In the past Craig Kamansky, settled the case brought against him by a juvenile whom said Kamansky, as his guardian, sexually preyed on the boy.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/73/368/556869/
Kamansky also destroyed evidence .
http://cjp.ca.gov/res/docs/Public_Reprovals/Kamansky_9-14-92.pdf
Original Title
Craig Kamansky, from IVAMS, should be removed as an California Continuing Education Provider
In the past Craig Kamansky, settled the case brought against him by a juvenile whom said Kamansky, as his guardian, sexually preyed on the boy.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/73/368/556869/
Kamansky also destroyed evidence .
http://cjp.ca.gov/res/docs/Public_Reprovals/Kamansky_9-14-92.pdf
In the past Craig Kamansky, settled the case brought against him by a juvenile whom said Kamansky, as his guardian, sexually preyed on the boy.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/73/368/556869/
Kamansky also destroyed evidence .
http://cjp.ca.gov/res/docs/Public_Reprovals/Kamansky_9-14-92.pdf
Super.Ct No. BC452239 IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PATRICIA J. BARRY, Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent, vs. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner. __________________________________ RESPONDENT PATRICIA BARRYS APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF AND REQUEST TO REMOVE CRAIG KAMANSKY AS MCLE PROVIDER BASED ON HIS NOTORIOUS HISTORY AS A PROBABLE PEDOPHILE AND CJP PUBLIC REPROVAL FOR ERASING WHAT HIS VICTIM CLAIMED WAS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY; DECLARATION OF PATRICIA J. BARRY; EXHS. 1, 2 PATRICIA J. BARRY (State Bar No.59116) 634 S. Spring St., Ste 823 Los Angeles, Ca 90014 Tele.(213) 995-0734 Fax (213) 995-0735 pbarrylegal@gmail.com Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent in propria persona 1 S214058 Court of Appeal Case No.B242054 Super.Ct No. BC452239 IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PATRICIA J. BARRY, Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent, vs. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner. __________________________________ TO: HONORABLE CHIEF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE:
Respondent PATRICIA J. BARRY (Barry) requests the following relief: That she be permitted to file the attached Answering Brief. She also requests that Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye remove Craig Kamansky as MCLE provider. Attached as Exh. 1 is a flier advertising him as MCLE actually teaching Elimination of Bias. Attached as Exh. 2 is an accurate account of Kamanskys notorious history and reputation of being a pedophile. He paid $300,000.00 to Jason Bumpus for sexually abusing him, including for sodomy. Kamansky received a public reproval from the Commission on Judicial Performance for erasing 2 video which his victim Jason Bumpus claimed had child porn on it. Bumpus ended up a suicide. This is a hard slap by the Bar in the face of all children who have been sexually abused. Barry is deeply offended by the Bars preference, ratification, and support of someone like Kamansky. It reinforces Barrys argument that the Bar, like the Courts, the D.A., and police regularly deny equal court, D.A., and police services to protective parents and their abused children, and regularly reward batterers and pedophiles as in this case. Please remove Kamansky as a MCLE provider and bar him from ever serving in that capacity. DATED: September 25, 2014 PATRICIA J. BARRY DECLARATION OF PATRICIA J. BARRY I, PATRICIA J. BARRY, declare the following: 1. I am the attorney/plaintff/appellant/respondent in this proceeding. I testify to the following based on my own direct knowledge. To the extent the information is based on my understanding or belief, I believe the matters to be true. 2. I request relief from default. Time absolutely got away from me. I have been working nonstop with only a parttime employee. In the 3 last three months, I have filed briefs in two state court appeals and four in the Ninth Circuit. One of the cases, is for a battered woman and her two children, involving San Mateo courts, the D. A., and the sheriff. I spent days and days on the brief. I could not reduce the word count to 14,000 words. It is a 20,000 word brief discussing what is happening to most mothers alleging abuse of their children in family and juvenile court. 3. I do apologize for the delay. I request that the Court accept the attached Answering Brief. It is, except for the Statement of the Issue, the Brief which I filed in the Court of Appeal. 4. I also request that Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye immediately remove Craig Kamansky as a MCLE provider and bar him from ever serving in that capacity again. Attached as Exh. 1 is a flier advertising him as a MCLE provider on, of all things, an expert on elimination of bias. Really? 