk losing their jobs for misconduct, and that actions by state regulators are uncommon.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Probe of Dewey & LeBoeuf Focuses Largely on Law Firm's Chairman
Woes at Law Firm Deepen
Probe of Dewey & LeBoeuf Focuses Largely on Law Firm's Chairman, According to Internal Memo
BY JENNIFER SMITH, ASHBY JONES AND STEVE EDER
Wall Street Journal
April 27, 2012
One of New York's largest law firms, already engulfed in a financial crisis that threatens its survival, is being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney's office.
The firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, has been wrestling with the effects of big guaranteed pay packages that were handed out to top lawyers even as corporate clients were pushing back on legal fees. Those two factors, along with heavy debt and a wave of departures by partners, are dragging down Dewey, formed four years ago by merging two storied law firms.
The district attorney's investigation is focusing on former Chairman Steven Davis...
Thursday, April 12, 2012
System Must Weed Out Unethical Lawyers Who Damage Profession's Reputation
Attorney Discipline: System Must Weed Out Unethical Lawyers Who Damage Profession's Reputation
Los Angeles Daily Journal
December 16, 2002
By James C. Turner and Suzanne M. Mishkin
This fall, HALT - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform released its 2002 Lawyer Discipline Report Card, the first comprehensive evaluation of the nation's attorney discipline system in ten years. The Report Card points to persistent problems that have gone largely unremedied for over a quarter of a century.
In 1970, a blue ribbon panel led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark conducted a groundbreaking review of the attorney discipline system, and found a "scandalous situation" that required "the immediate attention of the profession."
The Clark Committee itemized 36 defects in the disciplinary system, in particular, criticizing the practices of most disciplinary agencies, which "deliberately discourage any publication of information concerning their activities, believing that the public image of the profession is damaged by a disclosure that attorney misconduct exists."
In addition, this review found that a panel of lawyers, rather than judges or lay persons, controlled the disciplinary system, creating an institutional bias that grossly undermines the effectiveness of the entire disciplinary system.
Twenty-two years later, an American Bar Association commission, chaired by Dean Robert McKay of the New York University Law School, found that the public has a "growing mistrust of secret, self-regulated lawyer discipline."
Like the Clark Committee before it, the McKay Commission concluded that the practice of allowing bar officials to control state disciplinary systems creates the appearance of a gross conflict of interest, "regardless of the actual fairness and impartiality of the system."
Summing up the situation in 1992, the Commission criticized the entire country's lawyer discipline system as "too slow, too secret, too soft and too self-regulated."
While there has been some modest progress since these scathing indictments, sadly it has not been nearly enough to fix a badly broken system.
Just last month, Stanford University Legal Ethics Professor Deborah L. Rhode stated, "Bar disciplinary procedures are anything but user-friendly to the consumer, and most are more responsive to the profession's interests than the public's."
Similarly, judges, legal scholars, practicing attorneys and bar officials, who convened the National Conference on Professionalism at the University of South Carolina School of Law, broadly agreed that the current system of lawyer discipline has lost the public's confidence, and urged the profession to lead the way in demanding meaningful reforms.
HALT's Report Card is our effort to bring the deficiencies of the attorney discipline system to the attention of the profession and the public. The Report Card assesses the performance of disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on six key factors: (1) adequacy of discipline imposed; (2) publicity and responsiveness; (3) openness of the process; (4) fairness of disciplinary procedures; (5) public participation; and (6) promptness.
The results expose an appalling pattern of toothless sanctions, unnecessary secrecy, biased procedures and endless delays.
More than 114,000 complaints were filed against lawyers in 2000, the most recent year for which the American Bar Association provides data. In that same year, the rate of formal discipline was less than 3.5 percent, and the rate of disbarment was less than one percent.
In California, 93 percent of investigated cases led to absolutely no disciplinary action. And this is not surprising given that California bar rules provide that a lawyer will only be disciplined if misconduct is proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a far more demanding standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" test that applies in other civil proceedings.
In state after state, we found that most complaints are not even investigated or are dismissed on technicalities, while only a handful lead to more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a private admonition or a closed-door reprimand. With this tiny trickle of discipline, is it any wonder that a recent Columbia Law School survey found less than one-third of Americans think lawyers are even "somewhat" honest?
In most states, attorney discipline proceedings are secret, non-public hearings where a panel of lawyers sits as both judge and jury. In many states, even the person who filed the complaint does not have a right to attend.
In California, there is not even token layperson representation in disciplinary decisions - instead, only lawyers decide if and when to impose sanctions upon their colleagues.
In every jurisdiction except Oregon and Arizona, disciplinary bodies refuse to release an attorney's full disciplinary history. Officials in California will only inform consumers of whether an attorney has been publicly disciplined; records of all complaints, formal charges and informal discipline are kept under seal.
Consumers in many jurisdictions are forced into silence by gag rules that threaten fines or jail for talking about the complaint or its outcome. Even those without gag rules frequently try to restrain speech, asking complainants to keep their grievances confidential.
Justice delayed may be justice denied, but it is par for the course in attorney discipline cases. Even the state that earned our highest grade (Massachusetts with a B minus) failed to act promptly on complaints - taking an average of 681 days to issue formal charges and well over two years to impose discipline.
In Washington State, it took one victim thirteen years to get an incompetent lawyer suspended. Many states, like California, do not even keep a record of how promptly they respond to grievances.
These are national problems; of the fifty-one jurisdictions we evaluated, thirty-nine earned a C- or lower; and twenty-one of these received Ds or lower (Pennsylvania and North Carolina flunked outright). California earned a mediocre C.
Part of the problem is that lawyer discipline bodies are asked to perform conflicting missions.
For example, the mission statement for the District of Columbia disciplinary body requires it to fulfill "a dual function: to protect the public and the courts from unethical conduct by members of the D.C. Bar and to protect members of the D.C. Bar" (emphasis supplied).
A lawyer discipline system serving two conflicting masters is bound to prove ineffective.
To correct the nationwide pattern of laxity, secrecy, bias and delay that characterize this broken system, we believe four fundamental reforms are needed.
* Lawyer discipline cases should be heard by publicly controlled disciplinary panels where non-lawyers have at least a majority voice. Independent medical boards in many states offer a superior model for ensuring accountability. These medical boards, which are appointed by governors and state legislatures, rely on physicians to help them understand technical issues, but the doctors stay out of the decision-making process. Lawyers should, too.
* The discipline system must come out into the open. Private reprimands should be replaced with meaningful public discipline. Hearings should be open to the public. And complaints against lawyers and sanctions should be a matter of public record, available to every citizen.
* Disciplinary policies should more closely approximate the rules governing the civil justice system. Gag rules should be abolished. If the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct, the attorney should be sanctioned.
* The glacial pace of attorney discipline must come to an end. Imposing real deadlines - requiring a preliminary disciplinary hearing within ninety days, for example - would be a giant step toward jettisoning bureaucratic red tape and creating a system that actually brings justice to victims of misconduct.
By adopting these simple reforms, we can replace a system that is an abject failure with one that actually protects consumers and begins to restore public confidence in the legal profession.
After thirty years of ignored calls for reform, responsible lawyers who have a real commitment to professional responsibility need to mobilize and demand action to fix the attorney discipline mess.
All who practice law have a shared interest in creating a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds-out unethical or incompetent attorneys who damage the profession's reputation.
