03.06.17.FILED - True SHERMAN ANTI TRUST COMPLT (1) - Susan Bassi and Joe Sweeney Named in Support of Federal Filing

Case 2:17-cv-01787 Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 267 Page ID #:1
1 PATRICIA J. BARRY, MICHELE FOTINOS, RACHEL FOTINOS

634 S. Spring St., Ste 823
2 Los Angeles, Ca 90014
Tele. (213) 995-0734
3 Fax (213) 995-0735
joanbarrylegal@yahoo.com
4 Plaintiffs pro se
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 PATRICIA J. BARRY, RACHEL CASE NO.
10 FOTINOS, MICHELE FOTINOS,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
11 Plaintiffs, DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
12 v. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
13 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

VICTORIA HENLEY in her official 1. Anti-Trust Violations (Secs. 1
14 capacity as DIRECTOR, and 2, Sherman Act)
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
15 PERFORMANCE; UNNAMED
UNKNOWN MEMBER OF
16 CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL,
(in her/his individual capacity)
17 UNNAMED UNKNOWN STATE
BAR EMPLOYEE (in her/his
18 individual capacity), JAMES FOX (in
his individual capacity), BRANDON
19 TADY (in his individual capacity),
ERIN JOYCE (in her individual
20 capacity), LUCY ARMENDARIZ (in
her individual capacity),JAIME
21 SAUCEDO (in his individual
capacity), JOSEPH DUNN (in his
22 individual capacity), MUNGER,
TOLLES, & OLSON, A LAW FIRM,
23 MIRIAM KRINSKY (in her individual
capacity), JOHN FOTINOS, ROBERT
24 FOILES (in his individual capacity),
BONNIE MILLER, STEVE
25 WAGSTAFFE (in his individual
capacity), STEPHEN MONTALVO,
26 PATRICIA ROMA, BETSY
KIMBALL, DOES 1 - 10,
27 Defendants.
28
1
1 2. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -

Conspiracy Based on Free
2 Speech Retaliation; Denial of
Access to Court
3
3. 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 - Violation
4 of Free Speech per Keller v.
State Bar of California
5
4. 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 - Fourteenth
6 Amendment - Commission on
Judicial Performances Denial of
7 Due Process
8 5. California Constitution
(Cal. Const. Art. I, sec. 7) -
9 Commission on Judicial
Performances Denial of Due
10 Process
11 6. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -
Fourteenth Amendment due
12 process - Denial of Attorney
Right to Practice Law and
13 Denial of Right of Client to
Attorney Representation
14
7. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -
15 Fourteenth Amendment due
process - Denial of Right to
16 Bodily and Emotional Integrity
17 8. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -
Fourteenth Amendment due
18 process - stigma-plus
defamation
19
9. Violation of Article 1, Sec.28(b)
20 & ( c), Crime Victims Bill of
Rights, California Constitution
21
10. Fraud
22
11. Child abuse (assault and battery,
23 intentional infliction of
emotional distress, stalking,
24 harassment)
25 JURY DEMAND
26
27
28
2
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I. INTRODUCTION AND INITIAL STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 ............................................................ 3
4 A. Choosing to Prosecute Kay and Barry While Declining to Prosecute
Miller Is a Violation of Anti-Trust Law, Endangers the Public,
5 and is the Paradigm of Bar Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6 B. Barrys Proposed Disbarment Is a Symptom of the Bars Dysfunction
and Discrimination against Female Victims of Domestic Violence
7 and their Abused Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8 1. Joyce, J. Armendariz, Cydney Batchelor (appellate Bar
Attorney )and Review Judge Catherine Purcell Capitalize on
9 the Fact that Barry Does not Receive Sufficient Attorney Fees
to Disbar Her, Which is Not Just Because of Barrys Clients
10 Inability to Pay Fees but Because of the Legal Systems
Financial Abuse of Both Barrys Clients and Barry.
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12 C. The Bars Racism, Sexism, and anti-Child Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13 1. The Bars Scapegoating of Black Attorney Craig Martin to
Protect Corrupt White Attorney Michael Keck and the Bars
14 Defense of the N Word Against Martin as Part of the Bars
Discipline Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15
2. Hiring Fox Resulting in Further Institutionalizing of Racism,
16 Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Anti-Child Bias.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
17
3. Former Judge Kamansky Teaching Ethics as MCLE Provider
18 although He Paid Settlement of $300,000.00 to His Child
Sexual Abuse Victim with Two Other Child Sex Abuse
19 Witnesses Ready to Testify Against Him.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
20
4. Failure of Bar to Prosecute Attorney Krause based on His
21 stipulation He had Engaged in Child Abuse Against His
Daughter Alanna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
22
5. Failure to Prosecute Unethical Minors Counsel.
23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
24 6. Bars Support of Violent Men and Other Unethical Attorneys
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
25
a. Joseph Morin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
26
b. J. Fotinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
27
(I) The Bar and San Mateo Went a Step Further with
28 J. Fotinos Making Him a Member of the Cabal to
Disbar Barry and Imprison Michele. . . . . . . . . . 32
i
i
1 (ii) Bars Free Speech Retaliation Against Barry

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2
c. Robert Drescher, Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3
d. Peter Lauzon, Attorney
4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
(I) Saucedo Hounds Barry with Lauzons Frivolous
5 Complaint.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6
(ii) Shoe on Other Foot, Bar Will Not Prosecute
7 Lauzon For his Threats and Other Acts of
Harassment against Farraj.
8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9 e. Flint Zide, Attorney
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10
7. Protection of Bar Insider Nathan Hales Denying Restitution to
11 His Victim, Family Law Litigant Susan Bassi, and Endangering
Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
12
D. The Bars Retaliation Against Barry for Winning a Case Against the
13 Bar by Taking It to the Supreme Court and Reversing the Win Is not
Only a Violation of Keller But Has Created a Danger to the Public.
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
15 1. Violation of Keller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
16 a. Four Ways Dues Misappropriated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
17 (I) Fourth Way - Hiring of Kerr/Wagstaffe Firm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
18
(A). The Bar Hired Kerr & Wagstaffe on a No-
19 bid Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
20 (B). The Bar Is Using Dues, Possibly
Repeatedly, to Pay Fees to an all White
21 Law Firm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
22 . James Wagstaffe Is the Brother of
Wagstaffe Who Is Working with Fox to
23 Disbar Barry and Put Michele in Prison
Meaning Members Are Subsidizing James
24 to Help Fox and His Brother Take Their
Retaliation Against Barry and Michele.
25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
26 (D). The Kerr/Wagstaffe Firm Is Thwarting the
Public Will and Further Endangering the
27 Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
28 2. The Ruling of the Supreme Court Is a Danger to the Public.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
ii
ii
1 E. The Real Reasons for Barrys Disbarment Are All Related to San
Mateo, Foxs Old Stomping Grounds, and His San Mateo Cronies
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3 1. The Good Judge, SAN MATEO JUDGE DON FRANCHI
(J. Franchi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4
2. Millers Undermining of J. Franchi and Michele
5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6 3. The Beginning of the End of Justice - Unethical Misconduct of
Kinney Forcing J. Franchi to Recuse Himself
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8 4. Rachels Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)
Application for Restraining Order which Blew the Whistle on
9 J. Fotinos Felony Child Abuse Thus Reflecting on All the
Judges Who Kept Custody with Him Before J. Franchi
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
11 5. Michele, Rachels, and Austins Federal Lawsuit
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
12
6. Micheles and Barrys Picket in San Francisco in June 2012
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
14 F. San Mateo Retaliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
15 G. Exceedingly Good Fathers Deprived of Access to their Children by
Corrupt Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
16
1. Attorney Arch Cunningham - San Francisco Superior Court
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
18 2. Tom Lillard- Orange Superior Court
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
19
3. Carlo Sgroi - Los Angeles Superior Court
20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
21 4. Farraj - Los Angeles Superior Court
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
22
5. Joe Sweeney - Contra Costa Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
23
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
24
III. PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
25
IV. STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
26
A. Hiring Fox Has Insured the Bar Will Not Discipline Corrupt
27 Prosecutors and Has Further Institutionalized Racism and anti-
Child/Mother Animus in the Bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
28
iii
iii
1 1. Foxs Continuing Support of Corrupt Prosecutors Wagstaffe

and Giannini Both of Whom Were Once Under His
2 Supervision as San Mateo District Attorney, and Both of
Whom Engaged in Racial Discrimination during Jury Selection
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4 a. Wagstaffes Misconduct While under Foxs Supervision
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5
b. Alfred Giannini, Supervised by Fox While a San Mateo
6 Prosecutor, Engaged in a Pattern of Prosecutorial
Misconduct, Including Racial Discrimination in Jury
7 Selection and Fox Did Nothing, and instead Continues
to Ratify and Defend Gianninis Misconduct. . . . . . . . 82
8
2. Foxs Continuing Support of Giannini at the Bar
9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
10 3. Foxs Support for Convicted Pedophile William Ayres, and
Probable Pedophiles San Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks and
11 Current San Mateo Sheriff Carlos Bolanos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
12
a. Foxs Support of Now Deceased Convicted Pedophile
13 William Ayres.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
14
b. Foxs and Wagstaffes Support of Now-Retired San
15 Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks Detained in a FBI Sting in a
Las Vegas Residence Filled With Children Sex
16 Trafficked from Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
17 c. Failure to Supervise Deputy Melissa McKowan. . . . . . 92
18 C. Wagstaffe's Reign of Terror. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
19 D. Judge Kareshs Ratification of Sells and Aaron Reicherts Plundering
of Esthers Estate and Shutting Down All Court Access to Michele
20 including Trying to Protect Her Mother.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
21
E. The CJPs Rejection of Barry/ Micheles Complaint against Karesh
22 and Labson-Freeman resulting in Ongoing Harm to Barry, Michele,
Esther, Rachel, and Austin.
23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
24 F. Failure of CJP to Refer J. Karesh and J. Labson Freeman for Criminal
Prosecution Also Resulted in Grave Harm to Barry, Esther, Michele,
25 and Rachel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
26 G. J. Purcells Recommendation for Disbarment of Barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
27
1. Adams Findings of Contempt Against Barry, 2000.
28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
iv
iv
1 a. Prosecution of Mardeusz Eye of the Storm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2
b. Magers Ongoing Criminal Conduct After Mardeuszs
3 Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4 c. The Bars Prosecution of Barry for the Contempt
Violated Barrys Right of Due Process and Equal
5 Protection and A Violation of Anti-Trust Laws.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6
(i) Michael Nisperos, Unfit Chief Trial Counsel
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8 (ii) Unconstitutionality of Appointment of Jerome
Craig, a Fellow Market Participant, Male
9 Corporate Attorney, and Barrys Potential
Opponent in the Courtroom, as Barrys
10 Prosecutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
11 (iii) Unethical Misconduct of Craig and the Bar
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
12
2. The Elwood Matter and Failure to Pass the MPRE left over
13 from the Mardeusz Matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
14 a. There Were Too Many Factors in the Lawsuits which
Favored Barry Making Tadys/Drexels/Towerys
15 Prosecution of Barry an Abuse of Discretion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
16
b. The Prosecution Based on the Filing of the Elwood
17 Lawsuits Is Retaliatory.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
18
c. Assigning Tady to Prosecute Barry Violated Barrys
19 Right to Due Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
20 (i) Tadys Incompetency to Prosecute Based on
Federal Litigation
21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
22 (ii) Tadys Pursuit of the Case After He Knew that He
Did not Have Probable Cause to Proceed
23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
24 (iii) Tadys Imposition of Sanctions Never Imposed on
Any Other Attorney Before or After Barry and
25 then Sabotaging Her Efforts to Fulfil the Sanction
by Failing to Inform Her She Could Take His
26 Class on Attorney Trust Accounts to Satisfy the
Requirement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
27
3. Filing Reports Late, Taking the Ethics Class, and Four Live
28 Ethics Late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
v
1 a. Filing Late Reports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

2 b. Bars Denial of Barrys Motion to Extend Time to Take
Ethics School, 4 Live Ethics, and MPRE.
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4 (I) Attorney Carol Sternberg Who Stole from Her
Attorney Client Trust Account to Pay Personal
5 Expenses and Refused for 13 Months to Pay a
Settlement to A Client Granted a Generous
6 Extension to Take MPRE by Blaming Her
Secretary for Missing the Deadline
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8 (ii) Michele and Rachel Testify at Hearing about their
Fears and Desperation in Trying to Get Protection
9 from the Courts against J. Fotinos During the
Time Barry Was Supposed to Take the Ethics
10 Classes and MPRE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
11
c. Four Live Ethics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
12
d. J. Purcell Feigns Ignorance of Defense of Necessity
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
14 4. Failure to Pay Discovery Sanctions to Montalvo and Judicial
Sanctions to San Mateo
15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
16 a. The Lawlessness of San Mateo Court
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
17
b. The Extreme Misconduct of Montalvo Making Barrys
18 Prosecution an Anti-Trust Violation and the Bars
Failure to Prosecute yet a Second San Mateo Attorney
19 Who Has Caused Harm to Michele, a Violation of Busi
& Prof C. Sec.6001.1 Which Mandates That the
20 Protection of the Public Shall Be Paramount . . . . . . . 135
21 (i) Failure of Montalvo to Enforce Micheles Right of
Custody
22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
23 (ii) Montalvos and Romas Fictional Child Support
Order against Michele
24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
25 (iii) Micheles Loss of Community property, Attorney
Fees, and Support.
26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
27 c. Kimballs Subornation of Montalvos and Romas
Perjury in the Legal Malpractice Lawsuit, and the Bars
28 Ratification of the Misconduct of the Three Attorneys in
Its Case against Barry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
vi
vi
1 d. Kimballs bad Faith Motions to Compel Answers to

Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents,
2 and Micheles Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3 (I) Interrogatories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4 (ii) Request for Production of Documents and
Scheduling Micheles Deposition and Purpose of
5 Continued Hearing on Kimballs
Motion to Compel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6
e. Barrys Two Trips to San Mateo Specifically for Hearing
7 on Sanctions and Hearing Does Not Go Forward
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8
f. Kimball Does not Enter Judgment and Scheduled
9 Hearings on Nonpayment of Sanctions after Deliberately
Not Appearing for December 20, 2012 Hearing
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
11 g. Barrys Voicemail to J. Buchwalds Courtroom and His
Entry of the Judgment Based on Micheles Failure to
12 Prosecute Without Incorporating the Sanctions Orders
into It. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
13
G. Dissemination of Defamation against Michele and Barry.
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
15 H. In Violation of Anti-Trust Policies the Bar Refuses to Apply Statutory
Law on Judgments, the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral
16 Estoppel, and Relevant Case Law to Benefit Bar Insiders and to Harm
Bar Outsiders, Treating Market Participants Differently in Violation
17 of Anti-Trust Law and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
18
1. Refusal of the Bar to Apply Statutes Concerning Judgments
19 and the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel to
Protect Bar Insiders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
20
a. Attorneys Marshall Krause and Sandra Acevedo
21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
22 b. John F. Henning III, Attorney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
23 c. The Girardi/Lack Discipline Fiasco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
24 2. The Bar Refuses to Apply Statutes on Judgments and Doctrines
of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel to Harm Bar Outsiders.
25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
26 a. Disbarment of Phil Kay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
27 b. Disbarment of Craig Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
28 c. Purcells Recommendation for Disbarment of Barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
vii
vii
1 (I). J. Purcells Disregard of the Bars Finding that

Adams Conviction of Barry for Contempt Was
2 Not a Serious Matter, Violating Doctrine of
Collateral Estoppel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3
(ii). The Elwood Matter, April 2010
4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5 (iii). The Failure to Pay Discovery Sanctions to
Montalvo and Judicial Sanctions to San Mateo 167
6
(A) Barrys Inability to Comply with the Orders
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8 (B). San Mateo J. Buchwalds Unusual
Judgment with no Merging of the Discovery
9 and Judicial Sanctions into It.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
10
J. The Bars Secret Vetting of Applicants for Judicial Appointments Is a
11 Danger to the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
12 1. Dufficy and Adams, Marin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
13 a. Since Mardeuszs Conviction 16-1/2 Years Ago, Marin
Residents Continue to Make the Same Complaints
14 against Adams and Dufficy with Adams Harming Other
Protective Mothers and Their Children as She did
15 Mardeusz and Her Daughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
16 2. Towery and Persky - Santa Clara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
17 3. J. David Cunningham - LASC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
18 4. J. Fujie - LASC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
19 5. Judge Karesh - San Mateo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
20 K. The Bar Failed to Prosecute Robert Singer Court Referee for
Unlawful Practice of Law (UPL), A clear Violation of Anti-Trust
21 Law, of the State Bar Act, and of the First Amendment Rights
of Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
22
L. The Blanket Refusal of the Bar to Investigate and Prosecute Minors
23 Counsel Is a Violation of Anti Trust Laws and a Clear and Present
Danger to the Public
24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
25 1. Harold LaFlamme, Orange Superior Court
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
26
2. Bonnie Miller, San Mateo: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
27
3. Judith Lawrence, Contra Costa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
28
viii
viii
1 M. The Bar Fought Against Progressive Legislation to Protect Mothers

Alleging Abuse of Their Children in Court and Even Lied about the
2 Purpose of the Bill, SB 612. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
3 O. An Unnamed Unknown Bar Employee Continues to Defame Barry on
Barrys Bar Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
4
P. Repeated Misappropriation of Member Dues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5
V. DECLARATORY RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
6
VI. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
7
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
8
A. The Failure of the Supreme Court to Supervise the Bar
9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
10 B. General Anti Competition Activities Including Investigating and
Prosecuting Attorneys on Behalf of Other Attorneys, Thus Using
11 Member Dues to Reduce Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
15 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
17 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
18 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
19 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
20 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
21 A. Kimball, Montalvo, and Roma Fraud against Michele
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
22
B. J. Fotinos and Miller Fraud against Rachel
23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
24 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
26
27
28
3
1 PLAINTIFFS PATRICIA J. BARRY (Barry), MICHELE FOTINOS