5. How can any attorney find him credible? His reputation is that of a serial pedophile. Jason Bumpus, one of his victims, sued him in federal court. The Harris sisters were going to be witnesses, testifying that he sexually abused them as well. Desperate to hide the facts of his crimes against children, aided and abetted by a corrupt San Bernardino Sheriff Dept, Mr. Kamansky settled Mr. Bumpus case for $300,000.00. I attach 4 as Exh. 2 an extensive internet article on Mr. Kamansky. I have the federal complaint filed by Mr. Bumpus against Mr. Kamansky. I may be able to obtain more documentation of what evidence came out in the case against Mr. Kamansky. 6. This is shameful misconduct on the part of the Bar. It is however consistent with the misogyny it shows given who gets prosecuted by the Bar and who does not. 7. I request, for the sake of us all, that Her Honor issue an order barring Mr. Kamansky from serving as a MCLE provider ever. I declare the foregoing to be true and correct under penalty of perjury. Executed this 25th day of September 2014 in Los Angeles, California.
PATRICIA J. BARRY
EXH. 1 EXH. 2 1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/2569?o=1&d=-1 Judge Kamansky May Have Paid $300,000 to Settle Molestation case. Kamansky was on the election ballot for March 7, 2000. Please help with a letter writing campaign Fearing revelations in open court that could have threatened his judicial and legal career. San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Craig Kamansky elected to settle a lawsuit against him out of court by agreeing to pay $300,000 to a 24-year-old man who alleged he had been molested by the judge. According to Valley Wide Newspaper. Valley Wide Newspaper Kamansky May Have Paid $300,000 To Settle Molestation Case By Mark Gutglueck- 06-18-98 Fearing revelations in open court that could have threatened his judicial and legal career. San Bernardino County, California Superior Court Judge Craig Kamansky last month elected to settle a lawsuit against him out of court by agreeing to pay $300,000 to a 24-year-old man who alleged he had been molested by the judge nine years ago. Valley Wide Newspapers has learned. Former California Assemblyman Terry Goggin an attorney representing Jason Bumpus, accepted the terms of settlement offered by Kamansky's attorney, Thomas Brayton, two weeks before the matter was scheduled to come to trial in Los Angeles Federal Court on May 26. In the lawsuit first lodged in 1995, Goggin maintained that Bumpus, who was only 15 when he first was brought before Kamansky as a criminal defendant in juvenile court in 1989, had been victimized by Kamansky, the juvenile court system and juvenile authorities in both San Bernardino and Riverside counties. In the first two years after the suit was filed, all defendants except Kamansky were excused from the case. In 1989, Bumpus was arrested for pilfering cigarettes at a San Bernardino County store. It was at that point that Bumpus came before Kamansky, who was then assigned to San Bernardino County Juvenile Court as part of routine rotation. Almost immediately afterward, Kamansky made arrangement, through contact with juvenile authorities in Riverside County and by trading on his authority as a judge, to allow the youth to take up residence in Kamansky's home in Highland. 2 In 1991, Bumpus stole a pickup from a dealership in Chino and drove it to Beaumont. When a policeman confronted him, the teen attempted to flee. The policeman drew his gun and wounded the suspect in a hail of gunfire. On the mend from his injuries, the youth told counselors at Riverside County Juvenile Hall's medical ward that while he was living with Kamansky, the judge had sexually abused him. A complaint regarding the entire range of circumstances pertaining to Kamansky's interaction with Bumpus, both privately and on the bench, was made to the Commission on Judicial Performances, the state agency charged with overseeing the comporliment of judges. During the course of its investigation, the Commission requested from Kamansky several items of evidence, including the video tapes noted as being present in the Kamansky residence by sheriff's investigators when they carried out their search. Bumpus told investigators that he had viewed several of those videotapes with Kamansky as a prelude to the sexual activity Kamansky initiated with him. After reviewing the matter, The Commission on Judicial Performance in September 1992 publicly reproved Kamansky for having altered evidence, though it fell short of rendering a judgment on the validity of Bumpus allegations. Judge Kamansky's actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judiciary