By addressing long-recognized failures in the current disciplinary system, we have an opportunity to create a structure that engenders consumer trust and respect, rather than alienation and resentment. After three decades of marginal reform, can we do less?
-------------
* James C. Turner is Executive Director and Suzanne M. Mishkin is Associate Counsel of HALT, Inc. - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform.
Los Angeles Daily Journal
December 16, 2002
By James C. Turner and Suzanne M. Mishkin
This fall, HALT - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform released its 2002 Lawyer Discipline Report Card, the first comprehensive evaluation of the nation's attorney discipline system in ten years. The Report Card points to persistent problems that have gone largely unremedied for over a quarter of a century.
In 1970, a blue ribbon panel led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark conducted a groundbreaking review of the attorney discipline system, and found a "scandalous situation" that required "the immediate attention of the profession."
The Clark Committee itemized 36 defects in the disciplinary system, in particular, criticizing the practices of most disciplinary agencies, which "deliberately discourage any publication of information concerning their activities, believing that the public image of the profession is damaged by a disclosure that attorney misconduct exists."
In addition, this review found that a panel of lawyers, rather than judges or lay persons, controlled the disciplinary system, creating an institutional bias that grossly undermines the effectiveness of the entire disciplinary system.
Twenty-two years later, an American Bar Association commission, chaired by Dean Robert McKay of the New York University Law School, found that the public has a "growing mistrust of secret, self-regulated lawyer discipline."
Like the Clark Committee before it, the McKay Commission concluded that the practice of allowing bar officials to control state disciplinary systems creates the appearance of a gross conflict of interest, "regardless of the actual fairness and impartiality of the system."
Summing up the situation in 1992, the Commission criticized the entire country's lawyer discipline system as "too slow, too secret, too soft and too self-regulated."
While there has been some modest progress since these scathing indictments, sadly it has not been nearly enough to fix a badly broken system.
Just last month, Stanford University Legal Ethics Professor Deborah L. Rhode stated, "Bar disciplinary procedures are anything but user-friendly to the consumer, and most are more responsive to the profession's interests than the public's."
Similarly, judges, legal scholars, practicing attorneys and bar officials, who convened the National Conference on Professionalism at the University of South Carolina School of Law, broadly agreed that the current system of lawyer discipline has lost the public's confidence, and urged the profession to lead the way in demanding meaningful reforms.
HALT's Report Card is our effort to bring the deficiencies of the attorney discipline system to the attention of the profession and the public. The Report Card assesses the performance of disciplinary systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on six key factors: (1) adequacy of discipline imposed; (2) publicity and responsiveness; (3) openness of the process; (4) fairness of disciplinary procedures; (5) public participation; and (6) promptness.
The results expose an appalling pattern of toothless sanctions, unnecessary secrecy, biased procedures and endless delays.
More than 114,000 complaints were filed against lawyers in 2000, the most recent year for which the American Bar Association provides data. In that same year, the rate of formal discipline was less than 3.5 percent, and the rate of disbarment was less than one percent.
In California, 93 percent of investigated cases led to absolutely no disciplinary action. And this is not surprising given that California bar rules provide that a lawyer will only be disciplined if misconduct is proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a far more demanding standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" test that applies in other civil proceedings.
In state after state, we found that most complaints are not even investigated or are dismissed on technicalities, while only a handful lead to more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a private admonition or a closed-door reprimand. With this tiny trickle of discipline, is it any wonder that a recent Columbia Law School survey found less than one-third of Americans think lawyers are even "somewhat" honest?
In most states, attorney discipline proceedings are secret, non-public hearings where a panel of lawyers sits as both judge and jury. In many states, even the person who filed the complaint does not have a right to attend.
In California, there is not even token layperson representation in disciplinary decisions - instead, only lawyers decide if and when to impose sanctions upon their colleagues.
In every jurisdiction except Oregon and Arizona, disciplinary bodies refuse to release an attorney's full disciplinary history. Officials in California will only inform consumers of whether an attorney has been publicly disciplined; records of all complaints, formal charges and informal discipline are kept under seal.
Consumers in many jurisdictions are forced into silence by gag rules that threaten fines or jail for talking about the complaint or its outcome. Even those without gag rules frequently try to restrain speech, asking complainants to keep their grievances confidential.
Justice delayed may be justice denied, but it is par for the course in attorney discipline cases. Even the state that earned our highest grade (Massachusetts with a B minus) failed to act promptly on complaints - taking an average of 681 days to issue formal charges and well over two years to impose discipline.
In Washington State, it took one victim thirteen years to get an incompetent lawyer suspended. Many states, like California, do not even keep a record of how promptly they respond to grievances.
These are national problems; of the fifty-one jurisdictions we evaluated, thirty-nine earned a C- or lower; and twenty-one of these received Ds or lower (Pennsylvania and North Carolina flunked outright). California earned a mediocre C.
Part of the problem is that lawyer discipline bodies are asked to perform conflicting missions.
For example, the mission statement for the District of Columbia disciplinary body requires it to fulfill "a dual function: to protect the public and the courts from unethical conduct by members of the D.C. Bar and to protect members of the D.C. Bar" (emphasis supplied).
A lawyer discipline system serving two conflicting masters is bound to prove ineffective.
To correct the nationwide pattern of laxity, secrecy, bias and delay that characterize this broken system, we believe four fundamental reforms are needed.
* Lawyer discipline cases should be heard by publicly controlled disciplinary panels where non-lawyers have at least a majority voice. Independent medical boards in many states offer a superior model for ensuring accountability. These medical boards, which are appointed by governors and state legislatures, rely on physicians to help them understand technical issues, but the doctors stay out of the decision-making process. Lawyers should, too.
* The discipline system must come out into the open. Private reprimands should be replaced with meaningful public discipline. Hearings should be open to the public. And complaints against lawyers and sanctions should be a matter of public record, available to every citizen.
* Disciplinary policies should more closely approximate the rules governing the civil justice system. Gag rules should be abolished. If the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct, the attorney should be sanctioned.
* The glacial pace of attorney discipline must come to an end. Imposing real deadlines - requiring a preliminary disciplinary hearing within ninety days, for example - would be a giant step toward jettisoning bureaucratic red tape and creating a system that actually brings justice to victims of misconduct.
By adopting these simple reforms, we can replace a system that is an abject failure with one that actually protects consumers and begins to restore public confidence in the legal profession.
After thirty years of ignored calls for reform, responsible lawyers who have a real commitment to professional responsibility need to mobilize and demand action to fix the attorney discipline mess.
All who practice law have a shared interest in creating a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds-out unethical or incompetent attorneys who damage the profession's reputation.
By addressing long-recognized failures in the current disciplinary system, we have an opportunity to create a structure that engenders consumer trust and respect, rather than alienation and resentment. After three decades of marginal reform, can we do less?
-------------
* James C. Turner is Executive Director and Suzanne M. Mishkin is Associate Counsel of HALT, Inc. - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Tri-City Hospital refuses to release records in elder abuse case
Tri-City also tried to keep records out of the hands of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
A bizarre cover-up seems to be proceeding in an elder abuse case in North County Superior Court in which a dying man who was taking approximately 20 medications signed away his property to one of his nine children. Another of his children is suing to have the property returned to the man's surviving wife.
Tri-City Hospital apparently wants to cover up its actions in the case, in which Tri-City Hospital and the daughter who arranged the transfer of property concealed from other siblings the fact that the father had terminal cancer.