2 (Michele), and RACHEL FOTINOS (Rachel) for their complaint allege as
3 follows:
4
I
5 INTRODUCTION AND INITIAL STATEMENT OF FACTS
6 Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
Euclid, Elements, Axiom No. 1.
7
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [sic] are created equal, that
8 they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The unanimous Declaration
9 of the thirteen United States of America, Congress, July 4, 1776
10 1. Love trumps hate. Controlled by individuals like DEFENDANT
11 JAMES FOX (Fox), not according to the Bar. Where there is hate there is
12 racism and sexism. The Bar is no exception.
13 2. DEFENDANT STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA (Bar) employee,
14 possibly Prosecutor Torres-Gil (Torres-Gil), called black attorney Craig Martin
15 (Martin) a Nigger twice. Bar attorney Danielle Lee (Lee) argued twice in court
16 that Bar, a government corporation, has a right to call Martin the N word
17 because it was used during a disciplinary proceeding (there was no discipline
18 going on but that was her argument). Besides, Lee argued, ...this country has
19 long tolerated racist comments or sentiments because they are protected by
20 the First Amendment. Emphasis added. Could Breitbart and Bannon have said
21 it any better?
22 3. Violent felon, DEFENDANT JOHN FOTINOS (J. Fotinos),
23 Micheles ex husband, whom the Bar champions and encourages, referred to Barry
24 as a bitch in an email to the Bar. She is an almost 42 year veteran of the law and
25 has argued in the U. S. Supreme Court twice. J. Fotinos, on the other hand, is a
26 violent criminal convicted of three felonies. He is the ex husband of Michele. He
27 also regularly calls Michele a bitch, and says fuck you in emails to her, finally
28 scaring her off from trying to visit with her son Austin. He has also called her a
4
1 cunt, a liar, and crazy and told Rachel and Austin that their mother is trying to
2 poison them.
3 4. As will be demonstrated in this complaint, the Bar jumped on the
4 anti-Muslim bandwagon as well. The Bar and Trump have much in common.
5
5. http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2010/12/22/patricia-j-barry-superb-trial-
6 attorney-and-civil-rights-activist-is-the-newest-victim-california-state
-bar-s-corruption-10234871/
7
Patricia J. Barry, an attorney who has dedicated her career to civil
8 rights, women's rights, and workplace freedom, is the most recent
victim of the California State Bars corruption and mistreatment....
9
In September of this year, [2010] the friction between Barry and
10 the State Bar of California as well as similar friction involving
nationally-renowned lawyers' lawyer Phil Kay was on the State
11 Bar Board of Governors Operation Committee agenda at a closed
meeting held at the Marriott Hotel in Monterey, California. ...
12
Also present at the meeting at the Monterey Marriot to discuss
13 the discord between the California State Bar and these two
attorneys was Mr. Howard Miller, [State Bar President 09/09 -
14 09/10] Thomas Girardi's confederate. ....
15 Asked about Ms. Barry's alleged claim of mistreatment, State Bar
Insider, an expert in the area of legal ethics and TLR's legal counsel,
16 stated that the State Bar has been undergoing a long and radical
process of ethical and moral collapse due to internal as well as
17 external forces..
18 While SBI stated that he is not familiar with Ms. Barry, her claim
of mistreatment came as no surprise. ....Double Emphasis added
19
6. The closed door meeting of Bar officials about Barrys and
20
ATTORNEY PHILIP KAYs (Kay) prosecutions is worth discussing initially
21
because it dovetailed with a complaint Michele filed against San Mateo minors
22
counsel DEFENDANT BONNIE MILLER (Miller), also in September 2010.
23
A. Choosing to Prosecute Kay and Barry While Declining to
24 Prosecute Miller Is a Violation of Anti-Trust Law, Endangers the
Public, and is the Paradigm of Bar Discipline.
25
7. Choosing to prosecute Barry and Kay but not Miller when Barrys
26
and Kays clients did not complain but in Millers case, the parent of her clients
27
did, is the Bars discipline paradigm.
28
8. The Bar is a part of the judicial branch. If judges do not want the
5
5
1 attorney prosecuted by the Bar, the Bar will not prosecute that attorney no matter
2 how dishonest she is. They are the teflon attorneys their teflon coating provided
3 by judges. Miller is embedded in San Mateo and is one of the darlings of the
4 judges. With DEFENDANT JAMES FOX (Fox), former 28 year San Mateo
5 District Attorney as Bar President, Miller could not have it any better.
6 9. The Bar also has a long standing policy of not prosecuting minors
7 counsel, carving out a class of market participants immunized from all Bar
8 prosecutions. Thus, Miller has triple protection: San Mateo judges, Fox, and the
9 Bars anti-competitive practice of not prosecuting minors counsel.
10 10. The Bar also has a practice of prosecuting ethical attorneys retaliated
11 against by judges like Richard Fine (Fine), Jeffrey Lustman (Lustman), Barry
12 and Kay.
13 11. If a litigant or attorney wants to complain about a judge, she must file
14 with the COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE (CJP), which is also
15 controlled by judges. The CJP will not prosecute corrupt judges which failure to
16 prosecute is the subject of the State Auditors current investigation which the CJP
17 is attempting to quash.
18 12. The public is caught in this unbroken circle of corruption: both the
19 Bar and the CJP, both controlled by judges, are so politicized that they end up
20 protecting those attorneys and those judges who endanger the public, rather than
21 disciplining them. The two agencies often prosecute those attorneys and judges
22 who have the public interest at heart and act accordingly. A short story in this
23 introduction about Fine, Barry, Kay, and Miller prove this point.
24 13. Another scary fact, scary because it is a direct threat to our democracy
25 is that Superior Court judges, the Bar, and Bar judges often line up with corporate
26 attorneys and corporations against non-corporate attorneys to disbar them like
27 Fine and Kay.
28 14. In May 2010, Barry filed motions on behalf of Michele in San Mateo
6
1 Family Court to modify support and custody and to disqualify Miller as minors
2 counsel for Rachel and Austin, Micheles two children then 14 and 12, and now
3 20 and 18 years old respectively. Barry alleged a litany of misconduct on the part
4 of Miller resulting in grave harm to Rachel and her brother Austin. SAN MATEO
5 JUDGE DON FRANCHI (J. Franchi) removed Miller on August 27, 2010.
6 15. On September 29, 2010, Michele mailed a complaint against Miller to
7 the Intake dept of Trial Counsel. Michele alleged that Miller had suborned perjury
8 using the falsified declaration of RENEE LA FARGE, (La Farge) the former
9 reunification therapist for Michele and her two children, Rachel and Austin, to
10 change custody back to DEFENDANT JOHN FOTINOS (J. Fotinos), Micheles
11 ex-husband, a violent felon who had abused the children. Miller filed exparte and
12 without notice after Michele had just obtained custody six days before Miller and
13 LaFarge acted.
14 16. In September 2010 Howard Miller was just ending his stint as Bar
15 President and JAMES TOWERY (Towery) had just been appointed Chief Trial
16 Counsel in June 2010. Of note is that Towery lasted less than a year in the job.
17 17. Towery and Howard Miller or his successor William Hebert turned
18 down Micheles complaint against Miller.
19 18. Howard Miller also knew from the closed door meeting noted supra,
20 that the Bar prosecuted Barry allegedly for filing frivolous federal lawsuits on
21 behalf of Darla Elwood, a victim of domestic violence trying to regain custody of
22 her children (the second of three disciplines on which the Bar bases Barrys
23 disbarment). Of the ten federal judges who looked at Barrys pleadings, not one
24 mentioned disciplinary action against her, much less discipline her, the district
25 court judge had withdrawn her OSC re: sanctions for filing frivolous claims, and
26 the Ninth Circuit had reversed three of the attorney fee awards, including the
27 award to all five jurists Barry had sued, in a reported decision which helps other
28 civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys. Elwood v. Drescher ,456 F.3d 943 (9th
7
1 Cir. 2006).
2 19. Had Miller and Towery done further research, they would have
3 learned that while Barry did not prevail in the federal lawsuits, the lawsuits did
4 provide some relief in state court. Judge Farrell, one of the judges Barry sued
5 because he continued to hold hearings while the denial of Elwoods anti-SLAPP
6 motion was on appeal which automatically deprives the trial court of subject
7 matter jurisdiction, quit holding hearings. Another one of the jurists Barry sued,
8 Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) Comm. Zakon, was finally removed
9 because of his continuing misconduct on the bench. After the Bar disciplined
10 Barry, the Ninth Circuit and the Central District Court where the cases were filed
11 declined to impose reciprocal discipline on Barry.
12 20. Howard Miller should have known that in prosecuting Barry,
13 DEFENDANT bar prosecutor BRANDON TADY (Tady) was spending dues
14 championing a man, JOSEPH MORIN (Morin) whom Barry had sued in one of
15 the Elwood federal lawsuits. Morin is the father of two of Elwoods children. He
16 is a violent racist, a child batterer, and had threatened a woman because he
17 perceived that she was lesbian and she had obtained a restraining order against
18 him. Howard Miller also should have known that Tady violated his duty by not
19 dismissing the Elwood discipline because he admitted to Barry she would
20 probably prevail. He lacked probable cause to continue Barrys prosecution.
21 21. Howard Miller served as Bar President for 2009-2010, and was and
22 continues to the present time, to be best friends and legal partner of THOMAS
23 GIRARDI (Girardi) a wealthy white male who has exerted undue influence over
24 the Bar and provided emoulements to judges on several occasions over a period
25 of many years, including former California Supreme Court Justice Ron George.
26 J. George also appointed Girardi to the Judicial Council. Towery was acting as
27 Trial Counsel between September 2010 to around June or July 2011.
28 22. In July 2010 In re Thomas v. Girardi (9th Cir. July 13, 2010) __
8
1 F.3D __, 2010 U.S. APP. LEXIS 14292 was decided. The Ninth Circuit
2 specifically found that Girardi was reckless in failing to insure that briefs he
3 signed did not have misleading or false statements in them and that his fellow
4 attorney, WALTER LACK (Lack) and his associates deliberately misled a
5 federal judge. The judges specifically found that the two attorneys had violated
6 California ethical Rule 5.200(B) not to mislead a judge. Both attorneys and
7 Lacks associates were heavily sanctioned, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
8 Lack was barred from practicing in the Ninth Circuit for six months.
9 23. In violation of the State Bar Act, statutory law on judgments, and the
10 doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, in December 2010, Towery
11 refused to discipline Girardi and Lack. Towery was a corporate attorney. In direct
12 defiance of the State Bar Act, Towery appointed a crony, a corporate attorney just
13 like himself, JEROME FALK (Falk) to serve as special prosecutor in the
14 discipline procedure. Falk insulted the Ninth Circuit. He ruled in a one paragraph
15 letter that the attorneys did not mislead a judge and they should not be disciplined
16 by the Bar.
17 24. The end result was that Howard Miller (white male wealthy attorney
18 and best friends and partner with Girardi), William Hebert (white male corporate
19 attorney), who became Bar President after Miller, and Bar Counsel Towery (white
20 male corporate attorney) approved the discipline of a female Bar Outsider who
21 was not disciplined by federal court but refused to discipline two white male Bar
22 Insiders who were. They also let Bonnie Miller off the hook completely.
23 25. DEFENDANT LUCY ARMENDARIZ (J. Armendariz) prosecuted
24 Kay for litigation misconduct although no real judge had sanctioned him, held him
25 in contempt, or reversed jury verdicts because of his misconduct. Kay was one of
26 the best employment lawyers in the United States. He had won the largest
27 punitive damages awards in two sexual harassment cases at the time they were
28 made. The first one was for a woman secretary at Baker McKenzie a now
9
1 defunct law firm, and the second, 30.6 million dollars, for women cashiers at
2 Ralphs. which is why he was disbarred. Kay was too good at what he did,
3 and he represented workers, not corporations, winning impressive verdicts.
4 26. J. Armendariz openly supported San Diego Judge Anello miffed by
5 something Kay had done but who was unable to point to the trial transcript or an
6 appellate ruling finding Kay guilty of contempt or imposing sanctions on him or
7 suffering a reversal of a jury verdict because of his misconduct in front of the jury.
8 27. Ralphs Corporate attorneys who couldnt win against Kay no matter
9 how hard they tried, grabbed the shirttails of the judge and ran with him to the Bar
10 to punish Kay. Kay was the giant tied up by lilliputians not the nice lilliputians
11 of the story but meanspirited ones. It is no surprise the Bar, controlled by
12 corporate attorneys like Bar Counsel Towery, Bar President Hebert, very special
13 Bar Prosecutor Falk, Morrison & Forester attorneys Jerome Craig (Craig) and
14 James Brosnahan (Brosnahan), Bar President Holly Fujie, to name a few sided
15 with the judge and their fellow corporate attorneys.
16 28. Towery and Hebert sided with the judge and Ralphs attorneys
17 because they earn(ed) their living keeping corporations happy. The Bar was
18 rigged against Kay from the start. Towerys subsequent mistreatment of family
19 law women litigants when he took the bench is predictable given his approval of
20 Kays Bar prosecution. Kay had won the largest punitive damages verdict for
21 female victims of Ralphs sexual harassment in the history of the country.
22 29. J. Armendariz ruled with no evidence to support her claim that
23 Ralphs did not get a fair trial because of Kays misconduct. No real court
24 made such a ruling. Her initial decision to suspend Kay came out in December
25 2009. Kays suspension became effective in August 2010 when Towery was
26 Chief Trial Counsel and Howard Miller was Bar President. J. Armendariz
27 eventually recommended disbarment of Kay. Before the disbarment went through,
28 Kay died, as far as this writer is concerned, of a broken heart.
10
10
1 30. The Bar also made a martyr out of Attorney Richard Fine, (Fine)
2 another outstanding attorney who got on the wrong side of judges. The California
3 Supreme Court covered up the retaliation against Fine and summarily affirmed
4 Fines disbarment.
5 31. See, e.g., The Incarceration of Attorney Richard I. Fine (Part 1)
6 .tulanelink.com/tulanelink/fine_09a.htm
7 By law, the judicial salaries of California's Superior Court judges are
set and financed by the state. Many of the counties, however, have
8 utilized schemes for supplementing the salaries of appellate court
judges. These supplements assist the judges in their reelection
9 campaigns and help insure favorable outcomes in cases where those
counties are defendants. Attorney Richard I. Fine was instrumental in
10 uncovering these extra-legal payments, which began in 1988 and
affect more than 1,600 judges. The payments, which currently
11 amount to about $46,000, have been routinely omitted from the
financial disclosure forms required of all judges. Fine's campaign to
12 expose this judicial misconduct led to his disbarment, and he was
subsequently tried and imprisoned for contempt by one of the judges,
13 Judge David P. Yaffe, who was caught up in the financial scandal.
14 In 2008, the landmark decision in Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles
made it clear that the supplementary payments to the judges were
15 unlawful. This prompted the California Judicial Council to have a
bill drafted that was quietly inserted into the state's budget legislation,
16 SBX2 11, and passed without public debate or awareness. This
provision granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to
17 all the California judges and County officials who either received or
authorized illegal payments of public money. These events
18 demonstrate how the judiciary, with the power to silence its
critics through imprisonment, can evolve into a corrupt
19 enterprise, and it underscores the imperative to create an
inspector general's office that functions independently of the
20 judiciary and has the authority to convene citizen grand juries to
investigate complaints about judges.
21
On September 17, 2010, Judge Yaffe ordered Richard Fine released
22 from prison after having kept him in coercive solitary confinement for
18 months. Yaffe also announced his own retirement, effective
23 November 1, 2010. Emphasis added
24 32. The Supreme Court just disbarred Barry on February 15, 2017,
25 because it claimed she was one day late in filing her petition for review. The Bar
26 was extremely late when it filed its Petition for Review on Barrys win against the
27 Bar and the Court accepted the late filing. Rule 8.25(b)(3)(A), CA Rules of Court,
28 states that documents filed in the Court are timely if postmarked on the due date
11
11
1 and sent by overnight mail. Barry fedexed her petition which was an earlier
2 unedited version of this complaint on its due date, February 14, 2017.
3 33. Barry had a wonderful day arguing on November 2, 2017, before the
4 Court concerning the case she had won against the Bar, Barry v. State Bar of
5 California (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1435 depublished and reversed, Case No.
6 S214058, November 5, 2017. The Court justices are a Latino-American Male, an
7 African-American Female, Two Older White-American Females, a Filopina-
8 American Female, and Two Chinese-American males. The justices engaged in
9 lively questioning of both Bar attorney Danielle Lee (Lee) and Barry. Barry
10 thought the Court would affirm the Court of Appeals ruling.
11 27. By her lifes work it is obvious Barry is among those who are
12 committed to insuring such a diverse composition on the bench not the
13 individuals the Court is protecting, like Fox, state bar president whose life work
14 institutionalized racism and sexism.
15 28. Another problem which plagues the Bar is that it is a dumping ground
16 of the Spoils System whereby the favorites of the Court, the Legislature, and the
17 governor, no matter their lack of qualifications, are given a cushy job with great
18 benefits as judges stripping attorneys of their right to practice law and earning
19 92% of what superior court judges earn. In 2000 Senator Burton jammed a law
20 amending Busi & Prof C Sec.6079.1 through the Legislature to reduce the
21 authority of the Supreme Court to appoint all the state bar judges, giving himself
22 as senate president pro tem, the governor, and the Assembly Speaker authority
23 each to appoint one judge.
24 29. See, O'Brien v. Jones (2000) 23 Cal.4th 40, in which Kerr/Wagstaffe
25 represented state bar judges James W. O'Brien, H. Kenneth Norian, and Nancy R.
26 Lonsdale who sought a writ of mandate to stop the legislation because they were
27 about to lose their jobs. They did. The Supreme Court upheld Burtons statutory
28 spoils system. Burton clearly wanted to appoint his employee, Senate Counsel
12
12
1 Joann Remke as a judge because Sec. 6079.1 requires only that an attorney be a
2 member of the Bar for a mere five years to be appointed as a Bar judge .
3 30. Remke was only eight years out of law school with very little
4 litigation experience when she ended up making almost what real judges earn and
5 sitting in judgment of attorneys with years and years of litigation experience she
6 lacked. Attorneys have a right to a judge with the same entry level of legal
7 experience as judges in real courts have: at a minimum, ten years licensed by the
8 Bar. Why selection of Bar and Article VI judges must be taken away from the
9 politicians and the courts.
10 31. There also must be direct participation of the public in the Bar, in the
11 CJP, and in the selection of Bar and Article VI judges. There must be jury trials for
12 parents in family court, attorneys in Bar court, and judges in CJP court. Because
13 what is going on now is a catastrophe, causing emotional and financial devastation
14 to families, both parents and children, in family court, to attorneys and the public
15 in the Bar, and once in awhile even to judges like Judge Salcido in the CJP.
16 32. Based on Keller v. California State Bar, Barry brings this action
17 against the Bar for violation of her First Amendment rights forcing her to pay dues
18 to subsidize an institution riddled with racism, sexism, and anti-child bias.
19 Alternatively, she seeks to withdraw as a member of the Bar and to be excused
20 from paying dues but continuing to practice law.
21 33. Pursuant to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the holdings of the U. S.
22 Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal
23 Trade Commission, Case No. 13-534, 2014, Goldfarb, supra,and other cases,
24 Barry also brings this lawsuit who has been forced to pay compulsory dues to the
25 Bar for 41 years while the Bar repeatedly engages in anti competitive practices,
26 favoring market participants and disfavoring others for improper reasons, which
27 are often illegal and repeatedly endanger the public.
28 34. Rachel and Michele also sue under the Sherman Act because as
13
13
1 members of the public, the Bar has caused them grave harm based on the Bars
2 anti-competitive practices, protecting corrupt market participants.
3 35. Barry, Rachel, and Michele challenge the failure of the California
4 Supreme Court (Court) to supervise and rein in the cliques of attorneys running
5 the Bar, the Bars habitual pattern of restraint of trade and free enterprise by the
6 active market participants i.e., the attorneys who are running the bar and
7 disciplining attorneys and the Bars institutionalized violations of its mission
8 and misappropriation of bar dues, resulting in repeatedly causing harm to the
9 public.
10 36. The Courts abdication of its responsibility to supervise the Bar is
11 demonstrated by the Courts ruling in In re Rose(2000) 22 Cal.4th 430, 436 in
12 which the Court ruled
13 We conclude that this court may summarily deny an attorneys
petition for review of a State Bar Court decision recommending
14 disbarment or suspension without violating constitutional principles.
15 37. With summary affirmance, the Court refuses to consider the
16 constitutional violations and other acts of misconduct of the Bar in bringing about
17 the attorneys discipline, whether the discipline even met the requirements of the
18 State Bar Act to initiate it in the first place, and to address the most critical issue
19 which directly causes danger to the public, the Bars choice of who will be
20 disciplined and who wont.
21 38. The Court had an opportunity to do something about the corruption of
22 the Bar, by restoring Barrys bar card to her and considering the issues she brought
23 to its attention in this complaint. Instead, it disbarred her without even allowing
24 this complaint to go forward - a summary version of its summary version of due
25 process for attorneys.
26 39. Attorneys are in the best position to expose corruption in the Bar and
27 in the Courts. Once, however, they become whistleblowers or anger a judge they
28 are disbarred, the typical knee jerk reaction of the government to those who
14
14
1 expose the governments wrongdoing kill the messenger.

2 40. Attorney Richard Fine suffered from this same problem
3 complaining about judges led to his disbarment which other judges upheld. Kay
4 was a victim of a judge who turned to the Bar and its alternate universe with its
5 alt-facts to vent his spleen against Kay. There are many judges who want Barry
6 disbarred like Judge Adams who should be removed from the bench.
7 41. The Bar is imploding under its own weight of corruption. The
8 lawsuit brought by DEFENDANT JOSEPH DUNN (Dunn), former Executive
9 Director of the Bar, against the Bar is nothing more than a fingerpointing exercise
10 between Dunn and now-terminated former Bar Counsel JAYNE KIM (Kim) and
11 those who support her. The members are extorted with compulsory dues to pay
12 for the Bars attorneys who are defending Dunns lawsuit while the two camps,
13 pro-Dunn and pro-Kim go at it. The lawsuit is an expected result of cronyism
14 which infects the hiring of those running the Bar.
15 42. In this complaint, Barry, Michele, and Rachel prove that the Bar has
16 repeatedly violated Busi & Prof C. Sec.6001.1 which states the Bars mission:
17 Protection of the public shall be the highest priority for the State Bar
of California and the board of trustees in exercising their licensing,
18 regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Whenever the protection of
the public is inconsistent with other interests sought to be
19 promoted, the protection of the public shall be paramount.
Emphasis added
20
43. As a former all white male gentlemens club, the Bar still
21
demonstrates a continuing preference for corporate attorneys, mostly males and for
22
criminal prosecutors, mostly white males. Towery, Hebert, Falk, Craig,
23
Brosnahan, are white male corporate attorneys. All three of Barrys prosecutors
24
were white corporate attorneys, Craig, Tady, and DEFENDANT ERIN JOYCE
25
(Joyce).
26
44. The Bar should be an independent executive agency within the
27
Attorney Generals office or as a stand-alone agency. Making the Supreme Court
28
the ultimate arbiter of who gets disbarred has created a fatal conundrum for Barry
15
15
1 because Barry is complaining about the very Court who just disbarred her in the
2 complaint she presented to the Court.
3 B. Barrys Proposed Disbarment Is a Symptom of the Bars
Dysfunction and Discrimination against Female Victims of
4 Domestic Violence and their Abused Children.
5 45. In the three instances when the Bar prosecuted Barry, it was no
6 coincidence that the bar championed three violent men, LEO MAGERS, JOSEPH
7 MORIN, and J. Fotinos as well as unethical attorneys, ROBERT DRESCHER
8 (Drescher) who abused the court by filing a void lawsuit against Barry and
9 pursued it for 2-1/2 years on behalf of a non existent corporation which had been
10 defunct for some time when he filed it, and DEFENDANT STEPHEN
11 MONTALVO (Montalvo) who caused grave harm to Michele, a domestic
12 violence victim and her abused children. The Bar wants Barry disbarred based on
13 these three cases in all three of which, Barry represented a female victim of
14 domestic violence seeking to regain custody of her child(ren) from the abusive
15 father.
16 46. The first is based on a 16-1/2 year old complaint by a judge, MARIN
17 JUDGE VERNA ADAMS (J. Adams) who is reputed to be one of the most anti-
18 woman judges in the state. CAROL MARDEUSZ (Mardeusz), Barrys client,
19 was seeking to regain custody of her now-adult daughter Haleigh from Magers, an
20 extremely violent, alcoholic, drug- addicted individual. Magers was repeatedly
21 arrested for felony child abuse and DUIs, and may have murdered his wife. Both
22 Haleigh and his son were finally removed from him because he repeatedly abused
23 and endangered them but not before J. Adams insured the conviction of Mardeusz
24 for seeking an order of custody (if that even makes sense).
25 47. The second case is based on federal civil rights lawsuits Barry filed
26 on behalf of Darla Elwood, also a battered woman seeking to regain custody of her
27 abused children. The Bar prosecuted the case supposedly on behalf of Morin and
28 ROBERT DRESCHER, (Drescher), an attorney who represented Morin in the
16
16
1 cases Barry filed on behalf of Elwood. As already alleged, Morin is a violent

2 homophobe, racist, and a child batterer.
3 48. Barry also suspects the Bar prosecuted the Elwood case on behalf of
4 LAURA CHICK, (Chick) a former controller of the City of Los Angeles who
5 served on the former Bar Board of Governors as a so-called public member
6 when she was no more a public member than the mayor of Los Angeles or a
7 congressperson would be. Cronyism was the only reason she was installed into
8 the Bar. Sheldon Sloan, another white male corporate attorney, is a close friend
9 of Chick. When he was serving as State Bar President, Chick attended a party at
10 his house. On a whim, Sloan suggested Chick serve on the Board of Governors as
11 it was then called, and she agreed. The cavalier, offhand way Chick came to sit on
12 a Board which has life and death authority over members legal careers is
13 concerning, to say the least. That is how the Bar vets individuals who become
14 Bar officials at a party during casual conversation between cronies and maybe
15 after several drinks.
16 49. The third case the Bar filed against Barry was on behalf of Montalvo.
17 Michele, like Mardeusz and Elwood, is a victim of domestic violence who was
18 also trying to regain custody of her children when Barry took her family law case.
19 Barry eventually sued Montalvo for malpractice and fraud.
20 50. The Bar is serving as Montalvos bill collector disbarring Barry for
21 failure to pay discovery and judicial sanctions when the Bar knows Barry does not
22 have the ability to pay them. Montalvo took more than $45,000.00 from Michele
23 leaving her with virtually no spousal support, no children, and no community
24 property. Michele had no money to pay Barry.
25 1. Joyce, J. Armendariz, Cydney Batchelor (appellate
Bar Attorney )and Review Judge Catherine Purcell
26 Capitalize on the Fact that Barry Does not Receive
Sufficient Attorney Fees to Disbar Her, Which is Not
27 Just Because of Barrys Clients Inability to Pay Fees
but Because of the Legal Systems Financial Abuse of
28 Both Barrys Clients and Barry.
17
17
1 51. The Bar has seized on the fact that Barrys clients do not pay her
2 much in the way of attorney fees as a basis to disbar her. What the Bar ignores is
3 that the courts have subjected many of Barrys clients to financial abuse and
4 making many of them bankrupt. They include Michele, Jennifer Brown, Kristin
5 Hanson, Kirsten Cook, Shelley Allison, Nailya Kutzhanova, to name a few.
6 52. Judges also insure that Barry will not be paid attorney fees. Many of
7 Barrys clients were entitled to fees based on the needs-based family law statute
8 and the judges denied the fees, including Judge Carillo (Kutzhanova - Orange),
9 Judge Bowen (Shelley Allison (Allison) - Contra Costa), and CSE Comm.
10 Meinrich (sp) (Kirsten Cook (Cook)- Orange). Although other clients were
11 entitled to attorney fees Barry did not apply because she knew it was futile to do
12 so.
13 53. Orange Court or County stole $3,000 income tax return from
14 Elizabeth Chavira to pay LaFlammes fees in violation of Chaviras rights. She is a
15 single mom and at the time was not receiving child support. Chavira had agreed
16 to pay a part or all of the return to Barry as attorney fees. Michele had planned to
17 pay attorney fees from the spousal support arrearage award J. Franchi had awarded
18 her which has now climbed to around $25,000.00. DEFENDANT ROBERT
19 FOILES (J. Foiles) denied Micheles right to enforce the award and would not
20 allow Michele to garnish J. Fotinos PERS disability retirement. PERS Retirement
21 is subject to garnishment for spousal support.
22 54. Alan Cook, a defendant in a wrongful death action Barry filed his
23 son ended up lifeless in his bathroom after a long history of A. Cooks abuse,
24 neglect, and alcoholism was ordered to pay attorney fees of $750 or $850 and
25 $1,000 at $100 a month by Orange Superior Court judges. He refuses to pay.
26 Alan Cook is in what the Courts call a state of disentitlement but Superior Court
27 allows him to keep litigating even though he will not pay the fees. And he
28 laundered about $696,000 or so through his accounts and never accounted for that
18
18
1 money to his ex wife, Kirsten Cook.

2 55. Currently, Barry is in a fee arbitration hearing trying to collect fees at
3 the hourly rate of $100/hr and $150/hr. Barry represented Jennifer Hebert in
4 family court, in juvenile court, and filed a federal civil rights action for her and
5 added her parents who were the payors. Angry because Barry supported Jennifer
6 in juvenile court in a way her parents did not like, despite the fact that they had
7 signed retainer agreements promising not to interfere with the attorney client
8 relationship and knowing that Barry suffers enormous judicial and Bar retaliation,
9 rather than negotiate the $23,000 fee Barry is seeking, the couple hired Attorney
10 Evan Bardo to defeat the fee demand.
11 56. Besides not getting paid properly, Barry was subjected to some of the
12 most terrifying retaliation she has experienced from a Judge in Jennifer Heberts
13 case, from juvenile court judge Philip Soto. Judge Soto forced her into a chambers
14 conference which Barry is opposed to, because there is no record and the client is
15 not present despite the fact that the case is discussed. These chambers conferences
16 in family and juvenile court are a denial of due process to the parents.
17 57. In the conference without a reporter, surrounded by his sycophants,
18 attorneys who could lose their job if they crossed him, and aided and abetted by
19 County Counsel Munoz who was extraordinarily hostile towards Barry, without
20 issuance of an OSC, without notice or opportunity to be heard, not even provided
21 the document J. Soto claimed to be reading from, J. Soto stated that he was
22 inclined to refer Barry to the Sheriffs Dept for terrorism because J. Soto said that
23 Barry alleged in a pleading that good judges like J. Franchi (San Mateo) and J.
24 Salcido (San Diego) are taken out by the system because they support victims
25 of domestic violence. At least that is what Judge Soto claimed Barry had written.
26 Barry has complained repeatedly about the legal system going after good judges,
27 including J. Franchi and J. Salcido.
28 58. Barry was opposing institutionalized violence against victims of
19
19
1 domestic violence which Judges Franchi and Salcido tried to remedy and suffered
2 retaliation for doing so, and J. Soto called Barrys statement terrorism. Barry was
3 frightened, her free speech definitely chilled, and she was thoroughly intimidated.
4 Barry is filing against J. Soto with the CJP and with the State Auditor for what
5 good it will do. It was abundantly clear what Barrys message was: Good judges
6 who do their job and protect victims of domestic violence are retaliated against by
7 the legal system just as domestic violence victims and other parents are, including
8 fathers.
9 59. Jennifer and her girls are kept apart while the girls languish in the
10 foster care system. She is an excellent mother, not a mean bone in her body, who
11 needs a helping hand. She certainly never received that helping hand in J. Sotos
12 courtroom. The social workers set her up for failure infuriated that Barry had sued
13 them for hiding the fathers extreme abuse and neglect of the children while in his
14 care. So, everyone Munoz, minors counsel, fathers counsel, J. Soto focused on
15 Barry and abandoned their work posts. The kids were forgotten as they all fell
16 over their feet rushing into the chambers of J. Soto eager to bully and scapegoat
17 Barry.
18 60. Now Barry is forced to listen to the arguments of Evan Bardo who
19 claims Barrys fees are excessive at $100 and $150/hr although Barry has
20 practiced law for almost 42 years. Bardo attacked her federal pleadings. He is not
21 sworn as an expert witness. Worse is that Bardo has never practiced in federal
22 court except one case for three months which was remanded back to superior
23 court. 200 Laboratories v. Babaii, Case No. BC396912 (he did settle in superior
24 court). It was not a civil rights case. Bardo was admitted to the Bar ten years ago.
25 He was involved in five state appeals in the Second Appellate DCA of which he
26 settled one, won one, and lost the other three. None of them involved federal
27 claims. On information and belief, Bardo has not made the law in the sense that
28 any of his appellate cases were published and provided a helpful precedent for
20
20
1 other litigants and attorneys coming behind him. Also, Bardo generally is one
2 among several attorneys on the appellate cases.
3 61. Barry was admitted to the California Bar in June 1974 and the D.C.
4 Bar in 1975. She was in active practice in Washington D.C. in 1975 on her own.
5 Here are some of the cases in which she represented the plaintiff(s) as a solo in
6 eleven years between 1975 and 1986:
7 62. *Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986):
8 This case was the result of large numbers of attorneys across the state
9 working together to obtain the excellent result. Barry argued for Respondent
10 Vinson. Barry had the case from summary judgment through a ten day trial in
11 district court through the appeal and into the Supreme Court. Held: (by Justice
12 Rehnquist for an unanimous court) sexual harassment, including both quid pro quo
13 and environmental harassment, is sexual discrimination under Title VII.
14 63. *Vinson v. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1985):
15 This was the case argued as Meritor Savings in U. S. Supreme Court.
16 Briefed and argued for Vinson. Held: Reversed trial court. Evidence of harassment
17 of other employees by the perpetrator admissible to prove plaintiff's claim of
18 sexual harassment.
19 Hidden Pioneers of Sexual Harassment Litigation:
20 64. As an aside, because hopefully this complaint will have many
21 readers, Barry wants to do a shout-out to the four African-American
22 women who put sexual harassment on the map.
23 65. Ms. Barnes, an African-American woman, established
24 for all Americans that quid pro quo sexual harassment is gender
25 discrimination in Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir.
26 1977). This case was the first federal appeals case to recognize
27 the claim.
28 66. Ms. Bundy, an African-American woman, established
21
21
1 for all Americans that environmental sexual harassment is

2 gender discrimination in Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C.
3 Cir. 1981). This case was the first federal appeals case to
4 recognize the claim. Until this case, the courts limited sexual
5 harassment claims to quid pro quo claims.
6 67. Ms. Vinson, an African-American woman, in Meritor,
7 supra, in 1986 confirmed in the Supreme Court for all
8 Americans that both environmental sexual harassment and quid
9 pro quo harassment constitute gender discrimination.
10 68. Finally, Ms. Anita Hill, an African-American woman,
11 in the Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991 made workplace
12 sexual harassment a national topic of discussion at great
13 expense to herself. Today, most people believe the high tech
14 lynching Justice Thomas referred to and of which he claimed
15 to be its victim was of Hill.
16 69. *Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981)
17 Represented Navy employee at District Court and in Supreme Court. Held:
18 reversed (5-4) District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that federal
19 employees entitled to jury trial on claims involving Age Discrimination in
20 Employment Act. (Nakshian v. Claytor, 628 F.2d 59 (D.C. Cir. 1980), argued by
21 another law firm). See also Nakshian v. Claytor, 481 F.Supp.159(D.D.C. 1979).
22 (Barry Argued the motion.) Barry lost with dignity, 5-4, with Justice Marshall
23 adopting her arguments in his dissenting opinion.
24 70. *Johnson v. Lehman: U. S. District Court, Wash., D. C., 1980;
25 reversed, 679 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1982): Represented black Navy employee and
26 won first and only jury verdict for a federal employee under the Age
27 Discrimination in Employment Act. Reversed based on Lehman v. Nakshian.
28 71. *Clark v. Marsh, 489 F.Supp. 1236, (D. D. C., 1981) aff'd, 665 F.2d
22
22
1 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