into disrepute," a letter signed by the commission's chief counsel, Victoria Henly, stated. The commission came to to that conclusion, according to Henly, as the result of the judge's "bad faith" attempt to alter evidence, requested by the commission during the course of its investigation. The commission declined to clarify the matter any further than to explain that certain videotapes had been requested from Kamansky, that Kamansky had deliberately recorded other material on the tapes before releasing them to the commission, and that Kamansky had repeatedly denied altering the tapes until finally admitting the erasures and recordings when confronted with evidence that he had done so. Kamansky accepted the rebuke without comment, in so doing keeping the events that had prompted the investigation under wraps and thus dodging a bullet that conceivably would have ended his judicial and legal career. Three years later, however, Goggin took up Bumpus' cause and succeeded in 3 convincing the federal court to hear the matter, despite the arguments of Kamansky's legal team that the case could not be pursued because statute of limitations had expired. Goggin was able to successfully argue, however that the clock on the statute did not begin to toll until Bumpus was out of custody, as an incarcerated juvenile he had no realistic opportunity to pursue a lawsuit against Kamansky or anyone else. The lawsuit threw into sharp relief a host ruinous revelations, the substantiation of which appeared poised to not only compromise Kamansky as a judge but substantially damage the credibility of the sheriff's department. Beyond highlighting Kamansky's own behavior and willingness to destroy evidence. Goggin was armed with forensic evidence showing that the sheriff's investigators and the district attorney's office had hedged on the presentation of evidence implicating him in the sexual molestation of Bumpus as well as other juveniles who had the misfortune on coming into Kamansky's courtroom. This evidence included demonstrations of how the sheriff's department's had botched forensic tests on the souvenir baseball bat used in the instrumental sodomization of Bumpus that were later contoverted by more exacting state forensic tests and the sherrif's department's failure to gather the video evidence from Kamansky's home. when that opportunity presented itself. Additionally, Bumpus' case was strengthened by evidence ready for presentation that would have shown that Kamansky had successfully rallied the district attorney's office to his defense in 1992 after an Upland man, Robert Kenneth Harris, had come forward with information alleging that Kamansky had molested his daughters. Kamansky had presided over a child dependency case in 1988 pertaining to the eventual placement of Harris' three children, who were then 14, 16, 18. Upon Kamansky's insistence, Harris was subsequently prosecuted by the district attorney's office for making "terrorist threats" against Kamansky. When numerous legalistic ploys by Kamansky's defense team failed to stave off the prospect of a trial and with the opening of that trial set for only weeks away, Kamansky gave his consent to a settlement with sources place "in the $300,000 range," which Brayton has worked out with Goggin. Included in the deal was the implicit arrangement that there would be no need to put on the testimony from Bumpus or the Harris daughters detailing the molestations and no supportive testimony from other witnesses establishing Kamansky's "homosexual tendencies" or "bisexual orientation." Explicit in the 4 arrangement was that a confidentiality agreement in which it was agreed between the parties that no information pertaining to the terms of the agreement would be publicly disclosed by either party. "We settled a few weeks before the file date, " Goggin said. "The court record is the court record and you ought to take a look at the court record. I can't tell you a damn thing, because it's confidential. We've set a confidential agreement. I can't tell you anything other than to say that the settlement was in the best interest of my client." Both Kamansky and Brayton declined to make any comment on the case. REPROVAL LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IN ADOBE ACROBAT READER FORMAT: http://exposerancho.org/kamansky-reproval.pdf All imprinted with permission of: "ExposeRancho.org"
United States of America, Ex Rel. Harold Kimble v. Lawrence P. Keenan, Superintendent Allegheny County Workhouse and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 316 F.2d 264, 3rd Cir. (1963)
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC) (JCF) -- Defendants' Letter to Judge Castel to Submit Motion for a Protective Order Against Mr. Washington [November 17, 2014]