Tri-City offers three objection to the subpoena for the records. the first and second reasons for not providing the records are standard.
The third reason however reads:
"Third, the subpoena is unduly burdensome or oppressive, since deponent is not in possession of the records sought..."
Tri-City is claiming that it does not have the patient's medical records!
The daughter who obtained the property is represented by attorney Roland Achtel.
See entire pleading filed by Nicole Wells on behalf of Tri-City Medical Center.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Is the ACLU actively supporting the suppression of free speech in schools?
See all posts on the San Diego ACLU.
Why is the San Diego ACLU trying to silence free speech for teachers at the same time that it is protecting free speech for students? I understand why school attorneys want to keep the public unaware of what goes on behind closed doors in our schools, but why is ACLU attorney David Loy so interested in helping them?
I have long wondered if the ACLU was doing California Teachers Association little favors by refusing to take free speech cases for teachers. The recently-retired CTA head counsel Beverly Tucker had previously worked for the ACLU.
I got my answer on April 28, 2010 (see email below from David Loy). Yes, I learned, the ACLU definitely tries to silence teachers who don't speak through the union.
I attended the Annual Membership meeting of the San Diego ACLU today, and listened to ACLU attorney David Loy boast about how the ACLU had protected student free speech.
I asked him, "What about free speech for teachers?"
Mr. Loy responded with only one case, Johnson v. Poway, a case in which the ACLU supported a teacher who draped huge banners with religious admonitions across his classroom. The ACLU's victory in the district court was overturned by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal:
"We thus reverse and remand with instructions that the district court vacate its grant of injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as its award of damages, and enter summary judgment in favor of Poway and its officials on all claims. Johnson shall bear all costs. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(3)."
Daniel R. Shinoff, Jack M. Sleeth, Jr. (argued), Paul V. Carelli, IV, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC, San Diego, California, for defendants-appellants Poway Unified School District, et al
David Blair-Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties in Support of plaintiff (Johnson)
Apparently California Teachers Association didn't take part in this case.
Neither David Loy nor Kevin Keenan could think of another case in which the ACLU had defended freedom of speech for teachers, but they noted that the ACLU frequently defends the free speech rights of law enforcement officers. Is this perhaps because the police unions don't donate to the ACLU like the teacher unions do?
Even Lori Shellenberger, the San Diego ACLU's "civic engagement" attorney, is vehemently uninterested in free speech for teachers. She spoke at the Annual Membership meeting about the voting rights workshops she held for parents throughout the school district, and giving parents the chance to speak about what they wanted from schools. I told Ms. Shellenberger, "What good are voting rights when parents don't know what is going on in schools? Democracy requires an informed electorate. You want to expand parent participation, but you keep parents ignorant by silencing teachers who know what's going on in schools." Ms. Shellenberger said she wasn't interested in free speech. Her associate Vince Hall specifically told me he wasn't interested in my letter to the ACLU board.
It would seem to me that Shellenberger and Hall are unlikely to improve schools unless they're willing to work toward transparency in schools, to reveal the secret life of schools. They are basically asking parents to stand up and address the powers behind the curtain of secrecy in schools in the manner in which Dorothy, the Tin Man and friends addressed the Wizard of Oz. The ACLU wants to make sure the curtain is not pulled back revealing a charlatan pulling strings.
Interestingly, Mr. Keenan is convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit. "We always win," said Kevin Keenan. If the ACLU wins in the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be with the aid of the civil libertarians on the court, I believe. It will be with the aid of those who want the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Mr. Keenan's goal is apparently to win, not to stick to the ACLU's principles. He spends years trying to get the cross taken down from Mount Soledad in San Diego, only to turn around and try to get it erected (figuratively speaking) in a classroom in Poway.
Not so. The ACLU tried to silence my website discussions about Stutz law firm, which represented the school district in this case. The Court of Appeal didn't go along with the ACLU's position, ruling instead that an injunction completely silencing my discussion of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz was "exceedingly unconstitutional."
Mr. Keenan bemoaned the fact that the San Diego Zoo has more members that the ACLU does, even when counting all ACLU members in the entire country. The reason might be that the ACLU compromised its principles a bit too often, pushing out ordinary people who demand equal treatment with the good old boys and girls in the ACLU power structure. In fact, Mr. Keenan said to me, "I'm surprised you're still a member." I'm not the one who has a problem with equal treatment for everyone, Mr. Keenan. But I'm curious, how many ordinary people has the ACLU intimidated into giving up their civil rights? They tried to get me to take down my website, but I didn't think much of their exhortations.
Mr. Loy tried to get me to obey an obviously unconstitutional injunction:
from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order,rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David
Mr. Loy must also have known I was not legally required to de-publish the information about Stutz law firm on my website while the injunction was under appeal. (The mandative aspects of an injunction are staying during that time.) Either Mr. Loy was shockingly ignorant of the law, or he was intentionally deceiving me about the law to protect Stutz law firm when he said, “The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...”. Why would he do this? To earn “civility” awards from the Bar Association? As a sort of trade-off of free speech rights, helping Dan Shinoff silence a teacher in exchange for Mr. Shinoff’s agreeing to settle student speech cases? To please donors to the ACLU who care less about education than they do about preserving the power of certain individuals in schools?
The Court of Appeal didn’t agree with Stutz law firm and the ACLU; on August 5, 2011 it ruled that the injunction Mr. Loy wanted me to obey was “exceedingly unconstitutional.” Of course, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that the injunction was unconstitutional when he insisted that I must obey it.
But here’s the larger question: why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy’s actions?
JUDGE JAMES STIVEN
I asked this question of ACLU board member Hon. James Stiven. He said, "I'm not getting involved because I'm a part of this organization." Wait a minute. Isn't that exactly why he has an obligation to get involved? He's on the board! He's in charge!
I said, "So if ACLU lawyers do something hostile to civil rights, you wouldn't intervene?"
He said, "I don't know that they have done anything wrong."
I said, "Yes you do. You're a judge."
Here's what they've done wrong:
1) To start with, David Loy aided and abetted a violation of my constitutional rights. I believe he intentionally gave me false legal advice in an effort to silence me.
2) The San Diego ACLU seeks and gets money by false advertising. I have heard ACLU speakers around town repeating what Kevin Keenan said at the 2012 Annual Membership meeting, "We guarantee rights for all people, not just the people we like. We stand up for equal protection of all people."
3) The above tactics have been approved at the highest levels of the San Diego ACLU. The San Diego ACLU Board knows about and tacitly approves the above actions.
The San Diego ACLU's odd relationship with local schools
ACLU's David Loy and Darren Chaker
See new posts re David Loy and earlier posts under his former name of David Blair-Loy.
The ACLU claims that it does not give legal advice regarding cases it refuses, but it turns out that this is false. The ACLU refused my case, but I was given very specific legal advice by San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy (formerly Blair-Loy) regarding the defamation case against me by Stutz law firm. In 2010 Mr. Loy wrote to me in an email that I must remove every mention of the names of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm, Daniel Shinoff and all the other Stutz attorneys from my website; he has never modified his position, even when I won in the Court of Appeal.