2 Represented Army employee on constructive termination claim based on
3 sex discrimination and retaliation. Prevailed both at trial and in Court of Appeals.
4 Case of first impression and cited with approval by Ninth Circuit in cases
5 concerning constructive termination. See, e.g., Satterwhite v. Smith, 744 F.2d 1380
6 (9th Cir.1984); Nolan v. Cleland, 686 F.2d 806,812-13 (9th Cir. 1982)
7 72. *Porter v. District of Columbia, 502 F.Supp. 271 (D.D.C. 1980)
8 Represented black D. C. Government employee in administrative hearing
9 and prevailed on racial discrimination claim. Held: Porter entitled to backpay and
10 attorney fees.
11 73. *Kulkarni v. Alexander, 662 F.2d 758 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
12 Represented Army scientist on national origin discrimination claim in
13 administrative hearing and prevailed. Held: Kulkarni entitled to backpay and
14 attorney fees besides his other remedies.
15 74. *Carter v. Marshall, 457 F.Supp. 38 (D.D.C. 1978)
16 Represented three black women federal employees, alleging, inter alia,
17 violation of the federal Equal Pay Act. Held: federal employees entitled to jury
18 trials for Equal Pay Act violations.
19 75. Does it stick in the craw of Barry that she has to put up with the likes
20 of Bardo as she seeks modest fees from Jennifers parents? It does.
21 76. However, the Bar has no right to disbar Barry because she lacks the
22 ability to pay discovery sanctions to Montalvo caused in large part by Montalvo
23 himself who had stolen a significant sum of money from Michele leaving her with
24 no money, no kids, no support, and no community property and because the courts
25 engage in financial abuse against Barrys clients, deny attorney fees to Barrys
26 clients when they are entitled to them, and insure that Barry will not get paid fees
27 owed her.
28 77. Joyce, J. Armendariz, Batchelor, and J. Purcell disregarded a case
23
23
1 which squares on almost all fours with Barrys, Koehler v. Superior Court (2010)
2 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, which yes, or course came out of San Mateo. It
3 involved judicial abuse against yet another attorney, Mr. Koehler. The Court of
4 Appeal held specifically that Koehler could not be prosecuted for contempt
5 because he lacked the financial ability to pay the sanctions. In the alternate
6 universe of the Bar, Barry can be disbarred for failure to pay sanctions the Bar
7 officials know she cannot pay while the real courts hold that orders to pay
8 sanctions cannot be enforced by contempt against individuals who lack the ability
9 to pay them.
10 78. These four Bar officials also know that the judgment San Mateo
11 Judge Buchwald entered in the Montalvo case omits the discovery and judicial
12 sanctions, Barry claims on purpose.
13 79. The Bar once more is in violation of Keller, supra. The expenditure
14 of bar dues in support of J. Adams, Magers, Morin, J. Fotinos, Drescher, possibly
15 Chick, and Montalvo, decreases the delivery of competent legal services in the
16 state and creates a continuing danger to the public.
17 C. The Bars Racism, Sexism, and anti-Child Bias.
18 1. The Bars Scapegoating of Black Attorney Craig Martin to
Protect Corrupt White Attorney Michael Keck and the
19 Bars Defense of the N Word Against Martin as Part of
the Bars Discipline Procedure.
20
80. The Bar has been in moral collapse for years which the governor,
21
legislature, and legal experts have acknowledged. While the Bar may publicly
22
repudiate Trumps racism, sexism, anti-immigrant, anti-black, anti-Latino
23
positions, it is pure hypocrisy for it to do so.
24
81. When J. Armendariz covered up the crimes of a white attorney
25
MICHAEL KECK (Keck) against a Latina client, and falsely blamed a black
26
attorney CRAIG MARTIN (Martin) for the harm Keck had caused his client, J.
27
Armendariz contributed to the Trump outcome.
28
82. After J. Armendariz disbarred Martin, later, in 2015 Keck was
24
24
1 disbarred for repeated misappropriation of client funds for his personal expenses.
2 Martin was not reinstated despite the fact that Keck had engaged in the same
3 misconduct against the Latina client Martin had tried to help.
4 83. When Martin filed a complaint against J. Armendariz for denying
5 Martin production of exculpatory evidence concerning Kecks misconduct with
6 the COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE (CJP) , and a state Bar
7 employee who Martin asserts was Asst Trial Counsel Torres Gil left a voicemail
8 on Martins phone calling Martin, CRAIG THE NIGGER MARTIN" on June
9 27, 2012, and "FUCK YOU NIGGER." on July 6, 2012, in the second message,
10 the Bar contributed to the Trump outcome.
11 84. When Martin sued the Bar in part for these threatening racial epithets,
12 and Bar Counsel Danielle Lee signed a document filed in court on behalf of
13 the Bar that Martins claim based on the racial epithets should be dismissed
14 because ...this country has long tolerated racist comments or sentiments
15 because they are protected by the First Amendment.[citation omitted] Lee
16 and the Bar further institutionalized racism. Martin v. Torres-Gil, Case No.15-
17 546525, Bar Demurrer, filed Nov. 5, 2015, 1:17-19, Emphasis added
18 85. When Danielle Lee further argued in an anti-SLAPP motion in two
19 cases Martin had filed that calling a black attorney the N word is part of the
20 Bars petitioning activity because the racial epithets were related to Martins
21 discipline, and claimed that the N word is protected by the First
22 Amendment, this is direct evidence of the racism of the Bar which results in
23 someone like Trump being elected as president.
24 86. As the Nation put it in an article about the American writer, John
25 Edgar Wideman, in its December 19-16 2016 edition at p.32:
26 Theres a price to be paid for every evasion of our past, Widemans
work seems to tell us. Every fib we peddle, every political cop-out,
27 has its costs on our emotional and moral lives,....
28 87. Quoting from Widemans essay on Emmett Till, the Nation again
25
25
1 emphasizes the harm that self deception and political cop-out about racism (and
2 sexism) causes:
3 ....Beneath our nations pieties, our self-delusions, our denials and
distortions of history, our professed black-and-white certainties about
4 race, lies chaos.
5 88. The Nation article goes on:
6 ....it is just as true today that we are the sum of all that we continue to
ignore, all that weve buried, all the skeletons we refuse to name out
7 of fear, anger, and shame.
8 2. Hiring Fox Resulting in Further Institutionalizing of
Racism, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Anti-Child Bias.
9
89. When the Bar installed DEFENDANT JAMES FOX as consultant
10
to JAYNE KIM, (Kim) former Chief Trial Counsel, in August 2011, when the
11
Court appointed him to the Board of Trustees in 2014, and when the Board elected
12
Fox as President of the Bar, 2016-2017, the Bar further institutionalized racism
13
and indirect support of pedophiles.
14
90. Fox is a former 28 year San Mateo prosecutor who supported
15
DEFENDANT STEVE WAGSTAFFE, (Wagstaffe) now San Mateo District
16
Attorney, and ALFRED GIANNINI (Giannini) two prosecutors who engaged in
17
racial discrimination. Fox supported and protected two pedophiles, WILLIAM
18
AYRES who finally ended up convicted of serial child sexual abuse and recently
19
died in prison, and retired SAN MATEO SHERIFF GREG MUNKS (Munks)
20
picked up with his then-sidekick Deputy Sheriff CARLOS BOLANOS
21
(Bolanos) ...as a CUSTOMER of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves on April 21,
22
2007, in a single family residence located at 3474 Eldon Street, Las Vegas,
23
Nevada in a 2 year multi jurisdictional Sting called Operation Dollhouse lead by
24
the FBI. The slaves were underaged girls from Asia.
25
https://www.facebook.com/SanMateoCountyNews, Michael Stogner.
26
91. Under Foxs supervision, San Mateo Deputy D.A. MELISSA
27
MCKOWAN (McKowan) engaged in misconduct in several child sex abuse
28
cases.
26
26
1 92. On information and belief, Fox is suppressing the investigations of

2 pending bar complaints against Wagstaffe and McKowan. Both Wagstaffe and
3 McKowan have prior records of discipline. If prosecuted again, they would have
4 to be suspended, something that Fox would never permit to happen to his friends.
5 93. Fox brought his former deputy Giannini to the Bar to train bar
6 prosecutors. Giannini engaged in racial discrimination in jury selection resulting
7 in the Ninth Circuit reversing the murder conviction he had obtained. "It's a
8 bizarre choice. He's like the poster boy of misconduct, said Kathleen M. Ridolfi,
9 Northern California Innocence Projects former director, who teaches at Santa
10 Clara University's law school. It's a very sad statement about the Bar in
11 California.'
12 94. When a complaint was filed against Fox, the Bar used member dues
13 to whitewash the complaint and protect Fox. Fox is now embroiled in Dunns
14 lawsuit.
15 95. Kim had to leave because Bar employees voted overwhelmingly no
16 confidence in her. Dunn alleges Kim (and Fox?) hid or destroyed bar complaints
17 to make the backlog of complaints look smaller to keep her job. On information
18 and belief, Dunn got the job because of cronyism, primarily his close friendship
19 with Girardi and Brosnahan, Brosnahan authored the amicus brief for the
20 Lawyers' Committee for the Administration of Justice filed on behalf of the Bar in
21 the U.S. Supreme Court in Keller, supra. The members are now forced to foot the
22 attorney fee bill of the Bar to defend Dunns lawsuit while ill-advised appointees
23 like Fox and Dunn go at it. A pox on all their houses.
24 3. Former Judge Kamansky Teaching Ethics as MCLE
Provider although He Paid Settlement of $300,000.00 to His
25 Child Sexual Abuse Victim with Two Other Child Sex
Abuse Witnesses Ready to Testify Against Him.
26
96. When the Bar allows CRAIG KAMANSKY, (Kamansky) a retired
27
San Bernardino judge, to serve as a mandatory continuing legal education
28
(MCLE) provider who, from the evidence in a federal civil rights case against
27
27
1 Kamansky filed by Jason Bumpus, had engaged in sexual abuse against at least
2 three children, Jason Bumpus and the Harris sisters, the Bar institutionalizes
3 support of pedophiles. The weak-kneed CJP did not remove Kamansky from the
4 bench and immediately refer him for criminal prosecution. It did issue him a
5 public reproval for overtaping tapes allegedly containing child porn, possession of
6 which itself is a crime.
7 97. Endorsing Kamansky as a MCLE provider signals to attorneys and to
8 the public that the Bar does not take sexual crimes against children seriously.
9 Seeing Kamansky teaching a MCLE class also signals to those attorneys who are
10 attending his classes and who want to molest children that a sure fire way to avoid
11 criminal prosecution and loss of career is to get an appointment to the bench.
12 Barry should not be forced to pay compulsory dues to a Bar which has openly
13 endorsed such an individual.
14 4. Failure of Bar to Prosecute Attorney Krause based on His
stipulation He had Engaged in Child Abuse Against His
15 Daughter Alanna.
16 98. When the Bar refused to prosecute Attorney MARSHALL KRAUSE
17 for moral turpitude based on his stipulation that he had engaged in child abuse and
18 endangerment against his daughter Alanna Krause in juvenile court, the Bar
19 continues to institutionalize anti-child bias and protection of violent men who
20 harm children. Not prosecuting Krause also discriminates against market
21 participants who are not Bar insiders like him and would be prosecuted.
22 5. Failure to Prosecute Unethical Minors Counsel.
23 99. When the Bar refused to prosecute MILLER, HAROLD LA
24 FLAMME (La Flamme), SANDRA ACEVEDO (Acevedo), and JUDITH
25 LAWRENCE (Lawrence), who are all minors counsel and all of whom had
26 caused serious harm to the children they were representing it institutionalizes
27 protection of child abusers and immunizes a group of market participants who
28 violate the Ethics Code from prosecution, resulting in continuing danger to the
28
28
1 public. Not prosecuting minors counsel is also a violation of anti trust law.
2 6. Bars Support of Violent Men and Other Unethical
Attorneys
3
a. Joseph Morin.
4
100. Tady and Drexel violated public policy in championing Morin, a
5
violent racist, child batterer, and homophobe whose victim, Amy Meinke who
6
later came out as a lesbian, had obtained a two year restraining order against him.
7
101. No deputy sheriff had ever arrested Morin for his acts of domestic or
8
racial violence. The social workers who took Elwoods children from her and gave
9
them to Morin were dismissive of the domestic violence Elwood alleged. All the
10
judges who were made aware of Morins violence against his children made it
11
clear that it did not matter to them. The Bar continues this tradition. Thus, Morin
12
knew he could abuse his daughter, at his discretion. And he did including after
13
he complained to the Bar how Barry was picking on him because she sued him
14
based on his violence against children.
15
102. After Barry signed the stipulation for discipline in March 2010
16
concerning the Elwood federal lawsuits, she learned by serendipity from Anthony,
17
Elwoods oldest son, (ironically, on the front steps of the LASC courthouse), that
18
his youngest sister refused to return to Morins home while on a visit at her
19
mothers, disclosed that Morin had been abusing her for years, and stated that she
20
hated Morin. Barry tried to set aside the stipulation and the Supreme Court denied
21
her motion.
22
103. The evidence Morin is violent is as follows:
23
* A two-year civil harassment injunction Amy Meinke, a friend of
24
Darla Elwood, obtained against him. Morin attacked Meinke,
25
because he believed she was a lesbian, and for that reason alone,
26
wanted her to stay away from his children or he would f kill
27
her. Years later Meinke confirmed she is lesbian when she decided
28
to come out. Meinke described threats of Morin to kill her, breakins
29
29
1 to the apartment where she and Elwood were living, his carvings into
2 Meinkes door of weird threats, among other acts.
3 * An OSC re: contempt Meinke brought against him for violating the
4 injunction, such as, getting closer to her than the injunction allowed,
5 driving slowly by her apartment building, a break-in at her apartment
6 with the same m.o. Morin had used when he broke in before.
7 * A tape recording (Morin knew he was being taped) of a telephone call
8 between him and Elwood in which he (once more) threatened the life
9 of Meinke;
10 * The declarations and/or juvenile court testimony of Darla Elwood and
11 her two children, Anthony Delaplane and Tiffany Delaplane,
12 describing Morins violence and threats against all of Darlas
13 children, including her deceased son who he threw across the room
14 and he hit the other wall. Later the boy began to have seizures. He
15 drowned in the pool before anyone realized he was having a seizure
16 and taking in water quickly. What role Morins child abuse played in
17 the boy later suffering seizures was never explored.
18 * A statement of a witness (who later recanted what she said, but at that
19 point, most people who knew her believed she was having a sexual
20 relationship with Morin) who described the food Morin had thrown
21 all over the kitchen including on the ceiling on one occasion when the
22 deputy sheriff came out to escort Elwood and her children safely out
23 of the apartment although not arresting Morin for domestic violence.
24 * An OSC re: contempt Barry obtained against him, based on assault
25 and false imprisonment on her behalf and Darlas and her family
26 members behalf;
27 * Darryl Austins testimony against Morin in both the child custody
28 trial and in his deposition in the lawsuit for racial violence he filed
30
30
1 against Morin, as well as the police report on Morins crime against

2 Austin, the photo of Austins black eye and swelling on his face
3 where Morin had hit him, and records of medical treatment Austin
4 sought for the injuries Morin inflicted on him. Morin called him a
5 sand nigger as he beat him and threatened to f kill him if he ever
6 touched his car again (Austin denies that he did). Austin is from
7 Trinidad and is of Indian ancestry. Austin was six inches shorter, ten
8 years older, and weighed 50 pounds less than Morin. Austin settled
9 his case of racial violence against Morin for a substantial amount
10 of money.
11 104. According to the State Bar Act, probation proceedings are
12 confidential. Kelly Morin, Morins wife, communicated in emails on a first-name
13 basis with Maricruz Farfan, Barrys probation officer, and Goldade, her
14 supervisor, about Barry. In her emails, Kelly insisted that Barry had to be
15 disbarred because she sued Morin and J. Fotinos for their domestic violence.
16 b. J. Fotinos.
17 105. During the marriage of Michele and J. Fotinos, J. Fotinos began to
18 exhibit all the earmarks of the classic batterer. Michele never knew when he
19 would go off into a violent fit.
20 106. J. Fotinos threw a wrench at her head when Michele was pregnant
21 because he did not want her to go to her baby shower that coworkers were having
22 for her. J. Fotinos called Michele a bitch, a f cunt, a pig, lazy. He often
23 implied accusingly that she was cheating on him. He did not want her to go out
24 alone or to talk to other men.
25 107. J. Fotinos physically assaulted a high school babysitter because she
26 had dropped uncooked rice on the ground. He got so close to her he was spitting
27 on her. She never went back to the Fotinos home to babysit again.
28 108. J. Fotinos had problems at work, Newark Fire Dept, controlling his
31
31
1 rage. Eventually the department tried to fire him and finally let him go out
2 (falsely) on disability retirement. J. Fotinos has been collecting a tax free
3 disability pension for years, now around $60,000 a year. He impersonated a police
4 officer and claimed he was a fire captain when he was not. He committed felony
5 child abuse against Rachel and Austin. The details of his child abuse are
6 contained in Rachels Application for a Restraining Order found at para 233.
7 109. Besides Michele and Rachel, J. Fotinos threatened or assaulted
8 numerous other females, including the teen babysitter, three court-connected
9 therapists, causing two of them to resign from the Fotinos family law case, a
10 pediatrician, two school counselors, a court mediator, a school principal, a court
11 observer, and a witness for Michele.
12 110. In front of the children and Michele he shot at the neighbor's cats
13 with a gun. He continued to engage in criminal animal abuse after he obtained
14 custody, beating R.F.'s horse and kicking and choking the family's dog.
15 111. J. Fotinos was convicted in December 2007 for grand theft auto,
16 taking his friends truck, selling it for around $10,000 and pocketing the money
17 for himself. He was convicted in March 2014 for perjury, lying repeatedly in court
18 documents for years that he was not employed when he was, and for possession of
19 one (measly) weapon as a felon. Michele was the victim of his perjury.
20 112. As detailed in part of this complaint at paras 243-248, thanks to Barry
21 and Michele J. Fotinos was arrested and his 14 guns, 2 assault rifles, 20 high
22 capacity magazines, and 10,000 rounds of live ammunition were confiscated in
23 June 2012.
24 (I) The Bar and San Mateo Went a Step Further
with J. Fotinos Making Him a Member of the
25 Cabal to Disbar Barry and Imprison Michele.
26 113. The Bar's support of J. Fotinos is more than unsettling. The Bar did
27 not just befriend him, according to J. Fotinos, the Bar encouraged him to file as
28 many complaints as possible against Barry.
32
32
1 114. Around October 2012, J. Fotinos announced in J. Cretan's courtroom

2 the strategy of how Wagstaffe was going to let him walk away from the weapons
3 prosecution: "Why the D.A. told me they don't even know who the weapons
4 belong to." J. Cretan had to shut him up. J. Fotinos was giving away too much of
5 the conspiracy. In March or September 2014 Wagstaffe entered into a collusive
6 plea agreement with J. Fotinos. Rather than insist on a prison term and an order of
7 restitution for his victims, Michele, Rachel, and Austin, Wagstaffe agreed to a few
8 overnights in jail. We do not know if J. Fotinos even completed this sentence.
9 115. In March 2012, eight months before J. Karesh declared Barry and
10 Michele VL's, J. Fotinos knew about the plan to make them VL's:
11 From: John Fotinos <jfotinos@sbcglobal.net>
12 Date: March 26, 2012 8:59:37 PM PDT
13 To: michele fotinos <michele.fotinos@sbcglobal.net>
14 Subject: Re: Dinner Visit Tonight
15 Really????.......truly delusional. No "trade offs or bargaining chips",
just simply court orders, which you continually fail to follow. Serve
16 however you want, you and your attorney will be found to be
vexatious before this is over. Being listed as defendants does not
17 preclude enforcement of court orders.....provide Rachel's grades from
Carlmont HS ASAP or I will attain from the school. emphasis added.
18
116. When Michele forwarded Barry the above email, Barry scoffed at the
19
idea that she or Michele would be made VL's because attorneys representing
20
clients and represented clients cannot be VL's. Wrong. Anything is possible in
21
San Mateo since the jurisdiction, like the Bar, routinely operates outside the law.
22
117. On Monday May 6, 2013 J. Fotinos predicted that Barry would lose
23
her license, two months after he filed his first bar complaint against Barry and
24
almost four years before it actually happened:
25
From: John <jfotinos@sbcglobal.net>
26
Subject: Re: Makeup visit
27
To: "Michele"
28
Date: Monday, May 6, 2013, 7:33 PM
33
33
1 Michelle are you joking I've already sent you the check by the way I
have to the 10th for you to get the check the court order states the
2 visits are to be held in half Moon Bay quit trying to get out of this if
you do not like it go to court but I doubt your attorney will have a
3 license to practice law here in the near future thank you for your
complete cooperation. emphasis added
4
118. Around September 24, 2014 two years to the month before J. Purcell
5
announced disbarment and before Michele learned it was official, Wagstaffe was
6
definitely prosecuting her, J. Fotinos stated in an email:
7
Don't worry Michelle the next one going to jail Is you and Barry
8 won't have a license to practice law. make sure you send that to
her. Emphasis added
9
(ii) Bars Free Speech Retaliation Against
10 Barry.
11 119. Saucedo forced Barry to defend a complaint filed by J. Fotinos in
12 March 2013 based on a flier she and Michele passed out in San Francisco in June
13 2012 outing the courts, Wagstaffe, and Munks for not arresting J. Fotinos and
14 issuing restraining order against him and his wife DAWN GROVER (Grover). J.
15 Fotinos is a violent felon with guns and the picket and flier resulted in a public
16 benefit J Fotinos being arrested and his 14 guns, 2 assault rifles, 20 high
17 capacity magazines, and 10,000 rounds of live ammunition confiscated. The Bar
18 institutionalized the chilling of free speech and endangered the safety of the
19 public.
20 120. On the other hand, the Bar refused to prosecute Attorney Wayne
21 Spindler who submitted a comment card to Los Angeles City Council President
22 Herb Wesson who is African-American which included drawings of a burning
23 cross and a person hanging from a tree, and a racial slur against Wesson.
24 According to the Los Angeles Times, Bar deputy trial counsel Ross Viselman
25 wrote in a letter that the Bar did not agree with the racist implications of Mr.
26 Spindlers drawing. He went on to say: We cannot bring disciplinary charges
27 against him for exercising his right to free speech.
28 121. Saucedo thought he could against Barry. Barrys speech involved an
34
34
1 issue of urgent and immediate concern to the public the epidemic of gun
2 violence with felons like J. Fotinos repeatedly obtaining guns caused by the gross
3 negligence of, and deliberate disregard for, the safety of Bay area residents by San
4 Mateo judges, prosecutor, and sheriff and the two higher courts. Another instance
5 of Saucedos harassment of Barry based on her free speech activity, see d. Peter
6 Lauzon, Attorney infra
7 c. Robert Drescher, Attorney.
8 122. In violation of anti trust law, the Bar spent bar dues repeatedly
9 supporting Drescher who is so malicious, incompetent, and dishonest that he
10 forced the taxpayers to subsidize a lawsuit against Barry representing Cytodyn, a
11 non existent corporation which could not sue or be sued. Drescher lied in his
12 pleading alleging that it was licensed and doing business in California. He
13 pursued the lawsuit for 2-1/2 years. Only because Barry researched the
14 corporations status and learned it was non existent did the Court dismiss.
15 123. While maintaining that void lawsuit, Drescher committed so many
16 ethical violations, that the Bars support of him raises the issue of the collective
17 mental status of the Bar. To paraphrase Ninth Circuit Judge Trotts comment in
18 Hardwick v. Orange County, any Bar investigator and prosecutor with an IQ
19 above the temperature in Alaska would know that Drescher was violating the
20 rights of Barry and the taxpayers, and committing gross ethical violations.
21 124. Drescher engaged in perjury, lied to the Court about Cytodyns
22 bankruptcy proceedings forcing Barry to conduct extensive informal discovery,
23 including contacting one of the bankruptcy trustees who confirmed Drescher had
24 committed perjury in his lawsuit against Barry, he attempted extortion of Barry,
25 threatening her with a $400,000 fine in bankruptcy court if she did not
26 immediately dismiss her cross complaint for attorney fees, he refused to comply
27 with numerous discovery orders based on numerous motions to compel Barry
28 was forced to file. He refused to pay discovery sanctions. Drescher refused to
35
35
1 produce the plaintiff corporation for a deposition because it did not exist.
2 Drescher admitted in writing that he had no documents to support his claims of
3 malpractice against Barry.
4 125. The Bar had forced Barry through four investigations based on
5 Dreschers complaints and closed the cases.
6 126. Rather than turn the tables at long last on Drescher and prosecute him
7 for filing a void lawsuit on behalf of a non existent corporation, and engaging in a
8 pattern of extreme misconduct in the void lawsuit, the Bar could not resist
9 harassing Barry yet one more time on behalf of Drescher. In November 2011,Lisa
10 Foster, Bar investigator, demanded Barry answer numerous questions based on
11 Dreschers complaint, maybe the fourth one.
12 127. Fosters letter was sent to Barry just as J. Franchi was recusing
13 himself in the Fotinos family law case. Fox had been on board with the Bar
14 since August 2011 and was probably in contact with San Mateo judges,
15 Wagstaffe, and Munks about J. Franchi, Miller, Barry, Michele. Fox probably
16 ordered Foster to harass Barry with the frivolous complaint of Drescher.
17 128. Foster demanded to know whether Barry paid sanctions when Foster
18 knew that the corporation could not sue and the lawsuit was void. Rather than
19 prosecute Drescher and seek reimbursement on behalf of Barry of whatever
20 sanctions Barry had paid to Cytodyn and Drescher since they were obtained under
21 false pretenses, Foster forced the victim of Dreschers misconduct to defend
22 herself.
23 129. Foster forced Barry to set aside her clients cases, and she spent five
24 hours answering Dreschers questions. Foster spent Bar dues on behalf of an
25 attorney who should have been suspended or disbarred.
26 130. Drescher later stalked Barry and committed perjury in a court
27 document to harass Barry with frivolous litigation. On February 28, 2013, as
28 Barry was walking out of a courtroom in San Mateo County Superior Court in
36
36
1 Redwood City, California, Drescher had Barry served with a document