Why was Mr. Loy so determined to make sure that I obeyed the obviously unconstitutional order of Judge Judith Hayes? I'm a third-grade teacher, and I knew the injunction was unconstitutional. Clearly, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that he was insisting that I obey an unconstitutional order. I did not follow Mr. Loy's legal advice; I would rather go to jail than obey that order. (And, in fact, Stutz law firm asked Judge Hayes to put me in jail, but she declined.) Instead, I appealed to the California Court of Appeal without the ACLU's help. Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth argued before the Court of Appeal that my appeal should be dismissed because I disobeyed the trial court's order. Attorney Shawn Martin argued on my behalf that no Appeals Court had ever dismissed a case because an appellant disobeyed the very order that was being appealed.
The Court of Appeal asked Mr. Sleeth if he knew of any case law to back up his argument that since the injunction was a sanction, it therefore was not constrained by the Constitution. He said he had not been able to find any such case law, but he added, "I tried, believe me, I tried!" On August 5, 2011 the California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that Judge Hayes' (and Mr. Loy's) demand was "exceedingly unconstitutional."
As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral arguments, I was approached by Darren Chaker, who has a website sporting a photo of himself posing with a smiling David Blair-Loy. Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in exchange for Stutz law firm's agreement to not to make me pay attorney's fees. (Note to Mr. Chaker: the law does not allow attorney's fees in defamation cases.) I told Mr. Chaker that I would rather go to jail. He said, "I'm just advising you to do this because they are so nasty." Then Mr. Chaker went over to Jack Sleeth, and walked out of the building chatting with Mr. Sleeth!
So the question remains, why on earth would David Blair-Loy try to silence someone who criticized public school attorneys? Was he serving his own agenda, or the agenda of the board of the San Diego ACLU? Perhaps both. Loy's goal seems to be to maintain a reputation as "highly civil" with his fellow attorneys in San Diego, particularly Daniel Shinoff, who is often tasked by local schools with the job of limiting free speech.
But the ACLU board supported Mr. Loy's actions. Why? Were they trying to please big donors? I talked to board president David Higgins about this, but he claimed that he understood nothing about the law. I explained it to him carefully, but he continued to insist that he understood none of it. Why is such an individual in the position of board president of the San Diego ACLU? My guess is that he was chosen because he's willing to rubber-stamp every decision that David Loy makes, no matter how hostile it may be to civil rights. I conclude that Mr. Higgins does not really care about the constitution. I suspect he has a personal agenda that is limited to his own interests.
Here is the email sent to me by Mr. Loy:
from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order, rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David
In fact, Mr. Loy gave bad legal advice. The truth is that once I filed my appeal, the mandatory aspects of the injunction were automatically stayed, and I was not required to take down my web pages about Stutz. I think Mr. Loy knew this. What was your motive for giving me legal advice, Mr. Loy?
Following is the 2010-2011 ACLU board in San Diego, each member of which tacitly or actively supported Mr. Loy's actions:
William J. Aceves
Candace M. Carroll--Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
Paula Doss, J.D.--Director of Human Resources for Equal Opportunity at UCSD
Ruben Garcia
David R. Higgins, Ph.D.
Gregory G. "Greg" Rose
Hon. James Stiven--California Western University
Stephen Whitburn
Mary Cruz
Mark Adams
Pat Boyce
Linda Cory Allen
Michele Fahley
Deborah Fritsch
Kevin "KJ" Greene
Dwight K. Lomayesva
Mark Niblack
Susan Pollock
Yvonne Sanchez
Here is the 2011-2012 ACLU board in San Diego, some of whom are new and were not involved in Mr. Loy's actions:
Mark Adams
Nasser Barghouti (NEW)
Elizabeth Camarena (new)
Candace Carroll
Jeff Chinn (new)
Paula Doss
Michele Fahley
Ruben Garcia
Kevin "KJ" Greene
David Higgins, Board President
Jonathan Lin (new)
Dwight Lomayesva
Jim McElroy (new)
Mark Niblack
Susan Pollock
Greg Rose
Hon. James Stiven
Joanna Tan (AIG!!!) (new)
Stephen Whitburn
Paul Wong SDSU(new)
Andy Zlotnik (new)
See new posts re David Loy and earlier posts under his former name of David Blair-Loy.
The ACLU claims that it does not give legal advice regarding cases it refuses, but it turns out that this is false. The ACLU refused my case, but I was given very specific legal advice by San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy (formerly Blair-Loy) regarding the defamation case against me by Stutz law firm. In 2010 Mr. Loy wrote to me in an email that I must remove every mention of the names of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm, Daniel Shinoff and all the other Stutz attorneys from my website; he has never modified his position, even when I won in the Court of Appeal.
Why was Mr. Loy so determined to make sure that I obeyed the obviously unconstitutional order of Judge Judith Hayes? I'm a third-grade teacher, and I knew the injunction was unconstitutional. Clearly, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that he was insisting that I obey an unconstitutional order. I did not follow Mr. Loy's legal advice; I would rather go to jail than obey that order. (And, in fact, Stutz law firm asked Judge Hayes to put me in jail, but she declined.) Instead, I appealed to the California Court of Appeal without the ACLU's help. Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth argued before the Court of Appeal that my appeal should be dismissed because I disobeyed the trial court's order. Attorney Shawn Martin argued on my behalf that no Appeals Court had ever dismissed a case because an appellant disobeyed the very order that was being appealed.
The Court of Appeal asked Mr. Sleeth if he knew of any case law to back up his argument that since the injunction was a sanction, it therefore was not constrained by the Constitution. He said he had not been able to find any such case law, but he added, "I tried, believe me, I tried!" On August 5, 2011 the California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that Judge Hayes' (and Mr. Loy's) demand was "exceedingly unconstitutional."
As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral arguments, I was approached by Darren Chaker, who has a website sporting a photo of himself posing with a smiling David Blair-Loy. Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in exchange for Stutz law firm's agreement to not to make me pay attorney's fees. (Note to Mr. Chaker: the law does not allow attorney's fees in defamation cases.) I told Mr. Chaker that I would rather go to jail. He said, "I'm just advising you to do this because they are so nasty." Then Mr. Chaker went over to Jack Sleeth, and walked out of the building chatting with Mr. Sleeth!
So the question remains, why on earth would David Blair-Loy try to silence someone who criticized public school attorneys? Was he serving his own agenda, or the agenda of the board of the San Diego ACLU? Perhaps both. Loy's goal seems to be to maintain a reputation as "highly civil" with his fellow attorneys in San Diego, particularly Daniel Shinoff, who is often tasked by local schools with the job of limiting free speech.
But the ACLU board supported Mr. Loy's actions. Why? Were they trying to please big donors? I talked to board president David Higgins about this, but he claimed that he understood nothing about the law. I explained it to him carefully, but he continued to insist that he understood none of it. Why is such an individual in the position of board president of the San Diego ACLU? My guess is that he was chosen because he's willing to rubber-stamp every decision that David Loy makes, no matter how hostile it may be to civil rights. I conclude that Mr. Higgins does not really care about the constitution. I suspect he has a personal agenda that is limited to his own interests.
Here is the email sent to me by Mr. Loy:
from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order, rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David
In fact, Mr. Loy gave bad legal advice. The truth is that once I filed my appeal, the mandatory aspects of the injunction were automatically stayed, and I was not required to take down my web pages about Stutz. I think Mr. Loy knew this. What was your motive for giving me legal advice, Mr. Loy?
Following is the 2010-2011 ACLU board in San Diego, each member of which tacitly or actively supported Mr. Loy's actions:
William J. Aceves
Candace M. Carroll--Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
Paula Doss, J.D.--Director of Human Resources for Equal Opportunity at UCSD
Ruben Garcia
David R. Higgins, Ph.D.
Gregory G. "Greg" Rose
Hon. James Stiven--California Western University
Stephen Whitburn
Mary Cruz
Mark Adams
Pat Boyce
Linda Cory Allen
Michele Fahley
Deborah Fritsch
Kevin "KJ" Greene
Dwight K. Lomayesva
Mark Niblack
Susan Pollock
Yvonne Sanchez
Here is the 2011-2012 ACLU board in San Diego, some of whom are new and were not involved in Mr. Loy's actions:
Mark Adams
Nasser Barghouti (NEW)
Elizabeth Camarena (new)
Candace Carroll
Jeff Chinn (new)
Paula Doss
Michele Fahley
Ruben Garcia
Kevin "KJ" Greene
David Higgins, Board President
Jonathan Lin (new)
Dwight Lomayesva
Jim McElroy (new)
Mark Niblack
Susan Pollock
Greg Rose
Hon. James Stiven
Joanna Tan (AIG!!!) (new)
Stephen Whitburn
Paul Wong SDSU(new)
Andy Zlotnik (new)
Monday, December 5, 2011
Witness tampering in Sandusky case?
A lawyer for one of the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach who now faces 40 counts of child sex abuse, says Sandusky's long New York Times interview raises new questions about whether he may have attempted to influence witnesses just before he got indicted. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
Sandusky's dinner with alleged victims raises new legal questions
msnbc.com
By Lisa RiordanSeville and Hannah Rappleye
NBC News
While under investigation by a criminal grand jury for allegedly sexually abusing young boys, Jerry Sandusky said he spoke to and even dined with men now identified as his victims. The 67-year-old former Penn State assistant coach accused of sexually abusing young boys for more than a decade holds up these encounters as proof of his innocence, but a lawyer for at least one of the victims believes they could be criminal.
“One of the questions that raised in my mind, ‘Was this an effort on his part to tamper with witnesses?’” said Howard Janet, a Baltimore attorney representing the man known in the grand jury report of Sandusky as Victim 6. “Was it intended as a way to influence the public or the prospective jury pool?”
In early November, Sandusky was charged with 40 counts of sexually abusing boys over a period of about 14 years. But the community knew of the investigation months earlier.
The story went public on March 31, when the Patriot News newspaper broke the story that a grand jury had been convened to look into allegations that Sandusky abused a 15-year-old Clinton County, Pa., boy, now known as Victim 1.
The following day, Sandusky’s lawyer, Joe Amendola, issued a statement saying that his client was prepared to fight.
“Should the allegations, as set forth in today’s newspaper article eventually lead to the institution of criminal charges against Jerry, Jerry fully intends to establish his innocence and put these false allegations to rest forever,” he said.
Interviews with lawyers and the grand jury report show that in the months that followed, Sandusky made several attempts to contact boys who had participated in the charity he founded -- the Second Mile – and who later testified before the grand jury, prompting Janet to question whether Sandusky tried to sway the outcome of the investigation.
Witness tampering in the state of Pennsylvania is defined as any act with the intent to intimidate a witness or victim to “refrain from reporting a crime, withhold or give false or misleading information, or to ignore or evade requests for information or a summons.”
Under state penal codes, witness tampering is considered equal to the most serious offense a defendant is charged with. Among the charges against Sandusky are multiple first-degree felonies, which carry maximum sentences of up to 20 years in prison.
Sandusky has not been charged with tampering or intimidation of witnesses.
A 'reunion' dinner
In July, Sandusky called Victim 6 and asked him to dinner. Sandusky framed it as a “reunion” of former Second Mile children, Janet said. Police asked the alleged victim to wear a wire, Janet said, but he eventually decided not to because he was nervous.
advertisement
Victim 6 testified before the grand jury that Sandusky showered with him on the Penn State campus. Sandusky was investigated in 1998 after the boy’s mother reported the incident to the police. Sandusky at the time admitted that he had showered with the boy – as well as another youth whose name surfaced in the subsequent investigation -- and was advised by a Penn State University detective not to do it again. The district attorney closed the case.
On the night of the July dinner, Victim 6 said he met Sandusky at his home then continued on, along with Sandusky’s wife, to a local restaurant. Janet said his client was “surprised” to find no other former Second Mile children he knew among those at the restaurant, but he finished the dinner and reported back to the police.
In an interview with NBC, Janet said it was “inconceivable” that Sandusky did not know he was under investigation at the time. “It was public knowledge and it was widely reported,” he said.
According to Amendola, Sandusky’s lawyer, Victim 2 was also at the dinner. Victim 2 is the boy who Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary testified to seeing being raped by Sandusky in the showers in Penn State’s Lasch Football Building in 2002. Victim 2, however, has not been identified by prosecutors and did not testify at the grand jury.
Amendola told reporters in November that a man he believes is Victim 2 had appeared in his office weeks before to say he had no sexual contact with Sandusky.
Amendola said that both Victims 2 and 6 maintained a relationship with the Sanduskys in recent years, including visiting their home and attending other dinners. The July dinner, he said, was friendly. “Neither of them had any knowledge 2 or 6 had been or were going to be questioned” by the grand jury, and there was no mention of the investigation, Amendola wrote in a statement to NBC.
“Jerry and Dottie have maintained positive contact with 2 and 6 as well as many other kids they helped who have grown into adulthood over the years,” he said. ”They are both deeply saddened and perplexed by the allegations.”
Sandusky and his wife also reached out to at least one other alleged victim prior to his testifying, according to the grand jury report. Victim 7, a former Second Mile participant who Sandusky allegedly met around 1994, told the grand jury that weeks before his testimony, Sandusky, his wife, and an unidentified friend left several messages on his voicemail. It had been nearly two years since he last spoke or had contact with Sandusky. Victim 7 said he did not return their calls.
advertisement
Sandusky confirmed to the The New York Times that he had contacted at least one of his accusers but did so believing he would serve as a character witness. He said he did not know the prosecution had listed the individual as a victim.
An unorthodox defense strategy
Sandusky’s defense has so far been unorthodox. He spoke live to NBC’s Bob Costas following his arrest and last week gave an extended interview to the New York Times.
Asked by Costas if he was sexually attracted to young boys, Sandusky said, "Sexually attracted, no -- I enjoy young people, I love to be around them."
The New York Times revisited the comment last week in an extended, four-hour interview in which reporter Jo Becker asked Sandusky about his answer to Costa's question.
"If I say, no, I'm not attracted to boys, that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people, boys, girls," Sandusky said.
Amendola, sitting nearby, jumped in. "Yeah, but not sexually, you're attracted because you enjoy spending time..." he said.
"Right, I enjoy, that's what I was tryin' to say, answer that," Sandusky clarified. "I enjoy spending time with young people. I enjoy spending time with people."
Sandusky's dinner with alleged victims raises new legal questions
msnbc.com
By Lisa RiordanSeville and Hannah Rappleye
NBC News
While under investigation by a criminal grand jury for allegedly sexually abusing young boys, Jerry Sandusky said he spoke to and even dined with men now identified as his victims. The 67-year-old former Penn State assistant coach accused of sexually abusing young boys for more than a decade holds up these encounters as proof of his innocence, but a lawyer for at least one of the victims believes they could be criminal.