2 purporting to be Motion Re: Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt along with
3 Dreschers declaration and a proposed order of contempt. His perjured declaration
4 was that Barry had not paid him a sanction of $150.00 five-1/2 years ago. The
5 document itself was gobbledydgook. Drescher lied under oath which is his modus
6 operandi.
7 131. In checking the Superior Court website docket for this case, Barry
8 learned that the hearing was noted but the document Drescher served Barry with
9 did not appear on the docket nor a proof of service. With no proof of service
10 filed five days before the hearing, combined with a document that had no legal
11 significance meant that the Motion would be dismissed. To be doubly certain,
12 Barry set aside her cases and appeared at the hearing. Judge Treu asked Barry if
13 Drescher gave her notice on the prior Friday that the tentative was to deny. Barry
14 said no. Not only did Drescher harass Barry with a frivolous proceeding, he failed
15 to notify her of the tentative ruling thereby forcing her to show up for court for no
16 reason.
17 132. Drescher also committed perjury in the body of his sworn declaration,
18 claiming that six years prior, Barry had not paid him a sanction.
19 In fact, as of the date of this declaration [January 24, 2013], no money
whatsoever has been paid to this office. 2:20-21.
20
133. Barry obtained a copy of the front and back sides of the check for
21
sanctions in the amount of $150.00 which Barry paid Drescher in June 2007 and
22
which he negotiated in June 2007. The back side of the check shows his then law
23
firms stamp ...Drescher, Quisenberry, Ridley & Shiffman, LLP.
24
134. Given Dreschers irascible nature and tendency to lie and commit
25
perjury, his association with J. Fotinos, a known violent felon with access to guns,
26
his and J. Fotinos verbal abuse of Barry, the falsified court document he served
27
on Barry, and stalking her all the way to San Mateo Court are enough to give any
28
person pause.
37
37
1 135. Drescher told Barry that he worked for years with computers in the
2 Los Angeles Police Department.
3 136. Bar Probation Officer Farfan received two emails purporting to be
4 from Barry and informing Farfan that Barry had changed her email to two different
5 email addresses. It might have been Drescher who stole Barrys identity and sent
6 those false emails to Farfan, because of his expertise in computers. One wonders
7 whether Farfan ever asked herself whether she and the Bar are now on the side of
8 dangerous loons.
9 137. Just one month after Drescher stalked Barry to San Mateo and served
10 her with a false legal document J, Fotinos filed his first complaint against Barry
11 with the Bar, which Barry received from the Bar on March 22, 2013. These two
12 individuals had joined forces to harass Barry, which the Bar supports.
13 138. It was futile for Barry to file a Bar complaint against Drescher for
14 stalking her to San Mateo, for filing and serving the false document, and for
15 committing perjury against her. The Bar refused to prosecute Drescher for his
16 outrageous misconduct in the Cytodyn case; the Bar certainly would do nothing to
17 protect Barry from his additional perjury and frivolous litigation.
18 d. Peter Lauzon, Attorney
19 (I)Saucedo Hounds Barry with Lauzons
Frivolous Complaint.
20 139. As part of Saucedo's continuing pattern of harassing Barry for her
21 First Amendment activity, activity which generally resulted in a benefit to the
22 public, Saucedo forced Barry to defend herself against a false complaint filed by
23 Lauzon an attorney who had engaged in extremely unethical misconduct and
24 harassment of both Barry and AYMAN FARRAJ (Farraj), an Arab Palestinian
25 Muslim Barry had represented in a family law proceeding, IRMO Salas and Farraj,
26 Case No. BD490528, Los Angeles Superior Court ("LASC") Lauzon represented
27 EDITH SALAS ("Salas") the petitioner in the case.
28 140. In a judgment filed ten months before BRUCE HARSHMAN
38
38
1 (Harshman) a therapist came on Farraj's case, Judge Goldberg found that both
2 parents were good parents and the children were flourishing in their joint custody.
3 The judge also specifically found there was no domestic violence in the marriage.
4 141. Later, J. Goldberg who had just found Farraj to be a loving father put
5 him in supervised visitation because Farraj reported what his 8 year old daughter
6 had disclosed to him, that Nitin Thakor, Salas' live in boyfriend, a millionaire was
7 molesting her. Harshman was appointed as therapist for Farraj and the children.
8 Harshman had harmed many families, having been appointed as custody evaluator
9 or therapist for over 20 years by LASC. He was on LASC's approved provider
10 list.
11 142. Harshman wrote a report stating that because Farraj is an Arab from
12 the Middle East he will erupt into domestic violence at any time despite the
13 judgment indicating no domestic violence.
14 143. One of the racist emails are as follows:
15 "WATCH THE NEWS. ARABIAN MEN ARE VERY
EMOTIONAL."... "YES I AM AWARE OF THE EMOTIONAL
16 CHARACTERISTIC OF MIDDLE EASTERN MEN THEIR
TEMPERS, THE DESIRE TO CONTROL AND MANIPULATE
17 AND TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME IN MID
STREAM PLUS THEIR FAULTY ATTEMPTS TO KEEP WHAT IS
18 REALLY GOING ON INSIDE UNDER WRAPS IF IT IS GOING
TO HAVE A NEGATIVE AFFECT ON THINGS."
19
144. This is a description of a white man of Scottish heritage named
20
Donald Trump. Actually also of Morin, J. Fotinos, Drescher, Lauzon, Walnut
21
Creek Attorney Merritt Weisinger, LaFlamme, etc.
22
145. Once Salas had Harshman's racist reports in hand, she and Thakor
23
hired Lauzon to write a motion to take the two children of Farraj and Salas to live
24
in India with their mother and Thakor, an absurd proposition since Farraj is an
25
Arab Muslim, does not speak Hindi, and India is not a signatory to the Hague
26
Convention re: Abduction of Children. If Salas moved the children to India, the
27
children would never see their father again. Lauzon charged Thakor, the
28
millionaire, $50,000.00 for a poorly-written Motion to Move Away. He did not
39
39
1 put much effort into it, since Farraj had an attorney who did not stand up to the
2 racism of Harshman and Shaps and Farraj was, well, an Arab Muslim the
3 favorite scapegoat du jour.
4 146. Farraj hired Barry shortly after one of the most absurd hearings on
5 record regarding the move away which move away was granted by Judge David
6 Cunningham. Salas who knows next to nothing about India, having only
7 vacationed there a few times in a wealthy enclave behind locked gates testified
8 there was no sex discrimination in India, a jaw dropping pronouncement. Shortly
9 before she made this comment, there was an international news report of gang
10 rapes of women in India. Lauzon provided no expert to explain Indian law and
11 what rights Farraj, an Arab Muslim, would have should Salas disappear into the
12 depths of India.
13 147. Once Barry saw the evidence of Harshman's and Steven Shaps'
14 racism, she filed a motion to strike Harshman's reports, the reports relied on by
15 Lauzon and Salas to obtain a move away order to India.
16 148. Lauzon did not deny that Harshman and Shaps were racist. Instead he
17 filed 1100 evidentiary objections to Farraj's evidence in support of the motion.
18 Barry and Farraj had to spend many hours on the reply to the objections. J.
19 Cunningham did not sanction Lauzon, nor even comment on Lauzon's malicious
20 litigation misconduct. J. Cunningham denied the motion ignoring the racism
21 which tainted Harshman's and Shaps' reports parroting Lauzon, saying it was
22 filed too late. It was filed on the day that an order to make further orders on the
23 move away was filed. Farraj's former attorney was not about to report the racism
24 and besides, racism as the basis to deprive a parent of her children should have no
25 statute of limitations.
26 149. Lauzon piped up and demanded that J. Cunningham call the motion
27 frivolous with no factual basis whatsoever. Lauzon at this point was desperate
28 he had overcharged Thakor - and so he capitalized on the fact that J.
40
40
1 Cunningham harbored great hostility towards Barry. Lauzon demanded that J.

2 Cunningham label the motion frivolous and he did so.
3 150. Judge Cunningham had been the judge on a prior case, in which
4 Barry had represented Sera McRoberts, a mother, trying to keep custody of her
5 children away from the alleged child sex abusing father.
6 151. Even Court of Appeals Justice Perluss, always eager to find fault with
7 Barry, had to admit the motion was not frivolous and reversed the ruling. The sad
8 tragedy was that Justice Purless did not immediately remedy the terrible racism
9 Farraj was subjected to and order Farraj at least 50% custody. We all lost out
10 when Justice Purless affirmed Judge Cunninghams unfair rulings against, and
11 Lauzons racist harassment of, Farraj. Did Lauzon, J. Cunningham, and Justice
12 Purless sow a wind and ended up reaping a whirlwind of hatred against Muslims
13 that we Americans are now experiencing with Trump in office?
14 152. In October 2013, Barry filed a 85-page complaint with numerous
15 supporting exhibits against Harshman with LASC to have him and Shaps removed
16 from the court's approved provider list. Barry incorporated the evidence of the
17 Harshman motion into the complaint and also evidence from other cases in which
18 Barry had represented parents harmed by Harshman. She and Farraj contacted
19 other parents who were victims of Harshman's misconduct to file against
20 Harshman and they did so.
21 153. On March 6, 2014, Brett Bianco, Attorney for LASC, wrote Barry:
22 Again, thank you for your letter dated October 21, 2013, addressed to
the Presiding Judge' and Susan Thrall. Additional materials in support
23 of the complaint were received from your client, Ayman Farraj.
24 As you and Mr. Farraj were notified by letter dated January 20, 2014,
a committee was assigned to investigate the allegations, and that
25 investigation concluded. Please note that Steven Shaps and Bruce
Harshman are no longer listed in the court's Counselor Directory and
26 Private Evaluator Directory, respectively.
27 154. Lauzon knew that Barry later was successful in getting Harshman and
28 Shaps removed from Los Angeles Superior Court's ("LASC") list of approved
41
41
1 providers as custody evaluator and/or therapist primarily based on the racist emails
2 between Harshman and Shaps. Lauzon also knew that Farraj and Barry had
3 mobilized other parents to provide declarations to LASC about how bad Harshman
4 was there were plenty because he was one of the worst providers the Court ever
5 allowed around parents and children. Knowing this, nonetheless, he filed against
6 Barry with the Bar.
7 155. Saucedo should have done some investigation just reviewing the
8 motion itself should have placed him on notice that under no circumstances could
9 that motion be considered frivolous. Saucedo once more harassed Barry for
10 engaging in free speech activity resulting in a benefit to the public ridding the
11 court of a racist and otherwise corrupt custody evaluator and therapist and
12 protecting all parents from them in the future.
13 (ii) Shoe on Other Foot, Bar Will Not Prosecute
Lauzon For his Threats and Other Acts of
14 Harassment against Farraj.
15 156. Farraj filed for a restraining order against Lauzon in Los Angeles
16 Superior Court. The Court denied the order and played the game of shuffle which
17 judges and the Bar regularly do, sending individuals harmed by attorneys back and
18 forth from the court to the bar and vice versa. The Bar denied Farraj's request for
19 discipline against Lauzon.
20 157. Lauzon engaged in a pattern of harassment against both Farraj and
21 Barry. Lauzon made a death threat against Farraj during Salas' deposition and
22 terminated the deposition illegally. Mayra Gallardo who is the Property Manager
23 for the building where Barry rents an office which building is owned by Mexican
24 American Legal Defense and Education Fund ("MALDEF") was present where
25 Barry was trying to take the deposition of Salas. She provided a declaration to
26 Barry about the misconduct of Lauzon:
27 I was in the alcove in the afternoon on June 30, 2014. At
approximately 1:30 PM or shortly thereafter, I saw Patricia Barry,
28 Attorney, who I know by sight and who has been a long time tenant
of MALDEF. She was at one of the long tables I just described, the
42
42
1 table closest to the alcove. I could see her and the others at the table
clearly.
2
....I heard the tall caucasian male [Lauzon]yell very loudly to the man
3 standing next to Ms. Barry "that if you say one more word about my
family, I will fuck you up so bad!" He was yelling very loudly. Ms.
4 Barry remained calm. The man standing next to Ms. Barry also
remained calm. When Ms. Barry asked the man to calm down, he
5 yelled at her at least twice or three times to "Shut Up!".
6 The man was so angry that I thought of calling security to have him
removed. He was very angry and had become very aggressive.
7 However, after he yelled at the man next to Ms. Barry, he started to
leave. ...
8
....I heard Ms. Barry asking him again to calm down and he yelled at
9 her again as he walked by the alcove to "Shut UP!" He got in the
elevator with the woman accompanying him and they left. Emphasis
10 added
11 158. Lauzon would directly stare at Farraj and his supporters. Three of his
12 women friends filed declarations indicating that Lauzon would stare at them in a
13 hostile fashion in court and they all felt intimidated which can constitute sexual
14 harassment. See Birschtein v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc., 92 Cal. App. 4th 994
15 (2001), the Court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment, holding
16 that a campaign of staring may constitute actionable sexual harassment. The Bar
17 did not care Lauzon was their kind of guy.
18 159. Lauzon lied to a bailiff saying Farraj would not accept service
19 causing the bailiff to warn Farraj to accept the documents resulting in a dispute
20 between the bailiff and Farraj while Lauzon grinned at the discord he maliciously
21 had created. Eventually Farraj and the bailiff who had been manipulated by
22 Lauzon made up but not before Farraj went to the bailiffs supervisor to complain.
23 Lauzon maliciously lied to the bailiff who innocently but mistakenly accused
24 Farraj of not accepting service of a document from Lauzon, caused emotional
25 distress to Farraj, and maliciously created friction between two people who did
26 not know each other.
27 160. Lauzon has many attorney friends at the court. Lauzon would mock
28 Farraj and Barry with other attorneys, verbally attacked Barry publicly and
43
43
1 referred to her federal complaint filed on behalf of Farraj as "trash" in as loud a

2 voice as he could.
3 161. On one occasion, while Barry was preparing her oral argument on the
4 bench next to J. Cunningham's courtroom, Lauzon sat down as hard as he could to
5 bounce the bench so as to distract Barry, and then as she continued working on her
6 argument, he moved closer and closer until he was almost on top of her.
7 162. Lauzon would send process servers at the time that Farraj was visiting
8 with his children. The supervisors of the visit would become upset and ask the
9 server to leave. On one occasion Lauzon sent a server who spoke French. Farraj
10 was dating a French woman of Algerian ancestry at that time. The server cursed at
11 her calling her a whore in French. At least two servers falsified their proof of
12 service alleging they had personally served Farraj when they had not.
13 163. Once more the Bar chose the unethical male attorney over the ethical
14 female attorney in violation of anti trust laws, and Barry's First Amendment rights.
15 e. Flint Zide, Attorney
16 164. Zide is a danger to the public. He preys on poor people and sues
17 them even when he knows they are judgment proof on behalf of Midland, a
18 predatory corporation which produces nothing and offers no services. It buys debt
19 for pennies on the dollars and tries to squeeze dollars out of poor people.
20 165. In 2010-2011, Zide sued Maria Green for defaulting on payments for
21 an automobile. Midland had purchased the debt from the finance company which
22 lent her partner the money to buy the car. Green cosigned on the original contract.
23 Green was in her 60's, does not speak English, and was living on social security
24 disability of around $400 a month. This did not stop Zide from suing her.
25 166. Green had not purchased the automobile for herself. She signed for
26 her live in partner to buy the car. He had an accident, not his fault, and was badly
27 injured. He too had to go on disability. He quit paying on the car. Zide knew or
28 should have known that the company which financed the car had violated Green's
44
44
1 consumer rights under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil
2 Code 1788 et seq.
3 167. When the bench trial of Green was proceeding, Barry was waiting to
4 be heard on a case. She observed the mistreatment of Green by both Judge
5 Linfield and Zide. At a break, Barry spoke to Green outside the courtroom, and
6 Green asked her to represent her. Green was entitled to a jury trial, to conduct
7 discovery, to counterclaim against Midland, and to invoke her consumer rights.
8 Green was denied a jury trial because she did not know how to secure the right,
9 never conducted discovery, and never counterclaimed because she did not know
10 how to litigate. She had a friend in court to translate for her.
11 168. Barry is fairly certain she asked to continue the case and the judge
12 denied it. The judge granted judgment for the predator corporation.
13 169. Zide was so unprepared that he could not tell the Court what Green
14 owed. The judge used an estimate provided by Green which was used during a
15 meeting with the driver of the other car who caused the accident in the City
16 Attorney Office as the amount owed in the judgment.
17 170. After the trial, Barry researched the Rosenthal Act and found
18 1799.91 which mandates that the following written notice in English or Spanish
19 must be given to the cosigner who is not receiving the money, property, or
20 services:
21 NOTICE TO COSIGNER (Traduccion en Ingles Se Requiere Por La Ley)
You are being asked to guarantee this debt. Think carefully before you do.
22 If the borrower doesn't pay the debt, you will have to. Be sure you can
afford to pay if you have to, and that you want to accept this responsibility.
23 You may have to pay up to the full amount of the debt if the borrower does
not pay. You may also have to pay late fees or collection costs, which
24 increase this amount.
25 The creditor can collect this debt from you without first trying to collect
from the borrower. The creditor can use the same collection methods against
26 you that can be used against the borrower, such as suing you, garnishing
your wages, etc. If this debt is ever in default, that fact may become a part of
27 your credit record. This notice is not the contract that makes you liable for
the debt .
28
171. Zide knew that the lender had not provided this notice to Green. If the
45
45
1 judge had continued the case, Barry could have researched the Act and move for
2 dismissal.
3 172. In February 2011 right at the time that Miller who had been
4 removed as minors counsel by J. Franchi in August 2010 was coaching Micheles
5 children still in the custody of J. Fotinos of how to lie to J. Franchi when he
6 interviewed them in March 2011 Zide complained to the Bar that Barry agreed
7 to defend Green.
8 173. Zide violated the attorney-client privilege by eavesdropping on the
9 conversation Barry had with Green in the hallway and used what he claimed Barry
10 and Green said to each other in his letter to the Bar. He also complained that
11 Barry had characterized Midland as evil. Barry does not remember calling
12 Midland evil during the trial. However, if she did, she stands by it, truth is a
13 complete defense, and besides, the statement is protected by the absolute litigation
14 privilege, the anti-SLAPP statute, and the First Amendment.
15 174. But true to its practice of supporting corrupt attorneys, the Bar made
16 Barry defend against Zide's malicious complaint. The investigator, Agnes Mina,
17 actually accused Barry of soliciting Green to make money ("ambulance chaser")
18 when Green was the defendant and the most that Barry could do for Green was get
19 a judgment of dismissal.
20 175. Mina should have researched Midland. The Bar and Mina were
21 supporting a corporation which was harming so many consumers nationwide that
22 several state attorneys general were suing it, and a nationwide class action lawsuit
23 against Midland was going on as Mina and the Bar harassed Barry, Midland
24 Funding LLC v. Brent, Case No. 3:08-cv-1434, United States District Court for
25 the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division.
26 176. On March 11, 2011, the Ohio federal Court granted preliminary
27 approval to a nationwide class settlement in three related cases, Midland Funding
28 v. Brent (No. 3:08-cv-1434), Franklin v. Midland Funding (No. 3:10-cv-00091),
46
46
1 and Vassalle v. Midland Funding (No. 3:11-cv-00096) (Vassalle Doc. 7). As part
2 of its order preliminarily approving the settlement, the Court provisionally
3 certified a nationwide class of persons who had been sued by Defendants, Midland
4 Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
5 and related entities (collectively, "Midland") between January 1, 2005 and the date
6 of the approval order, in debt collections suits where Midland used false affidavits
7 attesting to facts about the underlying debt. (Which discovery might have
8 uncovered was also done in Greens case.)
9 177. The state of Minnesota had also brought an action against Midland as
10 noted in the order concerning preliminary injunction which was not included in
11 the lawsuit. Eight state attorneys general had opposed the settlement of the three
12 class actions in the Brent case. The court did go on to approve the settlement.
13 Nonetheless the fact that as many as eight state attorneys general were concerned
14 about the predatory debt collection practices of Midland is something that Mina
15 and the Bar should have considered besides the numerous lawsuits brought against
16 the corporation before bar dues were spent on Zide's complaint.
17 178. Again, the Bar sided with an unethical opposing male counsel, and
18 against Barry who was attempting to assist the victim of Zide's unethical lawsuit.
19 The bar once more caused danger to the public supporting the market participant
20 bringing the unethical lawsuit against an innocent consumer and harassing the
21 market participant attempting to protect the consumer.
22 7. Protection of Bar Insider Nathan Hales Denying Restitution
to His Victim, Family Law Litigant Susan Bassi, and
23 Endangering Public.
179. The Bar issued no discipline to Nat Edward Hales, Jr. who was
24
appointed by a judge to serve as a referee in the Susan Bassi family law case in
25
Santa Clara court, although he had violated rules of protocol, failed to disclose
26
financial conflict of interest, and had received a secret payment of almost $27,000
27
from opposing counsel for the ex husband.
28
180. All the Bar did was issue a letter in lieu of discipline and have Hales
47
47
1 take the Ethics Bar School once more favoring a Bar Insider. In addition,
2 Towery a corporate attorney, a former state bar president and former Bar
3 Trial Counsel, who got himself appointed as a judge on the Santa Clara bench
4 knew about Hales misconduct and refused to refer him to the Bar. Without
5 discovery, it is not known whether Towery intervened at the Bar to protect Hales
6 from the discipline he should have received.
7 D. The Bars Retaliation Against Barry for Winning a Case Against
the Bar by Taking It to the Supreme Court and Reversing the
8 Win Is not Only a Violation of Keller But Has Created a Danger
to the Public.
9
1. Violation of Keller.
10
181. The Bars pursuit of the case on appeal and in the Supreme Court
11
violates the holding of the U. S. Supreme Court in Keller v. California State Bar,
12
496 U.S. 1 (1990) that member dues can only be used for discipline or
13
improvement of legal services.
14
182. The issue in Barrys case had nothing to do with improvement of
15
legal services or discipline. Whether, once the Court had determined it had no
16
subject matter jurisdiction, it could go on to consider the merits of the case is a
17
legal issue which could have arisen in any case. Further, what was at stake was
18
only a $2600 attorney fee award. The Bar had won a dismissal and Barry did not
19
challenge the dismissal on appeal.
20
a. Four Ways Dues Misappropriated.
21
183. The Bar misappropriated dues in four ways in the Barry case: First,
22
the Bar should have negotiated with Barry to waive the $2600 attorney fee in
23
exchange for dismissal of the appeal. On behalf of the members, the Bar did not
24
exercise billing judgment. Instead, the Bar spent thousands of dollars on the
25
appeal. Second, after losing in a published decision, rather than lick its wounds
26
and move on after all, it was not a huge win the Bar spent thousands more
27
dollars pursuing the case to the Supreme Court.
28
184. Third, the Bar also wasted bar dues hiring paralegals to locate every
48
48
1 possible lawsuit against the Bar, obtain copies of the complaint and judgments,
2 and pay to have them copied into appendices to file with the Supreme Court. The
3 purpose of these appendices was To prove that No One wins Against the Bar and
4 Barry Is Not To Be About the First. Together, the four volumes (unnumbered
5 pages) measure 6-1/2 inches thick. They were useless.
6 (I) Fourth Way - Hiring of Kerr/Wagstaffe Firm.
7 185. Fourth, the Bar hired the Kerr/Wagstaffe firm to litigate the case in
8 the Supreme Court. There are four reasons why retaining the firm to defeat
9 Barrys win in the Supreme Court was a misappropriation of dues.
10 (A). The Bar Hired Kerr & Wagstaffe on a
No-bid Contract.
11 186. On information and belief, the Bar has used Kerr/Wagstaffe for many
12 years on a no bid contract. This a violation of the right of other market
13 participants to compete for the contract, a clear anti-trust violation. A no bid
14 contract almost guarantee that the members are being charged excessive fees.
15 (B). The Bar Is Using Dues, Possibly
Repeatedly, to Pay Fees to an all White
16 Law Firm.
187. The Kerr-Wagstaffe firm is made up of fourteen1 attorneys, of whom
17
ten or eleven are white males and three are white females. All the partners are
18
white males.
19
188. As the Kerr/Wagstaffe states on its website,
20
http://www.kerrwagstaffe.com/attorneys/ : A law firm is defined by its
21
attorneys. It sure is, Mr. Kerr and Mr Wagstaffe. White, white, white. And the
22
firm is in San Francisco and they still do not have diversity?
23
189. The three women are associates. Meaning if sexual harassment
24
25 Herbert Sinclair Kerr Jr is a white male (assumedly) partner but he is not
1
26 named on the firms website. However, his Bar profile indicates he is still
practicing at Kerr/Wagstaffe in San Francisco. Barry counted him. Also, on one
27
website, Nancy Lynn Tompkins was listed as a partner at Kerr/Wagstaffe. Her Bar
28 profile indicates she is now employed at the First Appellate Court of Appeal, and
she is not now listed on the Kerr/Wagstaffe website.
49
49
1 occurs, there is no female partner they can go to. And it looks like Kerr and
2 Wagstaffe had an opportunity to promote a woman to partner and chose the
3 similarly-placed white male instead. Kevin B. Clune and Maria Radwick were
4 both admitted to the Bar in 2007. Clunes and Radwicks resumes online are
5 equally impressive. Clune is a partner; Radwick is not. Further, the firm just
6 hired the other two female associates Melissa Perry and Laura Seegal, both of
7 whom were not admitted to the Bar until December 2015.
8 190. Hiring the all-white Wagstaffe firm repeatedly in no bid contracts is
9 consistent with the prior alleged pattern of racial and gender discrimination and
10 lack of diversity in the Bar. In the last 27 years, 21 of the state bar presidents
11 have been white males, many of them from big corporate law firms. The
12 appointment of Fox is more than just an appointment of the 21st white male in 27
13 years; it is a veritable right wing coup, given Foxs dismal record as a 28 year San
14 Mateo prosecutor.
15 191. The Bar is growing more elitist and less democratic. The Court and
16 the Legislature have diluted the voting power of attorneys. Just reducing the
17 number of members of the Board of Trustees elected by the attorneys and
18 permitting more appointments by the Court and the Legislature has resulted in the
19 whitest board in recent times, now 81% white. In 2010 when attorneys voted
20 for most of the members, it was 65% white. Rank and file attorneys support
21 diversity more than the Court and the Legislature.
22 ( C). James Wagstaffe Is the Brother of
Wagstaffe Who Is Working with
23 Fox to Disbar Barry and Put
Michele in Prison Meaning
24 Members Are Subsidizing James to
Help Fox and His Brother Take
25 Their Retaliation Against Barry
and Michele.
26 192. Besides suing the Bar for violations of Barrys First Amendment
27 rights per Keller, supra, and for repeated anti-trust violations, Barry, Michele, and
28 Rachel also bring this lawsuit against the Bar for its illegal coordination with the
50
50
1 San Mateo defendants through Fox to disbar Barry and put Michele in prison.
2 193. On January 3, 2017, Barry called Matt Broad, an investigator (called
3 an inspector), San Mateo D.A. office, and asked him to email her Wagstaffes
4 criminal complaint against Michele. Barry stated that she needed the complaint
5 for her petition for reinstatement to the California Supreme Court and she may
6 have said that if he did not do so, she would let the Court know. (Two days later,
7 the Court issued its opinion.) Broad refuses to email the complaint against
8 Michele to Barry so the reader of this complaint can know the extent of
9 Wagstaffes malice and falsification of charges he has made against Michele.
10 194. James Wagstaffe has a personal grudge against Barry because of his
11 brother and Fox. His legal objectivity is blurred by his family relationship with
12 Wagstaffe. Members have been forced to fund a law firm engaged in a fraternal
13 vendetta with Fox and Wagstaffe against Barry and Michele.
14 (D). The Kerr/Wagstaffe Firm Is
Thwarting the Public Will and
15 Further Endangering the Public.
16 195. CJP has also retained the Wagstaffe firm to defeat the state auditors
17 investigation of complaints against judges while the auditor uses tax dollars to
18 defend against Wagstaffes/ Commissions attack on democracy the right of the
19 people to ascertain why unethical judges are not being disciplined by the
20 Commission.
21 196. The people pay the price in this tug of war between the old order (no
22 judicial accountability - as defended by Kerr/Wagstaffe) and the new one, (making
23 judges accountable for their misconduct as prosecuted by the State Auditor)
24 both in dollars and in public morale. On behalf of the People of California, the
25 Bar should cancel its contract with Kerr/Wagstaffe.
26 197. The firm is harming the public. Just as we boycott states which
27 institutionalize racial, gender, or LGBT discrimination so we attorneys should
28 boycott law firms like Kerr/Wagstaffe which does not hire minorities, has no
51
51
1 women partners, and delays justice for the public against judicial tyranny by
2 delaying and obstructing the auditors investigation of the CJP.
3 2. The Ruling of the Supreme Court Is a Danger to the Public.
4 198. The ruling resulted in bad law, extended the anti-SLAPP statute
5 beyond what it was intended for, and endangers the public. The Court did not
6 question the fact that a government agency invoked free speech rights under the
7 anti-SLAPP motion. In doing so, the Bar violated Barrys right of free speech.
8 199. Barrys appeal was not the proper case to address the issue of whether
9 the government can invoke the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Barry
10 pursued only the award of attorney fees based on a simple issue as stated above:
11 that once having decided it did not have subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
12 should have sustained the demurrer and be done with it, rather than consider the
13 Bars anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeals sensible opinion stated the same
14 thing.
15 200. The harm that the Bar continues to inflict on the public is now
16 compounded by the fact that when its corruption is challenged in a lawsuit it can
17 invoke free speech, thus destroying any chance of bringing the Bar to justice,
18 besides leaving the First Amendment in tatters. It did precisely that in Martins
19 case.
20 201. A $2600 attorney fee dispute will also result in thousands of dollars
21 in attorney fees being imposed on Barry just to crush her even more. In Steven
22 J. Andres scholarly essay, CCP 425.16 An Epitaph to the Right to Petition
23 Government for Redress of Grievances, pp.160-161,
24 http://works.bepress.com/stevenjandre/, Andre points out the harm inflicted on the
25 public by allowing government entities to invoke the anti-SLAPP motion and then
26 obtain attorney fees against the plaintiff seeking redress against governmental
27 excesses and wrongdoing:
28 Had the balancing of constitutional considerations that was outlined
in Bozek [City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 645 P.2d 137, 140 (Cal.
52
52
1 1982)] been undertaken in Schroeder, a different conclusion