“One of the questions that raised in my mind, ‘Was this an effort on his part to tamper with witnesses?’” said Howard Janet, a Baltimore attorney representing the man known in the grand jury report of Sandusky as Victim 6. “Was it intended as a way to influence the public or the prospective jury pool?”
In early November, Sandusky was charged with 40 counts of sexually abusing boys over a period of about 14 years. But the community knew of the investigation months earlier.
The story went public on March 31, when the Patriot News newspaper broke the story that a grand jury had been convened to look into allegations that Sandusky abused a 15-year-old Clinton County, Pa., boy, now known as Victim 1.
The following day, Sandusky’s lawyer, Joe Amendola, issued a statement saying that his client was prepared to fight.
“Should the allegations, as set forth in today’s newspaper article eventually lead to the institution of criminal charges against Jerry, Jerry fully intends to establish his innocence and put these false allegations to rest forever,” he said.
Interviews with lawyers and the grand jury report show that in the months that followed, Sandusky made several attempts to contact boys who had participated in the charity he founded -- the Second Mile – and who later testified before the grand jury, prompting Janet to question whether Sandusky tried to sway the outcome of the investigation.
Witness tampering in the state of Pennsylvania is defined as any act with the intent to intimidate a witness or victim to “refrain from reporting a crime, withhold or give false or misleading information, or to ignore or evade requests for information or a summons.”
Under state penal codes, witness tampering is considered equal to the most serious offense a defendant is charged with. Among the charges against Sandusky are multiple first-degree felonies, which carry maximum sentences of up to 20 years in prison.
Sandusky has not been charged with tampering or intimidation of witnesses.
A 'reunion' dinner
In July, Sandusky called Victim 6 and asked him to dinner. Sandusky framed it as a “reunion” of former Second Mile children, Janet said. Police asked the alleged victim to wear a wire, Janet said, but he eventually decided not to because he was nervous.
advertisement
Victim 6 testified before the grand jury that Sandusky showered with him on the Penn State campus. Sandusky was investigated in 1998 after the boy’s mother reported the incident to the police. Sandusky at the time admitted that he had showered with the boy – as well as another youth whose name surfaced in the subsequent investigation -- and was advised by a Penn State University detective not to do it again. The district attorney closed the case.
On the night of the July dinner, Victim 6 said he met Sandusky at his home then continued on, along with Sandusky’s wife, to a local restaurant. Janet said his client was “surprised” to find no other former Second Mile children he knew among those at the restaurant, but he finished the dinner and reported back to the police.
In an interview with NBC, Janet said it was “inconceivable” that Sandusky did not know he was under investigation at the time. “It was public knowledge and it was widely reported,” he said.
According to Amendola, Sandusky’s lawyer, Victim 2 was also at the dinner. Victim 2 is the boy who Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary testified to seeing being raped by Sandusky in the showers in Penn State’s Lasch Football Building in 2002. Victim 2, however, has not been identified by prosecutors and did not testify at the grand jury.
Amendola told reporters in November that a man he believes is Victim 2 had appeared in his office weeks before to say he had no sexual contact with Sandusky.
Amendola said that both Victims 2 and 6 maintained a relationship with the Sanduskys in recent years, including visiting their home and attending other dinners. The July dinner, he said, was friendly. “Neither of them had any knowledge 2 or 6 had been or were going to be questioned” by the grand jury, and there was no mention of the investigation, Amendola wrote in a statement to NBC.
“Jerry and Dottie have maintained positive contact with 2 and 6 as well as many other kids they helped who have grown into adulthood over the years,” he said. ”They are both deeply saddened and perplexed by the allegations.”
Sandusky and his wife also reached out to at least one other alleged victim prior to his testifying, according to the grand jury report. Victim 7, a former Second Mile participant who Sandusky allegedly met around 1994, told the grand jury that weeks before his testimony, Sandusky, his wife, and an unidentified friend left several messages on his voicemail. It had been nearly two years since he last spoke or had contact with Sandusky. Victim 7 said he did not return their calls.
advertisement
Sandusky confirmed to the The New York Times that he had contacted at least one of his accusers but did so believing he would serve as a character witness. He said he did not know the prosecution had listed the individual as a victim.
An unorthodox defense strategy
Sandusky’s defense has so far been unorthodox. He spoke live to NBC’s Bob Costas following his arrest and last week gave an extended interview to the New York Times.
Asked by Costas if he was sexually attracted to young boys, Sandusky said, "Sexually attracted, no -- I enjoy young people, I love to be around them."
The New York Times revisited the comment last week in an extended, four-hour interview in which reporter Jo Becker asked Sandusky about his answer to Costa's question.
"If I say, no, I'm not attracted to boys, that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people, boys, girls," Sandusky said.
Amendola, sitting nearby, jumped in. "Yeah, but not sexually, you're attracted because you enjoy spending time..." he said.
"Right, I enjoy, that's what I was tryin' to say, answer that," Sandusky clarified. "I enjoy spending time with young people. I enjoy spending time with people."
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz answers special interrogatories
It's always instructive to learn how a big, successful law firm answers special interrogatories.
Rancho California RV Resort Owners Association v. Outdoor Resorts of American, Inc.
STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ DEFENDANT OUTDOOR ...
www.morrissullivanlaw.com
STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ. A Professional Corporation.
Robert R. Templeton, Jr., Esq., State Bar No. 116557.
Casey Pope, Esq
Rancho California RV Resort Owners Association v. Outdoor Resorts of American, Inc.
STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ DEFENDANT OUTDOOR ...
www.morrissullivanlaw.com
STUTZ, ARTIANO, SHINOFF & HOLTZ. A Professional Corporation.
Robert R. Templeton, Jr., Esq., State Bar No. 116557.
Casey Pope, Esq
Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
It's perfectly obvious to most of us that Stephen Glass would fit seamlessly into many, perhaps most, law firms. Why is the State Bar Association pretending that respect for the truth is a requirement for a lawyer's license? It isn't. It absolutely isn't.
Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
By Nancy McCarthy
California Bar Journal
December 2011
For the first time in 11 years, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a would-be lawyer denied admission to the State Bar because of moral character issues. The bar petitioned the court to consider the case of Stephen Glass, a disgraced former journalist who won national infamy for making up whole or parts of stories and now wants to practice law in California. Although the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) denied Glass admission on moral character grounds, it was overruled by both a State Bar Court hearing judge and a split review panel that said he should be admitted. The Supreme Court granted review last month on a petition from the CBE.
Stephen Glass
Glass
“Journalism and law share core fundamental principles ― those of common honesty and trust,” wrote bar attorney Rachel Grunberg in the petition seeking review. She added that Glass “literally shattered these basic values in the journalism profession, without redemption.” The Committee of Bar Examiners believes Glass “has not established the requisite showing of rehabilitation, given his past misdeeds that have lingered without redemption, to be certified as an attorney” in California, Grunberg wrote.
Glass was once described by Vanity Fair as “the most sought-after young reporter in the nation’s capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone.” The magazine went on to explain that Glass spun “a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism.” The New Republic fired him, finding fabricated material in 27 articles bearing Glass’ byline at the magazine.