regarding section 425.16s application to government agents would
2 have been inescapable. The chilling and penal effect of large attorney
fee awards in favor of government entities and against citizens, who
3 exercise their constitutionally protected petition rights by lawsuits
seeking redress of grievances for perceived wrongdoing by
4 government, would have outweighed any inclination to interpret
section 425.16 as empowering government agencies to do this. The
5 very idea that grassroots organizations, [like, Barry] the backbone of
our American constitutional democracy who sue concerning unlawful
6 government activity, should face the onerous threat of an anti-SLAPP
motion by that governing agency for exercising their constitutional
7 rights implicates the precise concerns which prompted the Supreme
Court in Bozek to balk at allowing government such power.
8 Schroeders treatment of petition rights in terms of section 425.16
provided support for numerous other cases accepting the very
9 troublesome notion that citizen petition rights do not outweigh the
governments right to freedom of speech.[fn 31 omitted] Following
10 Schroeders treatment of the petition right issue, appellate court
decisions have simply accepted, as a given, governments ability to
11 utilize section 425.16, like any private speaker, against citizens
asserting constitutional rights. The California Supreme Court recently
12 had the opportunity to consider the question of whether section
425.16 adds some special constitutional dimension to government
13 speech, permitting the government to avail itself of the anti-SLAPP
statutes protections and trump citizen petition rights.[fn 32 omitted]
14 The Courts decision in Vargas v. City of Salinas failed to address the
conflict and offered only a part acceptance of the approach followed
15 by the appellate courts without any appropriate analysis.
16 202. Allowing a government agency like the Bar to invoke the anti-SLAPP
17 motion has already been proven to be a danger to the public and to attorneys,
18 especially those who are black although racism in government institutions hurt all
19 of us no matter our race.
20 203. As already alleged, Martin filed two lawsuits alleging in part that
21 Torres-Gil, an assistant Bar counsel, had called him a nigger in two uninvited
22 voice mails. Lee filed an anti-SLAPP motion in the first lawsuit, Case No.14-
23 537725, San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that Martins entire lawsuit,
24 including the racial epithets, was immunized by the anti-SLAPP statute. Lee
25 argued that assuming that a bar employee had called a black attorney a nigger
26 Martins First amended complaint ...plainly challenges petitioning
activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. It cannot survive review
27 under that statute.
Martin v. Torres-Gil, Case No. 14-537725, Memo in support of Bar
28 Motion to Strike, filed June 9, 2014, 1:21-22.
204. Lee went on to argue that the racial epithets were protected speech
53
53
1 because
2 Each of Martins causes of action against the State Bar Defendants
arise directly from the disciplinary proceedings against him or from
3 Mr. Torres-Gils defense of the state Bar defendants in Martins
unsuccessful federal lawsuit. Id., 5:21-23. ....
4
Adjudication of each of Martins causes of action requires review of
5 the State Bar Courts discipline recommendations [yes!], something
this Court cannot do. Id., 6:23-24 ....
6
205. Lee won on the anti-SLAPP in this lawsuit with the proviso that
7
Martin could refile a lawsuit not involving his discipline. Id., Order filed Aug 25,
8
2014.
9
206. Martin refiled in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 15-546525.
10
Once more, Lee filed an anti-SLAPP motion, alleging the same offensive and
11
repugnant defense that the use of racial epithets by a Bar prosecutor was part of
12
the Bars doing business. This time, however, the court did not buy it and injected
13
common sense into the proceeding. The Court denied the motion, except as two of
14
the 13 causes of action stating:
15
As to 1-10 and 12, the offensive voice mails are too attenuated to be
16 considered a communication in connection with an issue under
consideration by a judicial body. Those voice mails did absolutely
17 nothing to further the disciplinary proceedings. Order, 12/09/15,
Case No 15-546525
18
207. Lee obtained summary judgment denying any connection to the racist
19
voice mails despite the fact that Martin had traced the two voice mails to a phone
20
company called ILD first in Dallas and then in Florida. ILDs attorneys stated in a
21
Case Management Conference Statement filed Nov 10, 2014, that ILDs real
22
involvement was operating a communications system used by the State Bar of
23
California. The court granted summary judgment, and it is on appeal.
24
208. The Legislature and the Governor need to investigate J. Armendariz,
25
Torres-Gil, and other bar employees involved in the Martin disbarment, Lee, and
26
her supervisors. No government agency, including the Bar, has a right to use the
27
word Nigger against any person and defend it as free speech. Further, the idea
28
that the Bar or any government agency can invoke the anti-SLAPP motion against
54
54
1 the people is inimical to the rights of the people as dramatically demonstrated in

2 the Martin case. The Bill of Rights, in particular the First Amendment, is
3 designed to protect the people against the tyranny of the government, not the
4 tyranny of the people against the government.
5 E. The Real Reasons for Barrys Disbarment Are All Related to San
Mateo, Foxs Old Stomping Grounds, and His San Mateo
6 Cronies.
7 209. The Bar/San Mateo campaign to disbar Barry and imprison Michele
8 began in December 2011.
9 1. The Good Judge, SAN MATEO JUDGE DON FRANCHI
(J. Franchi)
10
210. Between 2003 when J. Fotinos obtained an exparte order without
11
notice to Michele for custody of the two children and May 2010 when the case
12
was assigned to J. Franchi Michele and the two children had been in a living hell
13
thanks to the brand of justice San Mateo doles out to victims of domestic
14
violence.
15
211. In 2003 Santa Cruz police officers illegally seized Rachel and Austin
16
out of their beds in the dead of night while J. Fotinos stood by. For seven years,
17
San Mateo judges J. Fotinos gave free rein to alienate and abuse the children and
18
deny Michele access to her children for months at a time although she was
19
awarded joint custody. Then starting in 2010 J. Franchi started ordering changes,
20
and making J. Fotinos tow the line.
21
212. Judge Franchi ran in 2008 for the judicial office he now holds. His
22
candidate page indicates he was a Certified Domestic Violence Counselor since
23
June 2002. He had significant experience in family law:
24
Occupation: Court Attorney/Family Law Facilitator ....
25 Attorney in Family Law Facilitator's office since 2001
Operated own Law office from 1994 to 2001 practicing family
26 law...[and other areas of law]
27 In a political flier entitled "Political Philosophy for Don Franchi" he
28 states that
55
55
1 San Mateo County needs a judge who is willing to dedicate himself to

Family Law. Traditionally, newly appointed Judges have been
2 assigned to Family Law for two-year rotations, often with little or no
prior family law experience....
3
Additionally, the current system of falls below the minimum Family
4 Law Court standards adopted by the Judicial Council in 2007. These
include a minimum judicial assignment of three years, prior
5 experience in Family Law, and a desire to be the Family Law Judge.
6 213. All 26 San Mateo judges endorsed the other candidate Nastari, a
7 trial attorney, former court employee, and a crony. J. Franchi, a forward-thinking
8 individual committed to family law and to reforming the court would suffer an
9 uphill battle.
10 214. As the Fotinos case progressed, Judge Franchi made key findings and
11 rulings that led to his undoing:
12 A. J. Franchi removed Bonnie Miller as Minors' counsel on
13 August 27, 2010.
14 B. Judge Franchi denied J. Fotinos' Motion to Transfer back to J.
15 Pfeiffer.
16 C. J. Franchi also made numerous findings and rulings which we
17 say enraged J. Foiles and J. Freeman because later J. Foiles
18 undid them all in violation of Micheles and her childrens
19 rights. The following are some of J. Franchis findings on
20 August 27, 2010 as reflected in the reporters transcript for that
21 day:
22 1. 9:1-4 I understand they've been following it (current
order). But there's been a lot of I read a lot of this case.
23 There's been a lot of mistakes in this case that
happened in the past. Emphasis added
24
D. Judge Franchi made the following findings on October 29,
25
2010.
26
1. 4:22-26; 5:1-9 But it's the outside of the letters of the
27 order in just helping these children try to have a
relationship with the respondent. As I said the last time, I
28 don't know how this relationship broke down. I saw this
as a disconnect in law enforcement because really the
56
56
1 Santa Cruz Police Department Sheriff's Office should

never had invaded the house with a good cause report
2 on file with the San Mateo Sheriff or San Mateo's
DA's office. There was a disconnect that started this
3 case off in a bad light because now we have law
enforcement jumping in on these kids which probably
4 should have been handled in much more delicate
manner. Emphasis added
5
2. 5:12-14 So, right now I want the parties working
6 together to try to re-establish some connection. And that
means not trying to establish the stepmom [Dawn
7 Grover] as the mom.
8 E. Judge Franchi made the following findings on April 15, 2011
9 on J. Fotinos' Request for Sole Legal Custody:
10 1. 10:17-26 11:1 For sole legal custody, we can start with
that. The request for sole legal custody based on the
11 finding that I have that the children are the ones you
know, the children don't want visitation with the mother.
12 But I find their reasoning to be their reasoning and not to
have a --- any sort of factual basis which would make
13 mother a danger to these children.
14 So the Court will not grant sole legal custody. ...
15 2. 55: 16-26 And she didn't cause this situation. The
situation was caused by a lot of things that went
16 wrong in the system because I had children thinking
they were kidnapped. [Both Miller and J. Fotinos told
17 the children they were kidnapped.] And I have a good
cause report which says they weren't kidnapped. The
18 mother was trying to take the children for good cause
and did what she was supposed to do in filing the
19 good cause report with the District Attorney's office.
And somehow, Santa Cruz Sheriff's Department
20 decided to totally ignore that report and go in with
guns and take the children in the middle of the night.
21 Emphasis added
22 F. J. Franchi Finding that J. Fotinos Had Committed Perjury also
23 on April 15, 2011:
24 1. 61:14-26; 62:1-3: I did look at the records that were
submitted and the evidence from Shaw. They do clearly
25 show that the petitioner at the time he filed his income
and expense declaration was working and was receiving
26 a weekly paycheck. I have paychecks from September
10 straight through the date of the declaration and after
27 showing a weekly receipt of paycheck stubs from Shaw
to the petitioner being directly deposited into petitioner's
28 account when he had an income and expense declaration
which show "unemployed" and unable to find
57
57
1 employment. The court finds that this was a clear

misrepresentation and perjurious statements to the Court
2 on a signed declaration under perjury and shall direct
that the transcript be printed and sent to the DA's office
3 for determination as to whether they wish to prosecute.
4 G. In the order re: sanctions filed May 27, 2011, J. Franchi made
5 the following rulings:
6 1. As a sanction for failing to disclose his employment and
his income, Mr. Fotinos shall pay as spousal support,
7 pending the next hearing, of his earned income
[Michele agreed to make it net earned income] from
8 employment, to the Petitioner retroactive the date of
filing of Petitioner's motion, May 27, 2010 and
9 continuing until termination by operation of law or
further Court order.
10
2. Additionally, based upon the above findings, the Court
11 Orders that this matter be referred to the District
Attorney's Office. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to
12 prepare a transcript of this proceeding to be forwarded
with the order to the District Attorney's Office forthwith,
13 to determine whether Mr. Fotinos should be prosecuted
for his misrepresentations and non-disclosures to the
14 Court.
15 215. On August 12, 2011, the D.A. had J. Fotinos arrested on a warrant for
16 felony perjury in the courtroom of J. Franchi. The hearing was about Michele'
17 Motion to Set Arrears. During the hearing, J. Fotinos sat in handcuffs.
18 216. J. Franchi set the arrearages on the spousal support/sanctions at
19 $16,240.00 with interest from April 15, 2011. Despite the fact that J. Franchi had
20 found that J. Fotinos had committed perjury and had referred him to the D.A.'s
21 office for prosecution, J. Franchi went out of his way to be fair to J. Fotinos. He
22 did not change custody to Michele. Instead, he set the custody OSC for a hearing
23 on November 3, 2011. Despite attorney fees being mandatory on the motion to set
24 arrearages, he denied attorney fees to Barry. He also denied Michele a
25 modification of the wage assignment. He also terminated the sanctions/support
26 order effective September 2011.
27 217. Besides all these rulings favorable to J. Fotinos, on April 15, 2011, J.
28 Franchi also had denied Michele' Motion for New Trial on property and debt
58
58
1 division and child and spousal support despite the unfair Statement of Decision on
2 these issues signed by J. Pfeiffer on March 2, 2009 which lopsidedly favored J.
3 Fotinos and were caused in large part because Montalvo engaged in gross
4 malpractice and fraud against Michele.
5 2. Millers Undermining of J. Franchi and Michele.
6 218. As already alleged, in May 2010, Barry filed on behalf of Michele a
7 motion to remove Miller as minors counsel.
8 219. J. Franchi removed Miller on August 27, 2010. Millers father-in-law
9 (deceased) was a San Mateo judge. Her husband Cameron is a probate attorney.
10 The judges repeatedly reappoint her to a County Commission regarding juveniles.
11 On information and belief, Miller complained to J. Foiles and then presiding Judge
12 Freeman about J. Franchi. When J. Fotinos retained Attorney ANSEL KINNEY
13 (Kinney) Miller worked with him to bring about the removal of J. Franchi and to
14 get herself reappointed as minors counsel.
15 220. Miller met with J. Fotinos and the children after her removal as
16 minors counsel. In front of, and to, the children, she complained about J. Franchi's
17 ruling, thus impugning the integrity of J. Franchi and undermining his judicial
18 authority to the children.
19 221. J. Fotinos said to Miller and the children that their mother is so crazy,
20 it is a shame that the judge keeps making them visit. Miller agreed. Although she
21 knew that J. Fotinos was unstable, she egged him on about J. Franchi removing
22 her. Miller also had been providing free legal advice to J. Fotinos while the
23 taxpayers were paying Miller's fees.
24 222. Miller told the children to the effect that they had to keep up with
25 their journals documenting the "negative experiences" they were having on the
26 visits with their mother. Miller told them that the journals (books) were the "key"
27 to get out of having to visit with their mother.
28 223. Miller met with the children to discuss their interviews with J.
59
59
1 Franchi and to give them tips on what topics to discuss with J. Franchi. She asked
2 them if they were still writing in their books or journals about the visits with their
3 mother.
4 224. Miller showed up at the courthouse on March 4, 2011. She hugged
5 the father and children. She sat next to the children, and would not move so that
6 Michele could sit next to her daughter and son. While this behavior was unethical
7 and illegal, besides being petty and meanspirited, what she was doing behind J.
8 Franchi's and Michele' back was utterly destructive to the children's welfare.
9 Some of J. Fotinos' worst abuse occurred in 2011.
10 225. One of Michele' friends, Penelope Mahood, who attended the hearing
11 on March 4, 2011, when the children were interviewed said this about Miller's
12 behavior:
13 .Ms. Miller appeared to be assisting John Fotinos in the hall way as
his lawyer despite the fact that he was proclaiming not to be
14 represented by anyone due to insufficient income. She hugged him
and the children when they entered the court area and proceeded to sit
15 with John Fotinos, John's live-in girl friend, and the children. . I
was struck by the animosity she appears to hold towards Michele and
16 the bias she appears to be holding in favor of John Fotinos. Emphasis
added
17
226. That Miller has been in contact with the Bar about Barry and Michele
18
will probably come out in discovery.
19
3. The Beginning of the End of Justice - Unethical Misconduct
20 of Kinney Forcing J. Franchi to Recuse Himself
21 227.. On October 19, 2011, Kinney filed Memorandum of Points and
22 Authorities Concerning the Possible Disqualification of Judge Donald Franchi
23 from Hearing Further Issues in This Case" and his declaration.
24 136. There was no proof of personal service on J. Franchi or his clerk. The
25 documents were untimely. The memorandum was not verified. J. Fotinos
26 complained of rulings which cannot form a basis for disqualification of a judge.
27 Besides, J. Fotinos had not appealed any orders of J. Franchi. Kinney complained
28 about his client being in cuffs and blamed J. Franchi for it although it was the D.A.
60
60
1 who had J. Fotinos arrested in the courtroom. Kinney also claimed that it was J.
2 Franchi behind the arrest of J. Fotinos on August 12, 2011 and that J. Franchi
3 would most likely be a witness in the criminal case.
4 228.. The Bar had suspended Barry between August and October 2011, and
5 that is when San Mateo did its dirty work. On November 3, 2011, the parties
6 appeared for the hearing on custody. Michele paid to fly Barry from Los Angeles.
7 Michele had retained an expert who agreed to appear pro bono and did, after
8 sitting in traffic coming from Berkeley to San Mateo. J. Franchi announced he
9 would recuse himself, although he denied the allegations that he had pushed for
10 the prosecution of J. Fotinos or that he would be a witness in the criminal
11 prosecution of J. Fotinos.
12 229. As a result of J. Franchis recusal, the November 3, 2011, custody
13 hearing and the December 14, 2011, spousal support hearing were both taken off
14 calendar, causing even more delay. Between November 3, 2011, and August
15 2012, J. Foiles who took over the case from J. Franchi refused to reset the hearing
16 on the custody and support.
17 230. J. Foiles undid everything J. Franchi had accomplished. Kinney
18 openly stated in court that he and Miller were working together to get her back on
19 the case. J. Foiles threatened to put her back on the case. Barry adamantly
20 opposed the reappointment. J. Foiles did back down on that threat. Miller
21 continued working with J. Fotinos against her own former clients, Rachel and
22 Austin.
23 4. Rachels Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)
Application for Restraining Order which Blew the Whistle
24 on J. Fotinos Felony Child Abuse Thus Reflecting on All the
Judges Who Kept Custody with Him Before J. Franchi.
25 231. J. Fotinos is every protective parents nightmare, and remains a
26 threat, not just to Michele and her children but to the Bay Area residents. He is a
27 violent felon walking free although he had numerous guns and still has access to
28 them, despite being convicted of grand theft auto, perjury, and possession of at
61
61
1 least one (measly) weapon.

2 232. J. Fotinos has a history of instability, is given to rages, regularly beat
3 his children, has threatened or assaulted numerous women, was forced out of his
4 job as a fire fighter because of his dishonesty and disruption of the workplace, and
5 by his own admission is brain damaged. Brain damaged violent individuals who
6 started out with little impulse control are obviously all the more dangerous.
7 233. Rachel alleged in her declaration in December 2011 against J. Fotinos
8 and Grover:
9 I never want to see my dad again. I am very scared that he will kill my
mother, me, and my brother Austin. My dad has guns. They are kept
10 in a storage place in Pacifica which is rented by Dawn Grover
(Hogan) .... M]y father will kill us. I know what he is like because my
11 brother and I have been the victims of his rage for years. I have been
scared for years. He has threatened to hurt me and my brother. My
12 father told us over and over again that he would always have custody
of us because the court said there are things that my mother has done
13 that she would never get us . ] believed this to be true for many years.
So [I thought] I had no option but to live with him. I felt trapped and
14 thought I had to wait until I was 18 to get away from his abuse.
15 My father and Dawn told my brother and me that my mother is on
drugs, had affairs with many men. My dad has told us not to eat the
16 cookies or breads that my Mom makes us because she puts poison or
things that would hurt us in them. He told my brother and me that he
17 went to jail because my mother had slept with all the D.A's. Then we
went to live with my mother a few years ago my father told us to run
18 away from her. We did because we are so scared of him, not because
we wanted to live with him. He also told us to say we did not want to
19 live with our mother and that we would rather go to foster care. That
was a lie. My father made us lie.
20
A few weeks ago my dad got mad at Austin I don't know why but I
21 heard was Austin screaming and crying. I heard banging and
thumping in Austin's room where he and my dad were. I was really
22 afraid for Austin. One time after I saw my dad grab Austin and drag
him up stairs I asked him about it and he said he did not want to talk
23 about it and close the door.
24 For years my dad has made us fear him. Recently about a month and
half ago my dad when I was trying to protect my brother Austin from
25 my dad after he got in trouble for asking our dad if he could play
football, my dad threw me across the room and made mv mouth
26 bleed. This IS not the first time he has done this. I tried to call the
police but my dad and Dawn disconnected all the phones in the
27 house.
28 When I tried to run outside to get help both my father and Dawn held
me down. I think I blacked out because all I remember is waking up
62
62
1 and my face was swollen.

2 My dad also has choked Austin and me many times in the last two
years....He grabbed me and tried to shove his fist in my mouth, I had
3 to bite him because I could not breathe..... I also remember my dad
sitting on me and banging my head against the floor.
4
Early this year my dad bashed my head against the dashboard of the
5 truck causing my nose to bleed.
6 234. Barry tried to obtain a restraining order for Rachel, her brother, and
7 her mother in San Mateo court several times, in court of appeals, and in Supreme
8 Court. Michele and Barry went to the D.A. and to the Sheriff Dept begging for
9 them to pick up J. Fotinos and his guns. San Mateo Deputy Willett admitted J.
10 Fotinos was a felon, had ten guns registered to his name, and he knew about the
11 violence J. Fotinos had perpetrated on his children. No one would do anything.
12 235. The similarities between J. Fotinos and Dekraai who committed the
13 domestic violence massacre in Huntington Beach are uncanny. Scott Dekraai went
14 on a murder rampage using guns to kill his ex wife Michelle and seven others
15 who happened to be around when he murdered Michelle. He went on this
16 rampage because he did not want to share 50/50 custody with Michelle.
17 According to
18 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048470/Seal-Beach-shooting-8-killed-S
19 cott-Dekraai-targets-ex-wife-Orange-county-hair-salon.html#ixzz3VQfpa8Rz
20 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
21 Ex-wife Michelle previously alleged he [Dekraai] was unstable and
22 physically abusive
23 236. (Eerily both ex wives have the same name.) Michele and Rachel have
24 repeatedly alleged that Fotinos is unstable and physically abusive
25 237. The alleged shooter, [Dekraai] who lives locally, was thought to
26 have been wearing body armour during the attack. When officers raided his car
27 they found multiple weapons, police said.
28 238. Jumping ahead, when officers raided the storage unit of Grover, they
63
63
1 found multiple weapons including 14 guns, 2 assault weapons, 20 high capacity

2 magazines and 10,000 rounds of live ammo which belonged to J. Fotinos.
3 5. Michele, Rachels, and Austins Federal Lawsuit
4 239. In February 2012, Barry filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Michele
5 and her children alleging denial of equal protection and due process. Fotinos v
6 Fotinos, Case No.CV-12- 0953 CW, Northern District of California. The case was
7 dismissed and the dismissal affirmed on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
8 240. Barry amended the complaint in March 2012 and sued Kim, Kamala
9 Harris, Miller, Renee LaFarge (unethical therapist who committed perjury at
10 Millers request), J. Fotinos, Dawn Grover, J. Fotinos wife, City of Belmont,
11 Belmont Officer Pitts, San Mateo County, San Mateo Deputies Reed and Carey,
12 and San Mateo social worker Morgan.
13 241. Barry did not know that Fox was adviser to Kim. All Barry wanted
14 was that Kim do her job and investigate and discipline Kinney and Miller. Kim,
15 like Towery, refused to do her job, stipulate and accept the complaints for
16 investigation against Miller and Kinney. As Kims consultant, Fox surely played a
17 huge role in insuring that Miller and Kinney would not be investigated and
18 disciplined.
19 6.
Micheles and Barrys Picket in San Francisco in June
2012:
20 242. As Michele testified, Barry decided to picket, since San Mateo would
21 do nothing. In June 2012, Barry prepared the following flier, flew to San
22 Francisco, and there on McAllister St in front of the building housing the Supreme
23 Court and First Appellate DCA Michele and Barry passed out the following flier
24 while holding a banner stating something similar to what was in the packet:
25 243. THE FLIER:
26 NO JUSTICE FOR MOTHER AND CHILDREN
PUTTING ALL SAN MATEO RESIDENTS AT RISK.
27
PLEASE READ AND THEN ACT AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT
28 BECAUSE IT MAY.
64
64
1 * SAN MATEO RESIDENT JOHN FOTINOS IS A FELON WITH GUNS