It wasn’t until 11 years after “he was outted as a fraud,” Grunberg wrote, that Glass finally compiled a comprehensive list of all of his fabricated articles, totaling 42. He attended Georgetown law school while still working at TNR and authoring false articles, he took and passed the July 2000 New York bar exam, applied for a moral character determination there in 2002 but withdrew after learning his admission would likely be denied, published a book and appeared on 60 Minutes in 2003, and took and passed the California bar exam in 2009.
Glass argues that his current moral character makes him eligible to become an attorney and that he presented “overwhelming evidence” of his rehabilitation. Indeed, Martin Peretz, the editor of The New Republic, which printed the lion’s share of his fabrications, flew from Massachusetts to California to testify on Glass’ behalf before the State Bar Court. Glass said in a submission to the Supreme Court that he was forgiven by other editors as well, including Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone and Lewis Lapham of Harper’s.
Glass presented more than 20 witnesses who testified to his “good moral character,” apologized publicly for his actions, underwent therapy and performed extensive pro bono work. His misconduct ended when he was 25, he said, and his values have changed.
Grunberg dismissed virtually all his arguments and said true rehabilitation means an unblemished record ― something Glass cannot provide. She said he made misrepresentations to the New York bar when trying to win admission there, his pro bono work was part of his regular duties as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm, and his remorse came more than a decade late, only “when it suited him, and not when it was most needed by his victims.”
Further, the bar said Glass profited from his misdeeds, earning $190,000, less agent’s fees, from publication of The Fabulist, a fictionalized account of his lies. Glass said he used the profits for his legal fees and therapy, but the bar said the book proceeds were used “exclusively for his own personal benefit.” The concept of profiting from wrongdoing “appears inconsistent with the notion of moral rehabilitation,” Grunberg wrote, adding that Glass appeared to be “cashing in on his infamy.”
Arthur Margolis, Glass’ attorney, declined to comment. Glass works as a paralegal at Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley LLP in Los Angeles.
No date for oral arguments has been set, but Glass has 45 days from the date of the Nov. 16 court order to file a supplemental brief. The bar then has 15 days to file a reply.
Supreme Court will hear disgraced journalist’s moral character case
By Nancy McCarthy
California Bar Journal
December 2011
For the first time in 11 years, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of a would-be lawyer denied admission to the State Bar because of moral character issues. The bar petitioned the court to consider the case of Stephen Glass, a disgraced former journalist who won national infamy for making up whole or parts of stories and now wants to practice law in California. Although the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) denied Glass admission on moral character grounds, it was overruled by both a State Bar Court hearing judge and a split review panel that said he should be admitted. The Supreme Court granted review last month on a petition from the CBE.
Stephen Glass
Glass
“Journalism and law share core fundamental principles ― those of common honesty and trust,” wrote bar attorney Rachel Grunberg in the petition seeking review. She added that Glass “literally shattered these basic values in the journalism profession, without redemption.” The Committee of Bar Examiners believes Glass “has not established the requisite showing of rehabilitation, given his past misdeeds that have lingered without redemption, to be certified as an attorney” in California, Grunberg wrote.
Glass was once described by Vanity Fair as “the most sought-after young reporter in the nation’s capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone.” The magazine went on to explain that Glass spun “a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism.” The New Republic fired him, finding fabricated material in 27 articles bearing Glass’ byline at the magazine.
It wasn’t until 11 years after “he was outted as a fraud,” Grunberg wrote, that Glass finally compiled a comprehensive list of all of his fabricated articles, totaling 42. He attended Georgetown law school while still working at TNR and authoring false articles, he took and passed the July 2000 New York bar exam, applied for a moral character determination there in 2002 but withdrew after learning his admission would likely be denied, published a book and appeared on 60 Minutes in 2003, and took and passed the California bar exam in 2009.
Glass argues that his current moral character makes him eligible to become an attorney and that he presented “overwhelming evidence” of his rehabilitation. Indeed, Martin Peretz, the editor of The New Republic, which printed the lion’s share of his fabrications, flew from Massachusetts to California to testify on Glass’ behalf before the State Bar Court. Glass said in a submission to the Supreme Court that he was forgiven by other editors as well, including Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone and Lewis Lapham of Harper’s.
Glass presented more than 20 witnesses who testified to his “good moral character,” apologized publicly for his actions, underwent therapy and performed extensive pro bono work. His misconduct ended when he was 25, he said, and his values have changed.
Grunberg dismissed virtually all his arguments and said true rehabilitation means an unblemished record ― something Glass cannot provide. She said he made misrepresentations to the New York bar when trying to win admission there, his pro bono work was part of his regular duties as a paralegal for a Los Angeles law firm, and his remorse came more than a decade late, only “when it suited him, and not when it was most needed by his victims.”
Further, the bar said Glass profited from his misdeeds, earning $190,000, less agent’s fees, from publication of The Fabulist, a fictionalized account of his lies. Glass said he used the profits for his legal fees and therapy, but the bar said the book proceeds were used “exclusively for his own personal benefit.” The concept of profiting from wrongdoing “appears inconsistent with the notion of moral rehabilitation,” Grunberg wrote, adding that Glass appeared to be “cashing in on his infamy.”
Arthur Margolis, Glass’ attorney, declined to comment. Glass works as a paralegal at Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley LLP in Los Angeles.
No date for oral arguments has been set, but Glass has 45 days from the date of the Nov. 16 court order to file a supplemental brief. The bar then has 15 days to file a reply.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Did the executive director and the vice-president of the California State Bar divert funds to a sham charity?
Orange County Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" Asked to Produce all Documents Submitted to the Internal Revenue Service Within the Past Three Years
by lesliebrodie Pro
08/09/2011
Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" has been served with a demand to produce all records it had submitted to the Internal Revenue Service within the past three years, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.
The request followed shortly on the heels of a letter informing State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn about the existence of convenient circumstances surrounding sham charity CaliforniaALL and his publication -- "Voice of OC."
More specifically, and according to a source, the fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of sham charity CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting Mr. Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC", has caused the source to entertain the thought that "Voice of OC" may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.
CaliforniaALL, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity, was the brainchild of Ruthe Ashley (a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and Vice-President of the State Bar of California) and Peter Arth Jr., Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey.
In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra), including a sub-rosa contribution of $769,247.00 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation.)
CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June of 2010...
by lesliebrodie Pro
08/09/2011
Orange County's Nonprofit Investigative News Agency "Voice of OC" has been served with a demand to produce all records it had submitted to the Internal Revenue Service within the past three years, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned.
The request followed shortly on the heels of a letter informing State Bar Executive Director Joe Dunn about the existence of convenient circumstances surrounding sham charity CaliforniaALL and his publication -- "Voice of OC."
More specifically, and according to a source, the fact that some individuals and entities involved in the creation of sham charity CaliforniaALL and the subsequent unlawful transfer of $780,000 from the Cal Bar Foundation to CaliforniaALL were also involved in assisting Mr. Dunn with the creation of "Voice of OC", has caused the source to entertain the thought that "Voice of OC" may have been a recipient, at least in part, of the $780,000 misappropriated from the State Bar of California.
CaliforniaALL, a 501(c)(3) charitable entity, was the brainchild of Ruthe Ashley (a Diversity Officer at CalPERS and Vice-President of the State Bar of California) and Peter Arth Jr., Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey.
In its brief existence from 2008 to 2010, CaliforniaALL collected close to $2 million from utility companies (AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, Sempra), including a sub-rosa contribution of $769,247.00 from the State Bar of California Foundation (DBA California Bar Foundation.)