WHICH IS A CRIME. HE HAS A HISTORY OF INSTABILITY AND
2 VIOLENCE. HE IS NOW CHARGED WITH A SECOND FELONY, FOR
PERJURY.
3
* SAN MATEO JUDGE DON FRANCHI WAS FORCED OFF FAMILY
4 LAW CASE OF MICHELE AND JOHN FOTINOS IN NOVEMBER 2011
BECAUSE HE SAID THE LEGAL SYSTEM HAD DONE A LOT OF
5 WRONG THINGS AND HE TRIED TO CORRECT THE INJUSTICES
DONE TO MICHELE AND HER TWO CHILDREN.
6
* ON DECEMBER 13, 2011, MICHELE FOTINOS AND HER
7 DAUGHTER, WHO IS ALMOST 16 YEARS OLD SOUGHT A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
8 SURRENDER GUNS AGAINST J. FOTINOS. (San Mateo Deputy Robert
Willett confirmed J. Fotinos has guns registered in his name.)
9
SAN MATEO JUDGE ROBERT FOILES denied a restraining
10 order and an order for J. Fotinos to surrender his guns. Fotinos v.
Fotinos, Case NO. F 075139.
11
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
12 U Call Judge Foiles courtroom at 650 363-4813 and demand that
he have J. Fotinos arrested and confiscate his guns..
13
Micheles attorney filed in the Court of Appeals for a restraining order and
14 an order to surrender guns against J. Fotinos.
15 JUSTICES IGNAZIO J. RUVOLO, TIMOTHY A. REARDON,
PATRICIA K. SEPULVEDA, denied the petition. Fotinos v. San
16 Mateo Superior Court, Case No. A134331
17 WHAT YOU CAN DO:
18 U Call the Court of Appeals at 415-865-7300 and demand that the
justices have J. Fotinos arrested and confiscate his guns.
19
Micheles attorney petitioned the California Supreme Court for a
20 restraining order and an order to surrender guns against J. Fotinos.
21 JUSTICES TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CAROL A.
CORRIGAN, MING W. CHIN, KATHRYN M. WERDEGAR,
22 MARVIN R. BAXTER, JOYCE L. KENNARD , GOODWIN
LIU denied the petition. Fotinos v. San Mateo Superior Court, Case
23 No. S199920
24 WHAT YOU CAN DO:
U Call the Supreme Court at 415-865-7000 demand that the justices
25 have J. Fotinos arrested and confiscate his guns.
26 Michele went to the San Mateo Sheriffs office and the San Mateo District
Attorneys office asking them to arrest J. Fotinos and confiscate his guns.
27
SAN MATEO SHERIFF GREG MUNKS AND SAN MATEO
28 D.A. STEPHEN M. WAGSTAFFE refuse to arrest J. Fotinos and
confiscate his guns.
65
65
1 . WHAT YOU CAN DO:

U Call Sheriff Munks at 650 599-1664 demand that the sheriff
2 arrest J. Fotinos and confiscate his guns. Call District Attorney
Wagstaffe at 650 363-4636 and demand that the District Attorney
3 have J. Fotinos arrested and confiscate his guns.
4 Michele filed a federal lawsuit, Fotinos v. Fotinos, Case No. 12-CV-953
CW, Oakland Division. Michele asked for a mandatory injunction against
5 Attorney General Kamala Harris to have J. Fotinos arrested and his guns
confiscated. Michele also wants Harris to investigate the interference with
6 Judge Franchis judicial independence.
7 ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS told the judge she
has no authority to make her arrest J. Fotinos or to investigate
8 the interference with Judge Franchis judicial independence.
Harris refuses to arrest J. Fotinos and confiscate his guns.
9 WHAT YOU CAN DO:
10 U Call PAUL STEIN, DEP. ATTORNEY GENERAL, at 415 703-
5740 and demand that the Attorney General arrest J. Fotinos
11 and confiscate his guns and investigate the interference with
Judge Franchis judicial independence.
12
Scott Dekraai who was in a custody dispute with his ex wife massacred nine
13 people, including his ex wife in Huntington Beach in 2011. His track record
is not as bad as J. Fotinos.
14
NO ORANGE COUNTY MASSACRE IN SAN MATEO COUNTY.
15 PUT JOHN FOTINOS IN JAIL AND CONFISCATE HIS GUNS
16 244. The following is what free speech did for the protection and safety of
17 the public: Within eight days or so, San Mateo deputies/D.A.s were calling
18 Rachel to find out the exact location of the guns of J. Fotinos. Rachel provided
19 that information. (Grovers locker in Pacifica.) (Later, J. Cretan would attack
20 Rachels credibility as well as Micheles.) As a result J. Fotinos was arrested and
21 his 14 guns, 2 assault rifles, 20 high capacity magazines, and 10,000 rounds of
22 live ammo confiscated from Grovers locker.
23 245. Here is what one neighbor of J. Fotinos posted on the internet when
24 he was arrested:
25 I have the misfortune of living in the same neighborhood as Fotinos
and so was very happy to learn that this guy is now in jail where he
26 belongs; except for the fact that he isnt. Out of concern over the
safety of my family, myself and my law abiding neighbors, I called
27 the correctional facility hoping to find out when Fotinos was
scheduled for an appearance in court as I wanted to be in attendance. I
28 was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that Fotinos was already out
on bail and most likely back on the streets in Half Moon Bay. I cant
66
66
1 imagine what any court was thinking about in setting bail low
enough to allow a convicted felon hiding 16 weapons to walk
2 away from jail so quickly but I assure you that is the question I
intend to pose before the court first thing Monday morning
3 which, I learned, is when Fotinos is currently scheduled to appear
before a judge. I hope those readers who live in the HMB
4 community and beyond share my outrage over this injustice and
will join me in voicing their opinion to the court.
5 Anonymous Comment posted to Half Moon Bay Review article
internet dated June 4, 2012 written by Mark Noack. Emphasis added
6
246. Here is another comment posted to an internet SF Weekly article by
7
Laura Rena Murray dated June 21, 2012 concerning the arrest as it affected
8
Michele and her children. Neither Plaintiff nor Barry provided any comments
9
quoted on the Half Moon Bay Review website or on the SF Weekly website nor
10
asked others to post them:
11
Protective parents are fed up with the treatment they and their
12 children receive from the Family Law Courts. This guy is a convicted
criminal with a well documented history of violence and an arsenal of
13 weapons and this Court thinks that it is in the best interests of the
children to be in his custody!??
14 THIS IS INSANITY!! FIND THIS BOY, UNITE HIM WITH HIS
MOTHER AND SISTER. WHY AREN'T BOTH THESE
15 INNOCENT CHILDREN AND THEIR MOTHER AND BEING
PROTECTED BY THE COURTS FROM THIS LETHAL AND
16 TERRIFYING SITUATION? SHAME ON THE POLICE, COURTS,
LAWYERS AND ANY JUDGE THAT ENTERTAINS THE
17 SLIGHTEST IDEA THAT THE HOME OF A VIOLENT,
CONVICTED FELON AND HIS AIDING AND ABETTING
18 GIRLFRIEND HARBORING FIREARMS AND 10,000 ROUNDS
OF LIVE AMMUNITION IS A HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL AND
19 SAFE ENVIRONMENT TO RAISE CHILDREN. Caps in original.
20 247. In an online San Francisco Examiner story about J. Fotinos arrest by
21 Mike Aldax, SF Examiner Staff Writer dated June 21, 2012, San Mateo D.A.
22 Wagstaffe had this to say about J. Fotinos: One can be a gun collector, but
23 10,000 rounds of ammunition? the district attorney said Thursday. All I know
24 is, I dont want him as my next-door neighbor. Emphasis added. Who would?
25 Wagstaffe, however, was all show. He had no intention of prosecuting J. Fotinos
26 and neither did the judges. Their goal was to punish Michele and Barry for
27 exposing all of them for failure to protect the public from J. Fotinos.
28 //
67
67
1 F. San Mateo Retaliation

2 248. Barry and Michele believed that San Mateo would be grateful for
3 getting J. Fotinos and his guns off the street. Not so. They were infuriated.
4 249. Foxs former San Mateo deputies, J. Foiles and J. Karesh retaliated
5 against Michele, Foxs former assistant and now San Mateo District Attorney
6 Wagstaffe is prosecuting Michele and trying to put her in prison, and the Bar
7 headed by Fox is championing Montalvo,a San Mateo attorney who should be
8 suspended for the harm he caused Michele and her children and disbarring Barry
9 because she did not pay discovery sanctions to this attorney who stole more than
10 $45,000 from Michele and left her with nothing.
11 250. The Attorney General needs to investigate Wagstaffe. He initiated a
12 retaliatory, malicious prosecution against Michele on trumped up charges of
13 perjury and grand theft obviously some kind of tit for tat since J. Fotinos is
14 convicted of perjury and grand theft auto. It is J. Fotinos who is the criminal with
15 weapons and Michele who is the whistleblower that J. Fotinos is a criminal with
16 weapons.
17 251. The idea that Michele could ever get a fair trial in San Mateo is
18 beyond absurdity. Michele and Rachel have been in hiding from J. Fotinos for
19 over a year. That Michele should risk her life by showing up in San Mateo Court
20 with J. Fotinos on the loose borders on lunacy. That Michele should submit to a
21 court from which J. Foiles has completely barred her, and which has repeatedly
22 protected J. Fotinos and let him get away with his crimes of felony child abuse,
23 perjury, grand theft, and weapons possession, including not ordering him to make
24 restitution to Michele and her children, harassing and stalking Rachel, denial of
25 visitation to Michele of Austin, alienation of Austin from his mother and sister,
26 and failure to pay support and arrearages, is beyond brazen. Wagstaffe, Fox, J.
27 Foiles, J. Cretan, and J. Karesh must be investigated for criminal wrongdoing.
28 252. Michele has broken no law. Neither has Barry. Micheles and
68
68
1 Barrys only crime is litigating while female. As the California Supreme Court
2 admonished in People v. Cahan, 282 P.2d 905 (Cal. 1955), 44 Cal. 2d 434, 447:
3 It is morally incongruous for the state to flout constitutional rights and at the
4 same time demand that its citizens observe the law.
5
253. The Bar/San Mateo continue to reward J. Fotinos. He walks free, is
6
assumedly employed and collects his tax free disability pension of around
7
$60,000.00 paid for by taxpayers, participates in bike contests while collecting
8
this disability pension. The state taxpayers should not be forced to shoulder J.
9
Fotinos disability pension any longer.
10
254. J. Fotinos is around guns since Grover had her guns restored to her
11
after the one year DVPA restraining orders expired against her and J. Fotinos in
12
June 2013 and Cretan would not renew them. J. Fotinos provided a gun to Austin
13
in late 2011. Austin continues to live with him. The D.A. admitted that they never
14
recovered three of the guns registered to J. Fotinos. The D.A. refused to trace the
15
serial numbers to see who provided or sold the weaponry to this violent felon.
16
Later, Leeland Yee, a former state senator whose district included San Mateo, was
17
arrested on a federal indictment and pled guilty to a gun running conspiracy. IF
18
Yee was not the one supplying J. Fotinos his weapons, J. Fotinos is surely in
19
contact with whoever his weapons supplier is.
20
G. Exceedingly Good Fathers Deprived of Access to their Children
21 by Corrupt Courts.
22 1. Attorney Arch Cunningham - San Francisco Superior
Court
23 255. Barry specializes at this point in her career representing mothers,
24 many of them victims of domestic violence, who lost custody of their children to
25 abusers. Barry has also represented good fathers since to paraphrase Mao,
26 [Men] hold up half the sky. While Barry complains of racism and sexism, the
27 legal system, including the Bar, also harms good fathers, including white fathers.
28 256. Cunningham is an attorney and a brilliant writer. He has not seen his
69
69
1 daughter in years although there was no domestic violence or child abuse in the
2 marriage. Cunningham and his daughter were very close. Cunningham was very
3 much involved in his daughters life. Cunningham got on the wrong side of a
4 judge and that was the end of his relationship with his daughter.
5 257. When Cunningham tried to regain visitation or custody with his
6 daughter, a judge declared him a vexatious litigant (VL), meaning he could not
7 file any court documents without a prefiling order. No judge would sign a
8 prefiling order for him. The VL label is routinely used by unethical judges like the
9 one who made Cunningham a VL, like J. Karesh who made Barry and Michele
10 VLs, like Towery who made Susan Bassi a VL, and like many other judges who
11 use the label as a way of punishing family law litigants they do not like.
12 258. The retaliation of the one judge spread like wildfire against
13 Cunningham and soon became systemic and institutionalized. Not one judge
14 expressed a concern about the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Cunningham and
15 Cunninghams daughter to a family relationship with each other.
16 259. Cunningham also lost his home illegally it was a court-sanctioned
17 theft. Because he was a VL he was denied the right to litigate the issues
18 concerning his home. He lost over a million dollars when his home was stolen
19 from him because he was not allowed to defend himself even when he hired Barry
20 to represent him all because he angered some judge on one occasion some years
21 ago.
22 260. Cunningham filed two important class actions, one involved family
23 law litigants who were made VLs as they tried to regain custody or visitation of
24 their children. Cunningham lost that case and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
25 dismissal, but not because Cunningham did not perform in a magnificent and
26 superb manner.
27 261. As discussed infra, in Cunninghams other class action Cunningham
28 sued on behalf of himself and others harmed by a receiver named Kevin Singer
70
70
1 who regularly practices law without a license throughout California, Nevada, and
2 Arizona. Cunningham v. Singer, Case No. 14-CV-09104-GW-JC, Central District
3 of California. California judges have routinely refused to refer Singer for criminal
4 prosecution which is unethical and a possible crime itself. Singer caused
5 Cunningham to lose his home.
6 2. Tom Lillard- Orange Superior Court
7 262. Lillards family law case is equally shocking. In 2013, As the couple
8 was getting ready to file for dissolution, and the ex wife had moved out, the couple
9 agreed to a 50/50 custody order, which they were following. Lillards wife asked
10 Lillard to babysit their daughter while she took care of some business. Lillard
11 agreed. Unknown to Lillard, the business the ex wife was taking care of was
12 obtaining exparte orders of 90/10 percent custody and an exorbitant amount of
13 child support with no notice to Lillard and without any competent evidence to
14 support either the order of custody or of support.
15 263. After these exparte orders were filed, Lillard found out about them a
16 week later. Lillard went before Orange Superior Court Judge Belz and tried to
17 vacate them. Judge Belz ruled he could not do anything about these void
18 unconstitutional orders which is untrue.
19 264. Belz ordered Miriam Galindo (Galindo) to be the evaluator
20 although Lillard was against her appointment. Lillard wanted the court -connected
21 evaluator because the fees were far less than what Galindo charges, which fees
22 Lillard could not afford. His wife offered to pay for the entire evaluation.
23 265. Later, the case was assigned to Judge Sherri Honer. She ordered
24 Lillard to reimburse the ex wife for his one half of Galindos bill of $4,000.00.
25 Lillard repeatedly requested proof of ex-wifes payment for the evaluation.
26 Finally, Galindos office admitted to Lillard that the bill was never paid, perhaps
27 because the ex wife provided legal services quid pro quo to Galindo.
28 266. Galindo filed an evaluation which was utterly false and defamed
71
71
1 Lillard, probably because some kind of unethical arrangement was made between
2 ex wife and Galindo. The first thing Honer did when the couple first appeared
3 before her was to attack and defame Lillard for being a bad father solely based on
4 the unlitigated and false report of Galindo.
5 267. Eventually there was a trial on the issue of custody. Lillard easily
6 rebutted each of the false claims Galindo made against him by presenting
7 witnesses and providing documents which proved the falsity of Galindos report.
8 268. Ignoring all the evidence Honer adopted Galindos report but kept the
9 90/10 exparte custody order without supervision.
10 269. Galindo later was removed from the court approved provider list, and
11 yet the harm Galindo did to Lillard and his daughter lingers on.
12 270. As just one instance of disparate treatment, Honer continues to deny
13 Lillards application for waiver of fees although he cannot even afford an attorney;
14 whereas, Honer has illegally granted the ex wife a waiver of court fees although
15 the ex wife has retained as many as two attorneys and makes around $150,000 a
16 year as an attorney.
17 271. For the last three and a half years, Lillard sees his daughter four
18 nights a month. Lillards daughter who is now 13 is begging her mother for more
19 time with her dad and her mother refuses. The daughter is now wanting to stay
20 with her father.
21 272. Lillard has become a court reform activist. He tries to help parents
22 who call him, for example, about Galindo, how to navigate a system which is
23 broken, and how to deal with judges who refuse to follow the law and rules of
24 court. He appeared in court to support a father and ended up being that dads
25 visitation supervisor and for the first time in two years that dad will get to see his
26 kids.
27 273. After J. Honer saw Lillard in court with Barry on another nightmare
28 of a case J. Honer is handling, IRMO Cook, Child Support Services (CSE)
72
72
1 served Lillard with contempt for failure to pay child support. CSE is denying
2 Lillards right to due process. CSE knows the order was made without competent
3 evidence, ex parte, and with no notice to Lillard. CSE knows that the ex wife
4 falsified income and expense documents making a false claim of what Lillard
5 earned. Thus, it is void. Yet, CSE pursues in its malicious prosecution of Lillard
6 in violation of family code statutes and federal guidelines that CSE must consider
7 what the non custodial parents actual income is, not income imputed to him or her
8 without competent evidence and without notice.
9 3. Carlo Sgroi - Los Angeles Superior Court.
10 274. Carlo Sgroi, like Ayman Farraj, was a devoted father to his two sons
11 who adored him and had ongoing visitation with them after a juvenile court
12 proceeding in which the ex wife was warned that if she kept interfering with
13 Carlos relationship with his two sons, the judge would take custody from her.
14 275. Carlo sought to increase visitation with his sons, a big mistake
15 because he ended up with Harshman, the same individual who later discriminated
16 against Farraj because he was a Palestinian Arab. Harshman revisited facts already
17 determined in juvenile court, and repeatedly falsified other facts about Sgroi. He
18 did the same thing to Farraj. LASC let him.
19 276. Harshman recommended NO contact between Sgroi and his two sons
20 for two years, thus destroying and severing Sgrois relationship with his sons.
21 Sgroi had been regularly having visitation with his two sons. The judge
22 irrationally adopted Harshmans recommendation although Barry proved that
23 Harshmans evaluations were filled with falsehoods and misquoting and distorting
24 witnesses statements.
25 277. Sgroi was cut off from his two sons for two years. By the time Sgroi
26 could refile and seek visitation, the two boys were so alienated because of
27 Harshman and their mother, that Sgroi gave up because he did not want to subject
28 the boys to any more court proceedings. It was heartbreaking. He let the
73
73
1 stepfather adopt them.

2 4. Farraj - Los Angeles Superior Court
3 278. LASC Judge Cunningham denied the motion to strike the reports,
4 refused to remedy the harm and immediately restore visitation to Farraj and his
5 two children. Despite LASC removing Harshman and Shaps from the approved
6 provider list because of the racism they engaged in, against Farraj, the court of
7 appeals did nothing except to rule that the motion to strike the reports was not
8 frivolous as J. Cunningham claimed it was at the insistence of Lauzon and to
9 incessantly criticize Barry. It was a shameful ruling. Farraj had subbed out Barry.
10 Barry does not know whether Farraj and his children were restored their family
11 rights.
12 5. Joe Sweeney - Contra Costa Court
13 279. Contra Costa Judge Mills jailed Joe Sweeney, also white like
14 Cunningham, Lillard, and Sgroi, for 25 days shortly after Sweeney and Kathleen
15 Russell, CEO of Center for Judicial Excellence succeeded in persuading Assembly
16 members to vote for an audit of the Commission. CJP has disciplined Mills five
17 times, but has failed to remove him. Sweeney was fighting for his rights as a
18 parent of a young daughter in Mills courtroom. The CJP did not remove Mills
19 from the bench after it was proven that he had directed the commissioner through
20 the commissioners clerk how to handle his own sons case. The CJP let Mills off
21 the hook saying Mills was just a concerned papa so are the hundreds of
22 thousands of poor black parents who see their children repeatedly put in jail and
23 prison and are unable to direct the judges on how to handle their childrens cases.
24 280. Sweeney, a father, is jailed for persuading the legislature to authorize
25 the auditor to investigate the CJP because of his concerns about his daughter. Yet,
26 Judge Mills, a father, is not removed from office for obstruction of justice because
27 of his concerns about his son.
28 //
74
74
1 II
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2
281. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
3
Sections 15, 22 (anti trust violations). 28 U.S.C. section 1331 (federal question
4
jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. section 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (civil rights),
5
and 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction over related state tort claims).
6
Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b) since most of the
7
claims arose in this District against all three plaintiffs.
8
III
9 PARTIES
10 282. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA is a public corporation operating
11 under the laws of California, in particular the State Bar Act. The Bar is sued for
12 repeated violations of the anti-trust laws, in particular, the Sherman anti-trust Act,
13 15 U.S.C. Secs 1 and 2, for violation of Barrys First Amendment rights in
14 accordance with Keller v. State Bar of California, and for a declaratory judgment
15 also under the First Amendment for violating the free speech rights of all three
16 plaintiffs. The Bar is sued for repeated misappropriation of Bar dues. The Bar is
17 also sued for its illegal relationship with the San Mateo Defendants. All claims are
18 based upon a common nucleus of operative facts, and the entire action constitutes
19 a single case that would ordinarily be tried in one judicial proceeding.
20 283. DEFENDANT VICTORIA HENLEY is sued in her official capacity
21 per Ex Parte Young seeking injunctive relief against the CJP for its failure to
22 prosecute J. Karesh when Micheles complaint with the CJP established a prima
23 facie case that J. Karesh and J. Freeman had engaged in criminal obstruction of
24 justice.
25 284. UNNAMED UNKNOWN STATE BAR EMPLOYEE who drafted
26 and placed on Barrys internet Bar Profile a description of the discipline related to
27 the Elwood matter is sued in her individual capacity in the course and scope of her
28 employment for violating Barrys due process rights by committing defamation
75
75
1 resulting in stigma plus.

2 285. Fox is the president of the Bar Board of Trustees who is sued in his
3 individual capacity for damages for violating Barrys, Micheles, and Rachels
4 right to free speech. He is also sued for misappropriating dues of the members to
5 hire Alfred Giannini his former deputy prosecutor assumedly on a no bid contract
6 when he knew Giannini was guilty of repeated prosecutorial misconduct
7 286. Barry also seeks a declaratory judgment that given Foxs misconduct
8 as a prosecutor, he is unfit to serve in any position with the Bar. The declaratory
9 judgment is the only remedy available to those who want him removed from the
10 Bar. The Bar misappropriated bar dues to investigate Fox based on a complaint a
11 member of the public filed against him for the sole purpose of covering up his
12 misconduct. Barry seeks reimbursement of member dues from the Bar for the fees
13 related to the sham investigation of Fox.
14 287. BRANDON TADY is the bar prosecutor on the Elwood matter.
15 Barry sues Tady in his individual capacity for damages and for a declaratory
16 judgment.
17 288. JOYCE is also sued in her individual capacity for a declaratory
18 judgment for Barry to present to the Bar so that Joyce will be prosecuted for
19 unethically pursuing a case she knew she could not prevail on. She is also sued for
20 damages.
21 289. J. Armendariz is sued in her individual capacity for forcing Barry to
22 attend the trial rather than continue it when Armendariz knew that Barry was ill
23 and in her 70's. She did not set a realistic trial date knowing Barrys
24 circumstances. She is sued for violating Barrys right to bodily and emotional
25 integrity.
26 290. Dunn is sued in his former individual capacity as the former
27 Executive Director. According to a confidential report which the Los Angeles
28 Times obtained and made public, Dunn spent $5,600 of the members dues on a
76
76
1 dinner at the restaurant owned by Mark Geragos, his attorney. Barry seeks
2 reimbursement of the $5,600 plus interest from Dunn.
3 291. Dunns misconduct and other scandals of the Bar has caused Golden
4 Gate University law professor Peter Keane to remark, The bar is just further
5 descending into a banana republic,.... It is totally dysfunctional and should be
6 unraveled." Los Angeles Times internet article dated December 6, 2014 written
7 by Maura Nolan entitled Accusations Fly as State Bar of California Leader Joe
8 Dunn Fights Ouster.
9 292. MIRIAM KRINSKY is sued in her individual capacity as a former
10 Board of Trustees member. Barry sues her to recover the $300,000 paid by the
11 members to a firm she has ties to, Munger, Tolles, and Olsen plus interest because
12 on information and belief, she sought the firms appointment for the purpose of
13 investigating Dunn solely on her recommendation and without competition in
14 violation of anti trust laws. A judge had offered to conduct the investigation pro
15 bono. It is not known without discovery whether Krinsky received a kickback
16 from Munger.
17 293. DEFENDANT MUNGER, TOLLES, AND OLSON (Munger
18 Tolles) is sued because it charged an excessive fee to the Bar. On behalf of the
19 members, Barry seeks restitution and reimbursement plus interest of the excessive
20 fee charged by the firm. Three attorneys of the firm charged members $800 an
21 hour. Non attorney professional investigators could have handled the
22 investigation at $200/hr. See First Amended Complaint, Dunn v. State Bar of
23 California, filed April 29, 2015, pp.13-14, paras 52-55.
24 294. Miller is sued for fraud and for violating the rights of Rachel.
25 295. J. Fotinos is the father of Rachel and Austin and the ex-husband of
26 Michele. He is sued first to obtain the restitution owed Michele and Rachel for the
27 crimes, threats of violence, and violence he committed against them pursuant to
28 Article 1, Sec.28(b) & ( c), Crime Victims Bill of Rights, California Constitution.
77
77
1 Second, Michele also sues for a judgment for spousal and child support and for the
2 arrearages of spousal support/sanctions which J. Fotinos refuses to pay. Third, he
3 is also sued for the continuing child abuse he had inflicted on Rachel, the last of
4 which was that he stalked her in his truck causing Michele and Rachel to
5 immediately vacate their apartment and go into hiding. They remain in hiding
6 because of their fear that J. Fotinos will kill or cause them grave bodily harm.
7 Finally he is sued for the conspiracy he engaged in with Miller to deprive Rachel
8 of her family relationship with her mother.
9 296. JUDGE ROBERT FOILES (J. Foiles) is a San Mateo judge who is
10 sued in his individual capacity for denying Michele and Rachel all access to the
11 San Mateo Court, because he will not rule on Barrys requests in which she must
12 pretend she is the VL seeking to file court documents on her own behalf when the
13 documents are on behalf of Michele, including for restraining orders against J.
14 Fotinos and Grover, to enforce spousal and child support and the judgment for
15 arrearages in spousal support/sanctions J. Fotinos owes Michele, to obtain a wage
16 garnishment on J. Fotinos tax-free pension paid for by the taxpayers. He is also
17 sued for entering into an anti trust conspiracy with Fox and other members of the
18 Bar to harass and disbar Barry and to deny Michele all access to the Court and
19 then put her in prison.
20 297. WAGSTAFFE is sued in his individual capacity as District Attorney
21 of San Mateo for violating the free speech rights of Barry, Michele, and Rachel.
22 He entered into a conspiracy with Fox, J. Foiles, and J. Foiles obedient judges
23 (Parsons, Cretan, Mallich, etc.), Fox, and Munks to deprive Barry of her bar card,
24 to deprive Michele and Rachel of all their rights as crime victims, and to put
25 Michele in prison.
26 298. Montalvo is an attorney still practicing in San Mateo. He caused
27 grave harm to Michele and her children because of his legal malpractice. He is
28 sued for his perjury in obtaining a false summary judgment in the lawsuit in which
78
78
1 Barry sued him. Montalvo swore that there was a child support order against
2 Michele when he knew that to be false. His perjury in the legal malpractice
3 lawsuit was a continuation of his fraud on Michele in the underlying family law
4 case telling her there was an order of child support entered against her when such
5 an order was never entered until years later, at the trial on division of community
6 property. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that Montalvo engaged in
7 ethical violations. His misconduct in the family law case and then in the legal
8 malpractice case tainted and infected the Bar prosecution on his behalf.
9 299. PATRICIA ROMA (Roma) is an attorney practicing in San Mateo.
10 She is sued for damages for her perjury in helping Montalvo obtain a false
11 summary judgment in the legal malpractice lawsuit Barry filed against Montalvo.
12 She made the same false claim in the underlying family law case when she
13 represented J. Fotinos, falsely alleging that there was a child support order against
14 Michele when she knew that to be false. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
15 that Roma engaged in ethical violations as well as damages. The Bar has ratified
16 her fraud and her perjury. Her misconduct tainted and infected the Bar
17 prosecution on his behalf.
18 300. Kimball is the attorney who defended Montalvo in the malpractice
19 lawsuit, she suborned the perjury of Montalvo and Roma in seeking summary
20 judgment on the issue of whether there was a child support order entered against
21 Michele, she colluded with the bar to bring a malicious prosecution against Barry
22 for nonpayment of discovery sanctions when she had offered to waive the
23 sanctions, when she knew that the judgment of dismissal did not merge the
24 sanctions orders into the judgment and thus were no longer in existence, and when
25 she ceased all enforcement action against Barry after the judgment omitting the
26 sanctions orders was entered. She is sued for damages.
27 301. Kimball, like Montalvo, is a market participant preferred by the Bar
28 over Barry because she is a Bar insider. The Bar appointed her to serve on the
79
79
1 legal malpractice insurance committee in 2012. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory

2 judgment that Kimball engaged in ethical violations.
3 302. UNNAMED UNKNOWN MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
4 COUNCIL is sued in her/his individual capacity for disseminating the VL list with
5 Micheles and Barrys names on it as VLs when it is factually and legally
6 impossible for Michele and Barry to be VLs thus defaming them. San Mateo
7 Judge Karesh and Judge Freeman had illegally declared the two women VLs in
8 November 2012.
9 303. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all
10 times herein mentioned defendants Unnamed Unknown Judicial Council
11 Employee, Unnamed, Unknown State Bar Employee, J. Fotinos, Fox, Wagstaffe,
12 Munks (NOT sued), J. Foiles, Grover (NOT sued), Miller, Kinney (NOT sued),
13 Karlsten (NOT sued), Aaron Riechert (NOT sued), Kimball, Montalvo, Roma,
14 Saucedo, Joyce, and Tady were the agents of one another.
15 304. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all
16 times herein defendants Unnamed, Unknown State Bar Employee, Fox, Joyce,
17 Tady, J. Armendariz, Saucedo, Krinsky, and Dunn were employees or officials of
18 the Bar, and in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the scope of
19 his/her agency and/or employment with the Bar.
20 305. Defendants DOE 1 through DOE 10, inclusive, are sued herein under
21 fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs.
22 When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this
23 complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. Plaintiffs are
24 informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously-named
25 defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and
26 that Plaintiffs' damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those
27 unnamed, unknown Doe defendants.
28 //
80
80
1 IV
2 STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS
3 A. Hiring Fox Has Insured the Bar Will Not Discipline Corrupt
Prosecutors and Has Further Institutionalized Racism and anti-
4 Child/Mother Animus in the Bar.
5 1. Foxs Continuing Support of Corrupt Prosecutors
Wagstaffe and Giannini Both of Whom Were Once Under
6 His Supervision as San Mateo District Attorney, and Both
of Whom Engaged in Racial Discrimination during Jury
7 Selection.
8 a. Wagstaffes Misconduct While under Foxs
Supervision.
9
306. While Fox supervised Wagstaffe, the Ninth Circuit reversed a murder
10
conviction Wagstaffe had obtained because of his racial discrimination against two
11
prospective black jurors. Fox did not discipline Wagstaffe or refer him to the Bar.
12
Instead, Fox mentored Wagstaffe to be the next D.A. when he retired.
13
307. Wagstaffe made a peremptory challenge against two African
14
American potential jurors, Mohammed Haroon Ali v. Hickman, Case No.
15
07-16731, 584 F.3d 1174 (9th Circuit, July 7, 2009).
16
308. The Ninth Circuit ruled:
17
IV. Conclusion
18
.... We further hold that, in light of the overwhelming evidence
19 indicating that the prosecutor in Alis case acted with
discriminatory intent when he struck M.C., the California
20 appellate courts finding to the contrary was an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
21 state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2). We therefore
reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions
22 to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring Alis release
from custody, unless the State elects to retry Ali within a reasonable
23 time to be determined by the district court. REVERSED and
REMANDED. emphasis added.
24
309. In 2010, JamBri Johnson, Sr. filed a Bar complaint against Wagstaffe
25
based on Wagstaffes prejudicial pretrial publicity in his criminal matter. On April
26
27, 2010, the Bar issued a letter to Johnson, who, by this time, was in prison,
27
indicating that a private reproval was issued to Wagstaffe for his misconduct. On
28
June 28, 2010, Johnson filed an accusation against Wagstaffe in the Supreme
81
81
1 Court. This writer does not know the outcome of the accusation.
2 310. Fox took no disciplinary action against Wagstaffe. It is likely that
3 Johnson is black and may also be poor. If he is, it is more evidence of the racism
4 Wagstaffe engages in, probably everytime he gets an opportunity which is not too
5 often. According to 2010 census, San Mateo is 59.5% white, black and African
6 American, 3.5%. Fox did nothing to protect the rights of Johnson.
7 311. Foxs failure to rein in Wagstaffes prosecutorial misconduct has
8 resulted in Wagstaffe continuing to engage in it even after Fox retired.
9 b. Alfred Giannini, Supervised by Fox While a San
Mateo Prosecutor, Engaged in a Pattern of
10 Prosecutorial Misconduct, Including Racial
Discrimination in Jury Selection and Fox Did
11 Nothing, and instead Continues to Ratify and Defend
Gianninis Misconduct.
12
312. While a San Francisco prosecutor, Giannini engaged in racial
13
discrimination during jury selection. The Ninth Circuit reversed the murder
14
conviction Giannini obtained in that case. Ricardo v. Rardin, 189 F.3d 474 (9th
15
Cir.) (unpublished) cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1047 (1999), (finding Batson violation
16
where prosecutors explanations were tainted by racial references making them not
17
race-neutral as a matter of law). According to No, CA Innocence Project Report,
18
2010, at p.13:
19
San Mateo deputy district attorney Alfred Giannini was cited for
20 misconduct that led to the setting aside of a convictionthe third
case where his conduct has led to a reversal or a mistrial since 1999.
21 In San Francisco County in December, a judge ordered a new trial for
Caramad Conley, convicted in 1994 of murder and sentenced to life
22 in prison.[fn 38] Superior Court Judge Marla Miller found that the
prosecution had failed to disclose to the defense evidence of
23 payments to a police informant. Giannini, the prosecutor in the case
and then a San Francisco deputy district attorney, has denied he knew
24 about the payments. Former police chief Earl Sanders has contended
he informed Giannini. ....In 2004, San Mateo County Superior Court
25 Judge Stephen Hall granted a mistrial in a quadruple murder case
after finding that Giannini had failed to disclose evidence to defense
26 attorneys.[fn 40]
27 Footnotes:
28 38. Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and New
Trial, Caramad Conley v. Mike Knowles, No. 2447917, (Cal. Sup. Ct.
82
82
1 S.F. County 2010).

2 ....
40. Tim Hay, Judge declares mistrial in quadruple murder case;
3 courts decision leaves legal community stunned; choice made
because of sloppy prosecution, San Mateo County Times, Jun. 9,
4 2004.
5 313. Fox did not refer Giannini to the Bar for discipline for the last
6 incident of misconduct.
7 2. Foxs Continuing Support of Giannini at the Bar.
8 314. Fox was excoriated in the press in February 2015, for employing
9 Giannini, to train bar prosecutors. See, e.g.,
10 http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27667252/prosecutor-
checkered-record-is-training-legal-watchdogs?source=infinite
11
Prosecutor with checkered record is training legal watchdogs
12 By Tracey Kaplantkaplan@mercurynews.com
13 POSTED: 03/07/2015 01:55:48 PM PST4 COMMENTS|
UPDATED: 4 DAYS AGO
14
The agency in charge of disciplining California's lawyers has the pick
15 of the litter when it comes to contracting with legal specialists. So the
State Bar's decision to hire a Bay Area attorney with a checkered
16 record is raising eyebrows.
17 315. Giannini was defiant in the interview with Mercury News and showed
18 no remorse for his racism, blaming the Ninth Circuit and the other judges who
19 cited him for his prosecutorial misconduct. While Fox has become the face of the
20 Bar, the Court and the Bar took no action against Fox, not even demand he
21 reimburse members for misappropriating dues to pay Gianninis stipend.
22 316. In an article by Don J. DeBenedictis titled "Ex-prosecutor Accused
23 of Misconduct Trains Bar" published in the February 18, 2015 edition of the Los
24 Angeles Daily Journal, DeBenedictis states:
25 Unfortunately, nothing surprises me anymore. Considering that
prosecutorial misconduct in California has been described as
26 epidemic, I have my own thoughts on what we should be doing with
such people and making them judicial officers or trainers of other
27 attorneys is not on my list.
28 317. That these men Fox, Giannini, and Wagstaffe stick together, thus
83
83
1 insuring institutionalized racism but as will be shown infra, also institutionalized

2 sexism and protection of pedophiles is shown by the fact that without any
3 consideration of ethics or morality, in April 2013, Wagstaffe asked Board of
4 Supervisors to approve bringing on Giannini (birds of a feather?) to help prosecute
5 William Ayres, a serial child molester. Fox and Wagstaffe initially botched the
6 case. See, e.g., http://almanacnews.com/square/index.php?i=3&t=8667
7 318. Because of his failure to supervise and discipline Giannini and
8 Wagstaffe, Fox is very hostile towards, and defensive about, the report of the
9 Northern California Innocence Project naming Giannini as the poster boy for
10 prosecutorial misconduct. Id.,
11 http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27667252/prosecutor-checkered-re
12 cord-is-training-legal-watchdogs?source=infinite)
13 319. In an internet article written by David Cameron Carr, Bar Defense
14 Specialist, in January 2016 entitled State Bar Forging New Rule on Prosecutor
15 Misconduct. Will It Ever Be Used? Jan 20-21, 2016, Carr reports Foxs hostility
16 towards the report:
17 (h..p://www.calbarjournal.com/November2010/TopHeadlines/TH5.aspx)
18 In October 2010, newly installed Chief Trial Counsel James Towery
... announced that his office, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, the
19 State Bar discipline prosecutor, would be taking a close look at a
report from the Northern California Innocence Project ...criticizing
20 the State Bar for taking no disciplinary action against criminal
prosecutors in a number of cases where the criminal conviction had
21 been reversed. ...
22 At the April 2011 State Bar Ethics Symposium in San Francisco,
Maurice Possely, the journalist who was coauthored the report,
23 squared off in a heated debate with former San Mateo District
Attorney James Fox regarding the claims in the report. Mr. Fox
24 position was what you expect: the report was exaggerated, unfair,
and irresponsible. [After all, the report complained about Giannini
25 and his misconduct while supervised by Fox.] Double Emphasis
added
26
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Towery was forced out as Chief Trial Counsel.
27 Jayne Kim was named interim Chief Trial Counsel and Mr. Fox was
brought into the office, designated a management consultant, [in
28 August 2011] but according to State Bar insiders, essentially serving
as the manager of the San Francisco prosecution office. Nothing
84
84
1 further was heard from OCTC on the claims of the Innocence

Project. The ubiquitous Mr. Fox was later named to the State Bar
2 Board of Trustees (h..p://www.courts.ca.gov/26684.htm) by the
California Supreme Court in July 2014. Emphasis added
3
320. Fox should have recused himself from challenging the report of the
4
Innocence Project since the report indirectly called into question Foxs own ethical
5
violations failure to supervise and discipline Giannini when Giannini was
6
committing prosecutorial misconduct while working in the San Mateo D.A. office.
7
Fox did not push for a bar rule for prosecutors; it was ...the Innocence Project
8
[which recommended] the adoption of ABA Model Rule [re: prosecutors] and
9
determining whether any further action should be taken. Id., In October 2016,
10
the Board of Trustees approved Rules 5-110 and 5-220 which address prosecutor
11
ethics. Assumedly, the Supreme Court will or has approved the rules but no
12
thanks to Fox. Fox seems to be making sure that Bar complaints against
13
Wagstaffe and McKowan are suppressed and then declined.
14
321. Judge Kozinski, Judge Fletcher, and Judge Wardlaw expressed
15
frustration at the failure of the Bar to prosecute errant prosecutors during oral
16
argument in Baca, v. Adams in February 2015: [Kim still the Bar Trial Counsel
17
and Fox on Board of Trustees]
18
In a series of searing questions, the three judges expressed frustration
19 and anger that California state judges were not cracking down on
prosecutorial misconduct......Prosecutors "got caught this time but
20 they are going to keep doing it because they have state judges who
are willing to look the other way," Kozinski said.........Kozinski
21 demanded to know why the informant and the testifying prosecutor
were not charged with perjury. He suggested the state bar should
22 pull the law license of the prosecutor who presented the evidence.
emphasis added.
23 U.S. judges See 'Epidemic' of Prosecutorial Misconduct in State,
By Maura Dolan, JANUARY 31, 2015, 7:20 PM found at
24 http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/lamelyingprosecutors20150201
story. html#page=
25
322. The California District Attorneys Association also does not seem
26
concerned with the ethics of its members. Wagstaffe was just newly elected as its
27
president despite his problematic history of misconduct, including racial
28
discrimination in disqualifying two black jurors.
85
85
1 3. Foxs Support for Convicted Pedophile William Ayres, and

Probable Pedophiles San Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks and
2 Current San Mateo Sheriff Carlos Bolanos.
3 a. Foxs Support of Now Deceased Convicted
Pedophile William Ayres.
4
323. Fox became San Mateo D.A. in 1982 or 1983. Complaints surfaced
5
in the late 80's against William Ayres, psychiatrist, to whom San Mateo judges
6
and county employees referred juveniles for evaluation, including J. Foiles and
7
possibly J. Karesh when they worked for Fox as deputy District Attorney for
8
twelve years. Ayres molested probably hundreds of children. Still, no action was
9
taken against him because he was good friends with those who should have
10
removed and prosecuted him, including Fox, Wagstaffe, J. Foiles, J. Karesh, and
11
Judge Marta Diaz (his protector and champion at the expense of children she kept
12
referring to him), just to name a few in high places.
13
324. Ayres and Fox served on Children and Families First Commission
14
which explains why children and families are not first and why children in San
15
Mateo continued to be molested by Ayres.
16
325. In 2002, Diaz interfered with the police investigation into allegations
17
of sexual molestation against Ayres. She continued to refer children to Ayres
18
knowing of the allegations. Fox, Wagstaffe, and other judges did not report J. Diaz
19
to the Commission on Judicial Performance. they just kept referring vulnerable
20
children to the predator.
21
326. Because they had no choice Fox and Wagstaffe reluctantly brought
22
the case against Ayres to trial in June 2009. Fox and Wagstaffe assigned
23
McKowan to try the case. They provided her no assistance. She was not prepared.
24
A mistrial was declared after the jury hung, 11-1 for guilt.
25
327. Taken from blogs, the information is that prosecutors decided to retry
26
the case. The criminal proceedings were suspended, however, when Ayres'
27
attorney questioned his client's competency due to his supposed onset of dementia.
28
A jury trial to determine Ayres' competency was declared a mistrial when jurors
86
86
1 deadlocked 8 to 4, with the majority deciding that Ayres' deteriorating mental

2 condition would make him unfit to stand trial.
3 328. Following that mistrial, the district attorney's office decided Ayres
4 would not be mentally fit to aid in his own defense. A judge in 2011 ordered Ayres
5 to be placed in a mental hospital, and he was sent to Napa State Hospital where he
6 was to spend six months before his competency could potentially be declared
7 restored.
8 329. Doctors at Napa State Hospital did find Ayres to be competent, and
9 criminal charges against Ayres were reinstated in 2012.
10 http://sanmateo.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/poll-should-the-county-
11 continue-to-prosecute-william-ayres Wagstaffe refused to retry Ayres.
12 330. It was the dogged determination of a journalist, the Ayres victims,
13 and the victims families which forced Wagstaffe to refile. They surveilled Ayres
14 and followed him to a restaurant where he was recorded bragging about using
15 Alzheimers as a defense. Finally, the charges were refiled against Ayres. In
16 2014, he pled guilty and put in prison for a mere eight years.
17 331. Here is also a comment on an Ayres blog: at
18 http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/
19 Monday, July 30, 2012
20 Commentary on Press Articles
21 ...The San Mateo county prosecutor's office has a vested interest
in losing this case. They and the Judicial branch in SM County
22 sent thousands of his victims to him as he was the county
contracted provider for juvenile psyche evals. Emphasis added. ...
23
There are several local politicians who have been supporters/friends
24 of Ayres in the past (Like Jim Fox ...)who stand to face significant
embarrassment were there to be a trial. Finally, the current D.A.,
25 James Wagstaffe refiled on Ayres.
26 332. Kamala Harris refused to take over the prosecution of Ayres despite
27 the years of official foot dragging and McKowans incompetent performance even
28 when a journalist, the victims, and their family members begged her to do so. On
87
87
1 the other hand Harris rushed to take over the prosecution of San Mateo Probation
2 Officer Stuart James Forrest, 62, (after the Post Office filed a complaint against
3 the defendant alleging his computer contained child pornography), Forrest was
4 arrested in December 2012 and convicted by a jury in July 2013 of two counts of
5 possession of child pornography. Forrest received a prison sentence of ten months
6 on September 29, 2013. So, in nine months, Forrest was brought to justice once
7 the Attorney Generals office got involved.
8 333. Forrest is black, unlike Ayres, a white man and because he was
9 white he had connections to Fox, Wagstaffe, and the judges all white --
10 including active protection provided by J. Diaz. Without the Attorney
11 Generals involvement in Ayres prosecution, it was 26 years before he finally
12 went to prison. The racial disparity in the legal systems treatment of the
13 perpetrators is stark. Given the conduct of Harris, Fox, Wagstaffe, and the San
14 Mateo judges, San Mateo justice for victims of white child sexual predators is a
15 long, long time coming.
16 b. Foxs and Wagstaffes Support of Now-Retired San Mateo
Sheriff Greg Munks Detained in a FBI Sting in a Las Vegas
17 Residence Filled With Children Sex Trafficked from Asia.
18 334. Fox and Wagstaffes support of Ayres and other child sex abusers is
19 not surprising. In 2007, when he was still San Mateo D.A., Fox did not publicly
20 demand the resignation of Munks and his sidekick deputy Carlos Bolanos now
21 Sheriff in a rigged appointment by the Board of Supervisors. Both men were
22 caught up in a FBI sting in a Las Vegas home filled with underage girls forced into
23 sex slavery to service the likes of men like Munks and Bolanos. The FBI let
24 Munks and Bolanos go. One of the first acts Munks did after his near arrest
25 for child sexual abuse was to cancel funding for sex crimes unit of the San
26 Mateo sheriff dept.
27 335. On July 15, 2014, Barry efiled opposition to Ninth Circuit Courts
28 OSC re: Summary Affirmance in the VL case against Karesh, Foiles, and Freeman.
88
88
1 Barry/Fotinos v. Labson Freeman, et al., Case No. No. 14-15381. The following
2 about Munks below is taken from Barrys brief.
3 No child, including Micheles children, should have any expectation
Sheriff Munk would protect them or punish those who abuse them.
4 Munks interest in children lies elsewhere other than protecting them.
He was present at a brothel of sex-trafficked children in Las Vegas in
5 2007 when the FBI did a raid and he got off.
6 San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks and his undersheriff
were swept up in Las Vegas prostitution sting over the
7 weekend while at a massage parlor suspected of being a
brothel, authorities said Tuesday. Munks called the incident a
8 "personal embarrassment" and apologized to sheriff's officials,
the county and his family for his "lack of personal judgment."
9 Munks, who was sworn in as sheriff in January, was in the
massage parlor at about 9:30 p.m. Saturday, and Bolanos was
10 somewhere on the property when authorities raided the
establishment, which was run out of a private home that had no
11 name and no signage,....The massage parlor was in a residential
area about 2 miles off the Las Vegas Strip, Logue said. It was
12 one of eight alleged brothels being run from houses and
apartments that police raided Saturday night as part of
13 "Operation Dollhouse," a sting aimed at prostitution and human
trafficking with suspected links to Asia, Las Vegas authorities
14 said. Police and federal agents seized 3,500 tablets of ecstasy
and $20,000 in cash during the raids [of which Munks no doubt
15 was a contributor] . Seven people were arrested for allegedly
operating the brothels, and 25 prostitutes were taken into
16 custody, police said. Prostitution is legal in most counties in
Nevada but not in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas.....
17 Taken from article on San Mateo County / Two Lawmen
Caught in Raid of Vegas Spot, John Cot, Chronicle Staff
18 Writer, Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, April 25, 2007
19 336. Nor should Michele and her two children have expected assistance
20 from Wagstaffe since he announced back in 2007 that
21 Both men [Munks and Bolanos] are "outstanding law enforcement
officers," and the Las Vegas incident would have no effect on their
22 ability to work with local prosecutors, [spoken without a trace of
irony], Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.
23 ...
24 On the website http://williamayreswatch.blogspot.com/2014/03/san-
mateo-county-come-have-sex -with-our.html
25
The following post was made:
26
....[O]ur District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe did not denounce
27 this heinous behavior. He wouldn't even hold his tongue.
Instead, he praised Munks and Bolanos:
28
Steve Wagstaffe e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM
89
89
1 Greg and Carlos: Just a quick word of support from me as

you go through a difficult time. To those who matter, your
2 decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that
count [??] and your integrity [!] is not the slightest... Hard as it
3 is to think it now, remember it will be yesterday's news and
irrelevant by tomorrow. My positive thoughts are out there for
4 both of you. Steve
5 4/25/2007 4:49 PM Greg Munks to Steve Wagstaffe: "thanks
Steve.."
6
Munks wrote: "Steve, I really appreciate your words of
7 support.... I've heard you took some heat for them and I
apologize. I won't forget the fact that you were there early."
8
Also, on the blog one individual commented:
9
Hey! The Mercury News refuses to endorse Munks for Sheriff
10 because he still refuses to answer questions about his visit to the
brothel with the under aged girls. They also suggest that voters write
11 in Lopez's name for Sheriff to send Munks a message:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25870116/write-juan-lopezs-name-
12 ballotsheriff- and-see
13 337. Despite being District Attorney, Fox remained silent. Wagstaffe
14 openly supported Munk. The FBI should have prosecuted Munks and Bolanos
15 and did not. At the very least, Fox and Wagstaffe should have demanded Munks
16 and Bolanos resignations publicly. They did not. Munks continued to serve as
17 Sheriff later causing grave harm to Michele, Rachel, and Austin and endangering
18 the public by refusing to arrest J. Fotinos although his department knew he had
19 guns registered to himself, was a felon, and was violent.
20 338. When Michele and Rachel picketed in San Francisco and exposed
21 San Mateo, including Munks, Munks used the Community-Defined Solutions to
22 Violence Against Women Program grant from the US Department of Justice
23 to arrest J. Fotinos and seize his guns. These funds earmarked to protect
24 domestic violence victims were handed over to a public official who had done
25 nothing but harm sex trafficked children and domestic violence victims. Munks
26 deputies refused to arrest J. Fotinos and to seek an emergency protective order for
27 Michele and Rachel. Only because Michele and Barry picketed and exposed
28 Munks and other San Mateo officials misconduct did Munks make the arrest.
90
90
1 339. Munks named Bolanos as his successor in July 2016. The Board of
2 Supervisors unfortunately approved the appointment. CONGRESSWOMAN
3 JACKIE SPEIER'S registered an angry objection to this trickery:
4 http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_30119813/carlos-bolanos-sher
5 iff-san-mateo-county-eshoo-speier
6
Speier was an outspoken critic of Munks and Bolanos in 2007 when
7 they were detained by police at an illegal Las Vegas brothel. The men
were neither arrested nor charged with a crime. Munks told reporters
8 at the time he thought he was going to a legitimate massage business,
but has otherwise refused to discuss the incident.
9
In a phone interview after the vote, Speier said that episode had
10 nothing to do with her outrage over Bolanos' appointment.
11 That's separate and distinct from the responsibility of elected
officials to maintain an open and transparent process and give the
12 public the opportunity to speak," she said.
13 The congresswoman ripped the supervisors for not allowing the
public to have a say and accused Munks and Bolanos of orchestrating
14 the transition.
15 "It was rigged. It was wired, and they have no interest in public
input," she said. "And I think that's an affront to every citizen in the
16 county."
17 Bolanos denied the accusation, noting that Munks was in the hospital
following a successful heart procedure on Monday.
18
"Although he and I are definitely dear friends," said Bolanos, 57, "I
19 don't think we would have heart procedures to benefit the other."
20 In their letter, Speier and Eshoo acknowledged it was unusual for
them to weigh in on a county personnel decision, but it was important
21 for the county to allow for open deliberations without "a perception
of a preordained outcome."
22
"For a long period of time, there have been rumors that Sheriff Munks
23 would retire early and pave the way for the Undersheriff to take this
position," the congresswomen wrote.
24
Because there are just four months until the November general
25 election, which wouldn't give other candidates much time to mount a
campaign against Bolanos, Speier and Eshoo lobbied the supervisors
26 not to hold an election for sheriff but rather allow other people to
apply for the position.
27
In the interview, Speier said both San Mateo police Chief Susan
28 Manheimer and San Bruno police Chief Ed Barberini would have
been interested in applying.
91
91
1 340. Dep Sheriff Lopez put a monkey wrench in the plan, by running
2 against Munks, albeit a very weak one because he filed at the last minute and had
3 not raised any campaign funds. He lost. Wagstaffe filed malicious and false
4 criminal charges against Lopez to punish him for running against Munks.
5 Wagstaffe is now engaged in a malicious prosecution of Michele for exposing his
6 misconduct and the misconduct of Munks and the judges for failure to arrest J.
7 Fotinos in June 2012.
8 341. Wagstaffe has a history of punishing those who criticize him or his San
9 Mateo cronies. See, e.g., an internet article by former Los Angeles prosecutor
10 Robin Sax found at
11 lmanacnews.com/square/2013/09/05/la-prosecutor-and-radio-show-host-steve-wag
12 staffe-tried-to-retaliate-against-me-for-writing-a-piece-that-was-critical-of-ayres-p
13 rosecutor
14 LA prosecutor and radio show host: Steve Wagstaffe tried to retaliate
against me [Sax] for writing a piece that was critical of Ayres prosecutor
15
On September 2, 2013, the Larry Elder radio show out of KABC in Los
16 Angeles did a segment about the problematic prosecutor, Melissa Mckowan
in the Ayres case. ...
17
Robin Sax , one of the hosts, is a former prosecutor in Los Angeles and
18 currently works as a legal analyst for the Today Show.
19 ....Sax recounted on this week's radio show about how bizarrely, San Mateo
DA Steve Wagstaffe tried to retaliate against her for writing the opinion
20 piece by calling up her then- boss, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve
Cooley to try to get her disciplined for speaking out about the matter.
21
Sax was not disciplined for her opinion piece.
22
Sax talks about how odd it was that Wagstaffe would try to retaliate against
23 her.
24 342. It is worse than odd for Lopez and Michele. Wagstaffe is trying to
25 put these two critics of him and San Mateo justice into prison.
26 c. Failure to Supervise Deputy Melissa McKowan.
27 343. McKowan is a deputy district attorney who has engaged in
28 misconduct and is incompetent. The Bar has issued a private reproval against her,
92
92
1 and there are two other bar complaints pending against her. On information and
2 belief, Fox is making sure both complaints will be closed with no discipline for
3 her, because as already proven, the Bar always takes care of its own.
4 344. In 2010 McKowan violated Marsys Law and dismissed a child
5 molestation case in which Defendant Sedak was accused of molesting his child.
6 See Victim group: Reinstate Molestation Case, August 10, 2010, 02:55 AM By
7 Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff:
8 A statewide victims group and well-known advocate Mark Klaas
yesterday called on the local courts to set aside the dismissal of a
9 child molestation case, saying prosecutors violated the victims
constitutional rights by not informing them of the planned resolution,
10 not allowing them to be at the final court hearing and lying about
whether the young girl involved was willing to testify.
11
"Abuse is abuse and it must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
12 law, said Klaas, wearing a button bearing the face of his murdered
daughter, Polly.
13
Klaas said he and the others were there to hold San Mateo County
14 accountable. ....
15 The San Mateo County District Attorneys Office and prosecutor
Melissa McKowan didnt tell Sadeks estranged wife who claims
16 he drugged her with GHB in 2006 to gain access to their young
daughter about the proceedings and got the case dismissed by
17 lying to a judge that the girls mother wouldnt allow her to testify,
said Nina Salarno-Ashford, the CVU advocate and attorney
18 representing them. ....
19 Salarno-Ashford filed a motion with San Mateo County Superior
Court seeking to set aside the dismissal. ....
20
345. Besides the Ayres and the Sadek cases, McKowan mishandled
21
another child sex abuse case this time under Wagstaffes supervision. In 2012,
22
Attorney Allard, who specializes in child sex abuse cases complained about
23
McKowans mistreatment of the victim who was Allards client. Scott McKibbin
24
was the defendant. McKowan failed to notify the victim and his family
25
...that a plea deal ...was offered to Scott Mckibbin in the spring of
26 2012. The fact that a formal offer was made to my clients predator
came as a surprise to my client and his family....
27
To make matters even worse for the victim and his family,, McKowan
28 failed to notify them that the sentencing hearing might be continued.
They had to fly from Canada.
93
93
1 ...When I contacted Mckowan on behalf of my clients to state that she