CaliforniaALL was abruptly dissolved in June of 2010...
A strip mine apparently isn't a mine
Sukut Construction v. Rimrock CA LLC (Cal. Ct. App. - Sept. 30, 2011)
Thoughts on recent Ninth Circuit and California appellate cases from Professor Shaun Martin at the University of San Diego School of Law.
California Appellate Report
Shaun Martin
October 20, 2011
A strip mine apparently isn't a mine.
This according to an opinion that -- perhaps deliberately -- nowhere uses the term "strip mine." Preferring instead to call the property here a quarry. Because holding that a strip mine isn't a mine would seem even more counterintuitive. (The terms are essentially synonyms, though often suggest what types of rock/minerals are sought from the mine. Quarries often yield building rocks/gravel and dimension stones, whereas strip mines often yield coal, copper, etc.)
Notwithstanding how we use these terms, I might think that the Court of Appeal's decision made sense if the quarry/strip mine at issue here was just dredging out sand or landfill or the like. But when you're deliberately taking out certain types of rocks -- i.e., granite, pebbles, etc. -- it seems to me that it's a mine. Even without an opinion of the Attorney General that, as here, suggests that a quarry is indeed a mine. Something that's entitled to deference.
It's admittedly an issue that involves contextual statutory interpretation. But if it looks like a mine, gets rocks like a mine, sounds like a mine, and uses explosives like a mine, then it's probably a mine.
Thoughts on recent Ninth Circuit and California appellate cases from Professor Shaun Martin at the University of San Diego School of Law.
California Appellate Report
Shaun Martin
October 20, 2011
A strip mine apparently isn't a mine.
This according to an opinion that -- perhaps deliberately -- nowhere uses the term "strip mine." Preferring instead to call the property here a quarry. Because holding that a strip mine isn't a mine would seem even more counterintuitive. (The terms are essentially synonyms, though often suggest what types of rock/minerals are sought from the mine. Quarries often yield building rocks/gravel and dimension stones, whereas strip mines often yield coal, copper, etc.)
Notwithstanding how we use these terms, I might think that the Court of Appeal's decision made sense if the quarry/strip mine at issue here was just dredging out sand or landfill or the like. But when you're deliberately taking out certain types of rocks -- i.e., granite, pebbles, etc. -- it seems to me that it's a mine. Even without an opinion of the Attorney General that, as here, suggests that a quarry is indeed a mine. Something that's entitled to deference.
It's admittedly an issue that involves contextual statutory interpretation. But if it looks like a mine, gets rocks like a mine, sounds like a mine, and uses explosives like a mine, then it's probably a mine.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
San Diego D.A. finally charges attorney Patricia Gregory for stealing from clients
Lawyer charged with fraud after Watchdog report
Prosecutors allege she took more than $100,000 from 3 clients
By Jeff McDonald
SDUT
September 29, 2011
Carlsbad attorney Patricia Gregory was charged Thursday with 11 felonies for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from clients and practicing law without a license.
The charges came less than two weeks after The Watchdog included Gregory as the leading example in a report about lawyers whose cases at the State Bar Court did not result in them being prosecuted criminally.
According to the six-page complaint, Gregory stole more than $100,000 from three clients in 2007 and 2008. She also wrongly practiced law or advertised legal services earlier this year, the complaint says.
Gregory was charged with five counts of fraud, five counts of grand theft and one count of unauthorized practice of law. She faces up to four years in state prison on each count, and a $10,000 fine. She was ordered to appear in court Oct. 18.
Gregory was recommended for disbarment in March after the State Bar Court concluded she improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from a client trust fund. Her license is invalid during an appeal of the recommendation.
She told The Watchdog that there are inaccuracies in the criminal complaint, that she was entitled to every dollar she withdrew as legal fees, and that the alleged victims received more legal services than they paid for.
“You cannot ‘steal’ something in which you have an interest,” Gregory said by email.
Former client Denise Doll, one of the three victims identified in the complaint, said she was pleased to learn of the charges but said it should never have taken so long to file a criminal case.
“This woman has damaged me greatly,” Doll said. “It’s been over two years.”
Luwain Ng is another of the alleged victims. According to a civil suit she and Doll filed, Gregory stole the proceeds of the family home that was sold when Ng and her husband divorced.
“I plan on attending every single hearing,” Ng said. “I want my money back. I’ve been waiting since 2008. I want justice served.”
Ng said she would rather have seen Gregory arrested and jailed instead of being issued a court date. She said she is afraid her former lawyer will flee prosecution.
“What then?” Ng asked.
According to Gregory’s website, she used to work for the District Attorney’s Office in child support enforcement. The office declined to discuss its prosecution strategy but said Gregory was treated like any other defendant.
“Attorneys are treated no differently than any other defendant,” said Tanya Sierra, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. “In terms of her case, we can’t comment because it is open.”
Gregory’s was one of four cases in a report by The Watchdog earlier this month about lawyers whose misdeeds are adjudicated by the State Bar Court but not prosecuted criminally. The District Attorney’s Office said many factors come into play, including different standards of proof in bar court and criminal court.
Prosecutors allege she took more than $100,000 from 3 clients
By Jeff McDonald
SDUT
September 29, 2011
Carlsbad attorney Patricia Gregory was charged Thursday with 11 felonies for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from clients and practicing law without a license.
The charges came less than two weeks after The Watchdog included Gregory as the leading example in a report about lawyers whose cases at the State Bar Court did not result in them being prosecuted criminally.
According to the six-page complaint, Gregory stole more than $100,000 from three clients in 2007 and 2008. She also wrongly practiced law or advertised legal services earlier this year, the complaint says.
Gregory was charged with five counts of fraud, five counts of grand theft and one count of unauthorized practice of law. She faces up to four years in state prison on each count, and a $10,000 fine. She was ordered to appear in court Oct. 18.
Gregory was recommended for disbarment in March after the State Bar Court concluded she improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from a client trust fund. Her license is invalid during an appeal of the recommendation.
She told The Watchdog that there are inaccuracies in the criminal complaint, that she was entitled to every dollar she withdrew as legal fees, and that the alleged victims received more legal services than they paid for.
“You cannot ‘steal’ something in which you have an interest,” Gregory said by email.
Former client Denise Doll, one of the three victims identified in the complaint, said she was pleased to learn of the charges but said it should never have taken so long to file a criminal case.
“This woman has damaged me greatly,” Doll said. “It’s been over two years.”
Luwain Ng is another of the alleged victims. According to a civil suit she and Doll filed, Gregory stole the proceeds of the family home that was sold when Ng and her husband divorced.
“I plan on attending every single hearing,” Ng said. “I want my money back. I’ve been waiting since 2008. I want justice served.”
Ng said she would rather have seen Gregory arrested and jailed instead of being issued a court date. She said she is afraid her former lawyer will flee prosecution.
“What then?” Ng asked.
According to Gregory’s website, she used to work for the District Attorney’s Office in child support enforcement. The office declined to discuss its prosecution strategy but said Gregory was treated like any other defendant.
“Attorneys are treated no differently than any other defendant,” said Tanya Sierra, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. “In terms of her case, we can’t comment because it is open.”
Gregory’s was one of four cases in a report by The Watchdog earlier this month about lawyers whose misdeeds are adjudicated by the State Bar Court but not prosecuted criminally. The District Attorney’s Office said many factors come into play, including different standards of proof in bar court and criminal court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)