had failed to notify them about a plea deal and that she had never
2 notified them that the deal might be kicked, Mckowan called into
question my credibility and created the appearance that she knew my
3 clients better than me. She also accused me of holding a press
conference about her. I have never held a press conference about
4 Mckowan. Also, I dont like to speak out against fellow attorneys, but
when Mckowan accused me of lying, when in fact she had made false
5 statements herself, this crossed the line.
6 C. Wagstaffe's Reign of Terror
7 "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover
of law, and with the colors of justice ..." - U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d
8 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
9 346. Wagstaffe engaged in racial discrimination, protected two pedophiles,
10 violated, or allowed McKowan to violate, the rights of child sexual abuse crime
11 victims in the Ayres, Sedak, and McKibbin cases, and now is engaged in two
12 malicious and illegal prosecutions, one against Deputy Lopez for daring to run
13 against Wagstaffes good friend, Munks and the other against Michele for being a
14 whistleblower.
15 347. Wagstaffes conduct was especially egregious in the prosecution of
16 J. Fotinos. Wagstaffe refused to obtain criminal restraining orders against J.
17 Fotinos, to protect Michele and Rachel and to remove Austin from his custody for
18 his safety. He gave full permission to J. Fotinos to commit the crime of
19 interference with a witness in plain sight. He made not a peep when J. Fotinos
20 sent a letter to Austins school principal that the prosecutor and sheriff could not
21 interview Austin without him the criminal defendant, and his wife, the aider and
22 abettor of the criminal defendants crimes.
23 348. Wagstaffe made a collusive plea with J. Fotinos when he was in a
24 position to get a conviction. He could have prosecuted Grover for aiding and
25 abetting a crime, helping a felon hide his weapon. Grover would have been forced
26 to decide whether J. Fotinos was worth going to prison for. Probably not, and she
27 would have been telling Wagstaffe everything he needed to know to convict J
28 Fotinos. Instead J. Fotinos ended up with overnights in the County jail overseen
94
94
1 by his buddies, Munks' deputies some of whom refused to issue EPO's to Rachel
2 and Michele. We do not know if he ever spent time in jail.
3 349. Wagstaffe violated Art I, Sec. 28, California Constitution, part (b) in
4 almost all its respects as follows:
5 (1) Wagstaffe did not treat Michele and Rachel with fairness and
respect for their privacy and dignity, and insure they were free
6 from intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the
criminal ...process.
7
(2) He did not reasonably protect them from the defendant and
8 persons acting on behalf of the defendant. ....
9 (7) He utterly failed to provide reasonable notice of all public
proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the
10 prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other
post-conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all
11 such proceedings.
12 He did not insure that Michele and Rachel knew they had a
right
13
(8) ...to be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, involving a
14 post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, post-conviction
release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the
15 victim is at issue. ....
16 (11) To receive, upon request, the pre-sentence report when
available to the defendant, except for those portions made
17 confidential by law.
18 (12) To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence,
place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the
19 defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, ....
20 (13) To restitution. ....
21 (B) Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted
wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or
22 disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a
loss.
23
(C) All monetary payments, monies, and property collected
24 from any person who has been ordered to make
restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts
25 ordered as restitution to the victim....
26 (17) To be informed of the rights enumerated in paragraphs (1)
through (16).
27
350. Michele was the direct victim of J. Fotinos' perjury. Wagstaffe
28
denied her rights as set out above and most of all, denied her the restitution to
95
95
1 which she was entitled besides the $16,240 sanctions/spousal support ordered by
2 J. Franchi. (Now, around $25,000.00).
3 351. Rachel was J. Fotinos crime victim. It was she who told the deputies
4 and D.A.'s where the guns were and risked her life in doing so. J. Fotinos had
5 promised her and her brother that if either said anything about the guns their lives
6 would be over.
7 352. J. Cretan refused to renew the restraining orders against J. Fotinos
8 and Grover. Wagstaffe had a duty and obligation to obtain criminal restraining
9 orders in June 2013 when the restraining orders expired. He did not. He put
10 Rachel's and Michele's lives in danger as a result of which Michele's and Rachel's
11 symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and fear of being killed increased not
12 decreased. Finally in May 2015, when J. Fotinos stalked Rachel in his truck twice,
13 they packed up the same day and went into hiding where they have been ever
14 since.
15 353. Wagstaffe has filed a criminal complaint against Michele based on
16 bogus and false claim of perjury. There is no way that Michele could ever get a
17 fair trial in San Mateo. Michele has a right to seek sanctuary against Wagstaffe's
18 use of his authority to take revenge against Michele.
19 354. Fox, Batchelor, and J. Purcell placed Barry in inactive status just as
20 Wagstaffe is gearing up to prosecute Michele, knowing she has no money and
21 without Barry, would have to depend on a San Mateo public defender who would
22 do nothing to offend Wagstaffe and the judges.
23 D. Judge Kareshs Ratification of Sells and Aaron Reicherts
Plundering of Esthers Estate and Shutting Down All Court
24 Access to Michele including Trying to Protect Her Mother.
25 355. Barry attempted to get Michele out of San Mateo. She filed four
26 motions to change venue. She withdrew the motion in one after she was turned
27 down in the other three. Having forced Barry and Michele to remain in the San
28 Mateo courts, the judges proceeded to retaliate against them at every turn, finally
96
96
1 giving them the label of "vexatious" and defaming them throughout the State of
2 California.
3 356. In October 2011, ignoring the recommendation of the probate court
4 investigator that Michele should be appointed conservator of Esthers estate,
5 Judge Miram appointed Sells, and Sells retained Aaron Reichert as her attorney.
6 357. Barry would not enter her appearance on the conservatorship case.
7 Barry had filed a federal civil rights action, a federal housing discrimination case
8 for Esther, a lawsuit against San Mateo Court based on Government Claims Act,
9 eventually the Montalvo malpractice case, and was representing Michele
10 continuously in the family law case. Eventually, with no fees on any of the cases.
11 358. Rather than work with Michele, Sells and Karlsten opposed all of
12 Michele's objections and motions. Karlsten filed a motion to make Michele a VL.
13 Her memorandum in support of the VL motion is rife with legal and factual errors.
14 359. J. Foiles may have steered Karlstens motion to J. Karesh who
15 admitted he had no experience in handling probate matters at the hearing in which
16 he made Barry and Michele VLs at the request of Fox. J. Foiles and J. Karesh
17 were buddies when they worked as deputy D.A.s for Fox. Surely, there wasnt
18 anything these two judges wouldnt do for their old boss. And surely there wasnt
19 anything their old boss wouldnt do for them. Fox got Barry disbarred. Wagstaffe
20 is trying to put Michele in prison. Besides, J. Karesh owed Fox for his
21 appointment to the bench. Here is what J. Karesh said about his judicial
22 appointment during a YouTube interview in January 2010 found at
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_LvXMHJpqo:
24 .... I had actually been told that it [judicial appointment] was
probably coming because my boss at the time [Fox] was on the
25 local committee that advised the governor uh in the Bay Area
who should become a judge. so, I got word through that through
26 my boss uh my immediate supervisor who heard it from him
[Fox] that it was likely coming so I was kinda expecting it but --
27 you never know for sure until it comes. And it was definitely one of
the most exciting moments of my life. But then he said uh, it wasnt
28 going to be announced, the appointment until the following week.
And I had not to tell anybody except my mom. And so, I had to keep
97
97
1 it inside for an entire week which was extraordinarily difficult.

Emphasis added
2
360. Karlsten unethically argued that Michele filed the same motion three
3
times, each time losing it. False. Ms. Karlsten knew there was only one motion, as
4
amended, and one ruling on the amended motion.
5
361. Karlsten attacked Michele because Michele repeatedly complained
6
that her brother had embezzled possibly as much as $250,000.00 from their
7
mother, Esther, and Sells was not investigating this issue. Michele just learned
8
that David had told his neighbor that his mother had died and he inherited money
9
from her which is why he was able to pay off his home. He has passed away and
10
the home goes to Esther. Esther unfortunately lost her son but has poetic justice
11
the house David paid for with the funds he stole from his mother now reverts to
12
his mother. Unfortunately, Sells and Aaron Reichert are involved. Esther and
13
Michele, Esthers sole beneficiary, will never see any money left in the estate if
14
Sells and Aaron Reichert are allowed to remain as conservator and attorney for
15
Esther.
16
362. That Michele complained about Sells' failure to conduct the
17
investigation into the embezzlement is hardly vexatious. Karlsten and Sells
18
admitted that David Boyes embezzled at least $51,000.00 and had Boyes sign an
19
agreement to repay that amount. They refused to do the work required to uncover
20
the full extent of his embezzlement.
21
363. Ms. Karlsten's attack against Michele's objection to the appraisal of
22
her mother's property by the court-appointed referee Eugene Sussli, was just not
23
unethical, it was irrational. Michele protected her mother, not the appraiser, not
24
Sells, and certainly not Karlsten. Because of Micheles efforts, Esthers home sold
25
at an appropriate price for the times. Sells and Karlsten knew, however, that
26
Silicon Valley property was about to explode. By not delaying the sale, Sells and
27
Karlsten caused Esther a huge loss.
28
364. Because Michele was being treated so badly in the conservatorship
98
98
1 proceeding by both the judges and the attorneys, Barry did agree to represent her
2 and appeared in court in November 2012 to enter her appearance. Barry went in
3 as an attorney and came out a VL. Michele became a represented litigant in the
4 courtroom but also came out a VL.
5 365. Barry was not a party to the conservatorship, her mother is not
6 involved, nor is her mothers estate being stolen by Sells, Karlsten, and Aaron
7 Reichert. It is Michele, Micheles mother, Micheles mothers estate who and
8 which are at issue. Karlsten had not noticed Barry as a proposed VL in the notice
9 of motion because it was legally and factually impossible for her to do so.
10 366. J. Freeman was the judge who did most of the drafting of the order
11 given J. Karesh's repeated adjournments of the hearing on November 9, 2012, to
12 consult with her. This made the VL order and the prefiling order which Freeman
13 also signed void because she had been disqualified from the proceeding by
14 Michele in accordance with Code of Civ Proced.Sec.170.6.
15 E. The CJPs Rejection of Barry/ Micheles Complaint against
Karesh and Labson-Freeman resulting in Ongoing Harm to
16 Barry, Michele, Esther, Rachel, and Austin.
17 I think the biggest misconception about people being a judge is that in
some sense uh were sorta high and mighty and powerful and um
18 perfect to a certain extent and people hold us up to a very high
standards without realizing that we are humans like everyone else
19 everybody else. We make mistakes. We can have good days; we can
have bad days. And um thats probably the biggest misconception.
20 Interview of J. Karesh, Jan 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_LvXMHJpqo
21
367. As will be shown, J. Karesh not only had a bad day and made a
22
mistake, he engaged in serious misconduct when he declared Barry and Michele
23
VLs. In November 2012, Barry filed a 26 page complaint with the CJP against
24
Karesh and Labson-Freeman detailing the misconduct and criminal obstruction of
25
justice (California Penal Code Sec.96.5(a) and/or Penal Code Sec.182(a)(5)) both
26
judges had engaged in, in making Michele and Barry VL's. J. Foiles continued the
27
retaliation by refusing to act on Barrys prefiling requests in 2014.
28
368. In the complaint, Barry alleged the following:
99
99
1 Judge Karesh and Judge Freeman's ethical violations are as follows:

2 1. Judge Karesh consulted with Judge Freeman in deciding
whether he would allow me [Barry] to substitute in the
3 case. They allowed [her].
4 2. Judge Karesh repeatedly consulted with Judge Freeman
in preparing the order declaring Michele and me
5 vexatious.
6 369. On May 2, 2012, Michele disqualified Judge Freeman from the case
7 by exercise of a peremptory challenge per Code of Civ Proced sec. 170.6.
8 370. Michele disqualified J. Freeman also in the Unlawful Detainer action
9 brought by Sells against Michele. Sells v. Fotinos, Case No.CLJ 205900 dated
10 July 23, 2012.
11 371. In her memorandum to make Michele a VL, Karlsten confirmed the
12 strikes against Judge Freeman both on May 2, 2012, in the conservatorship action
13 and on July 23, 2012, in the U.D. action.
14 372. Because Judge Freeman was disqualified from both the
15 conservatorship and U.D. actions she could not make any rulings or consult with
16 any judge making rulings on the cases in accordance with Code of Civ Proced.
17 Sec.170.4.
18 373. Besides being void because neither Michele nor Barry could be VLs
19 as a matter of law and fact, the order is void because Judge Freeman had a role in
20 preparing the order.
21 374. Barry filed four prefiling requests with J. Foiles in 2014. To this day
22 he and his successor (Now J. Susan Irene Etezadi) has failed to rule on them.
23 Barry left a voicemail recently on J Etezadis courtroom phone asking her to inject
24 some sanity into the situation and make a ruling on Micheles request for hearings
25 on support, arrearages, and restraining order. No return call as far as Barry knows.
26 375. The CJP refused to take any action. J. Labson-Freeman is no longer
27 under the jurisdiction of the Commission since she is now a federal judge. Thus,
28 the declaratory judgment against the CJP addresses the misconduct of J. Karesh
100
100
1 and J. Foiles.
2 376. Barry attributes the following allegations to Attorney Patrick Evans
3 taken from his complaint in Eicherly v. Commission on Judicial Performance,
4 Case No. CGC 16-555780, San Francisco Superior Court, filed December 9, 2016,
5 modified for the facts of this case.
6 F. Failure of CJP to Refer J. Karesh and J. Labson Freeman for
Criminal Prosecution Also Resulted in Grave Harm to Barry,
7 Esther, Michele, and Rachel.
8 377. The CJP is a state agency vested with authority to retire, remove,
9 censure or to admonish a judge, and to disqualify a judge during the pendency of
10 formal proceedings, subject to the review of the Supreme Court. (Cal. Const., Art.
11 VI, 8, 1 8, subd. (d).)
12 378. The CJP as part of the judicial branch is ineffectual in fulfilling its
13 purpose of protecting Californians from judge misconduct, including crime. The
14 CJP which is overseen by judges and is in the same building as the California
15 Judicial Council, which has many judges. Its chair is the Chief Justice of the
16 California Supreme Court which makes no sense. Putting a judge in charge of an
17 agency which disciplines judges violates separation of powers and common sense,
18 that those who serve and work in one branch of government cannot be expected to
19 police, investigate, and punish their colleagues in the same branch. The CJP
20 should be a part of the executive branch because it is an enforcement agency and
21 because as presently structured, has failed miserably in policing and disciplining
22 judges.
23 379. CJP Policy Declarations, DIVISION IV. DISCLOSURE OF
24 INFORMATION, Rule 4.2, states that where and when indicia of a judge's
25 criminal wrongdoing appear as part of a complaint, the CJP must turn over the
26 matter to prosecuting authorities. It provides (with emphasis added):
27 4.2 Disclosure of Information to Prosecuting Authorities When, in
the course of evaluating complaints or conducting
28 investigations,CJP staff acquires information revealing possible
criminal conduct by a judge, former judge or by any other
101
101
1 individual or entity, such information shall be brought to the

attention of the CJP at the earliest possible opportunity for
2 consideration of a referral of the information to prosecuting
authorities. Such a referral requires a vote of a majority of the
3 CJP members.
4 380. On information and belief, the California Attorney General and
5 District Attorneys in some counties do not routinely accept complaints about judge
6 crime; that the Attorney General and the D.A.s instruct complainants to file the
7 complaint with the CJP.
8 381. In Oberholzer v. Calif. Judicial Performance Commission (1999) 20
9 Cal. 4th 371, 396, our State Supreme Court stated: "
10 Action that is legally erroneous nevertheless can constitute
misconduct if it involves' bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard
11 for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law or any other
purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty.' (See In re:
12 Whitney (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 1, 2-3).
13 382. CJP Rule 111.4 "Legal Error" [Adopted 5/8/13] incorporates
14 Oberholzer language verbatim. The rule provides:
15 Discipline, including an advisory letter, shall not be imposed for mere
legal error without more. However, a judge who commits legal error
16 which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith, bias,
abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional
17 disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge
of judicial duties is subject to investigation and discipline.
18
383. J. Foiles' and J. Karesh's (and J. Freemans) misconduct runs afoul of
19
Oberholzer and Rule 111.4. They abused their authority. They disregarded
20
fundamental rights. They show an intentional disregard for the law. Barry,
21
Michele, and Rachel did nothing wrong. Barry and Michele as a matter of law and
22
fact are not VLs.
23
384. J. Foiles and J. Karesh continue to act in bad faith. J. Karesh knew
24
that J. Labson- Freeman was disqualified from both the conservator-U.D.
25
proceeding and the conservator proceeding. J. Karesh disregarded the law and
26
consulted with J. Freeman repeatedly in order to draft the unconstitutional and
27
void order making both Barry and Michele VL's. J. Freeman went on to sign the
28
VL order knowing that she was disqualified.
102
102
1 385. J. Foiles became the presiding judge. He and his successor, J. Etezadi
2 refuse to this day to rule on the applications in which Barry was forced to pretend
3 she is the in pro per asking to file documents in her own case, all of which is a
4 fiction, is oppressive, and deprives Barry of practicing law in San Mateo. J.
5 Etezadi continues with this charade.
6 386. Unless the CJP is ordered to refer J. Foiles and J. Karesh to
7 prosecuting authorities, this unconscionable denial of basic human rights will
8 continue.
9 G. J. Purcells Recommendation for Disbarment of Barry
10 1. Adams Findings of Contempt Against Barry, 2000.
11 387. Carol Mardeusz, Domestic Violence Victim, and Her Child, an abuse
12 Victim of her Father Leo Magers, a violent drug/alcohol addict.
13 388. As already alleged, In July 2000 Adams held Barry in contempt in a
14 criminal proceeding against Mardeusz because she had filed an exparte application
15 for child custody, it was granted, and Vieira the prosecutor falsely claimed that
16 Mardeusz had committed perjury in the application and the application constituted
17 attempted child kidnap. Mardeusz was convicted and had to serve prison time,
18 just for trying to regain custody of her child through the court system.
19 a. Prosecution of Mardeusz Eye of the Storm.
20 389. J. Dufficy had signed the exparte order Mardeusz had applied for, to
21 regain custody of her daughter in the custody and control of Magers, a man with
22 whom Mardeusz briefly was involved. He is violent (like Morin and J. Fotinos),
23 alcoholic, and uses drugs. His attorney, Cathleen Conners, had stolen custody
24 (sole physical and legal) from Mardeusz which had been awarded to her after a
25 trial by repeatedly forum shopping an exparte order for change of custody which
26 ultimately may have been forged by Conners. She and Magers are the real
27 kidnappers of Haleigh. Mardeusz had not seen her daughter in five years and was
28 ten years old at the time that J. Dufficy signed the exparte order of custody for
103
103
1 Mardeusz. Haleigh is now probably 26 or 27 years old.

2 390. Marin Court did not initiate the prosecution of Mardeusz until just
3 shortly after Mardeusz announced that she was spearheading an investigation of
4 Marin judges. J. Dufficy was the individual who oversaw the grand jury
5 investigation and indictment of Mardeusz. There was a great deal of adverse
6 publicity against J. Adams and J. Dufficy as well as other Marin judges. There
7 was enormous public support for Mardeusz.
8 391. Some examples of the publicity and support for Mardeusz are as
9 follows:
10 L Novato Advance, Nov. 22-Nov. 29, 2000 edition: Passing Judgment:
Novato Attorneys Allege Dufficy Misconduct stated that besides
11 pointing out acts of judicial misconduct, such as diverting child
support to the custody evaluators, psychologists, and minors counsel,
12 the article reported a 1997 investigation by the Marin Grand
Jury (the citizens) into J. Dufficys misconduct which was halted
13 no less than by a county counsel who informed the citizens they
could not investigate a government officials misconduct, this
14 time, a judge.
15 L Judge Sutro Appoints Serra Law Firm in Mardeusz Case, Phil Graf,
6/14/00 newsieatCWS@aol.com). The article states in part:
16 ....The only times Mardeusz has not appeared in court have been those
times when she was in the hospital, due to the traumatic stress
17 brought on by concern about her daughter, coupled with the
unrelenting attack of deputy DA Kelly Vieira and District Attorney
18 Paula Kamena, who are believed to have repeatedly manipulated
evidence, files, grand jurors, and even judges, as surrogates to place
19 Mardeusz under severe mental, emotional and physical pressure.
20
L In another article by Graf entitled Justice Not Tempered with Mercy
21 (or Intelligence) in Marin County Courts dated 6/9/00, Graf blasted
J. Adams for the way she treated Mardeusz when Mardeusz collapsed
22 due to severe stress in J. Adams courtroom and she was rushed to
Marin Countys ER. J. Adams denied Mardeuszs motion for
23 accommodation under the ADA.
24 Graf also described Magers (father who had had custody of Haleigh
25 since she was five years old and whom her mother had not seen for
26 five years) as follows:
27 Leo Magers, the self confessed cocaine user, alleged child
molester, and the man who threatened to kill Mardeusz and
28 her two brats had done his job. His presence [in the
courtroom which J. Adams allowed although Mardeusz could
104
104
1 not testify to the jury about his extreme domestic violence] is

one of the triggers which helps set up Mardeusz for these
2 attacks, and the DA knows exactly what they are doing when
they (apparently) bring him in....Judge Adams and the DAs
3 team exhibited all the common sense and compassion of a
clump of dirt.
4
L Judge Bows out of Family Court, Scott Winokur, San Francisco
5 Examiner, 5/30/00:
A controversial Marin County judge [Dufficy] at the center of a recall
6 drive by angry parents says he will leave his post three months early,
citing work-related stress and a heart condition. [but he stayed on the
7 bench, and eventually in 2008 became assistant presiding judge to J.
Adams, his protg.]
8
392. J. Adams ratcheted up the circus atmosphere in her courtroom,
9
reminiscent of Judge Julius Hoffman of the notorious Chicago 7 trial. The
10
convictions on appeal in that case were reversed for the most part by the Seventh
11
Circuit; whereas, the First Appellate DCA affirmed this absurdity of a prosecution
12
against not saavy male political leaders and their iconic male attorneys, Kuntsler
13
being one of them but a Mom just wanting to get her daughter back to her and
14
out of harms way.
15
393. By the time Ms. Barry had come on the case, July 11, 2000, matters
16
had already escalated in Judge Adams courtroom to the point that, as already
17
alleged, on one occasion Mardeusz had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. .
18
394. Mardeusz presented declarations of witnesses, trial testimony,
19
documents, photographs, Novato police arrest reports, and statements from doctor,
20
therapist, visitation monitors, and CPS worker that Magers has a record of drug
21
usage, alcoholism, physical violence and sexual abuse against Mardeuszs
22
daughter, Haleigh, physical violence against two of his former girl friends,
23
stalking and making threats on the lives of Carol, Haleigh and Natalie, Mardeuszs
24
older daughter, Magers and his mother were charged with lewd and lascivious
25
conduct on Haleigh, which prosecution was suppressed by Deputy Vieira herself.
26
395. Despite this track record, the Marin County D.A.s office involved
27
Magers in all aspects of the prosecution but too fearful to put him on the stand
28
although he was supposedly the victim of Mardeuszs crime kidnaping Haleigh.
105
105
1 When Mardeusz was rushed to the hospital from the courthouse while in another
2 judges courtroom, Magers was present in the hospital along with Pat Stafford, a
3 D.A. investigator, and about six deputy sheriffs.
4 396. Magers was present in the courtroom during Mardueszs prosecution,
5 and continued to intimidate her there. Barry requested Adams to order him to
6 move where he was not in the view or vision of Marduesz while she testified.
7 Judge Adams refused to do so, in fact, finding that Magers was not engaging in
8 any misconduct, although several witnesses had complained to Barry about what
9 he was doing to Mardeusz.
10 397. Further, to insure Magers would be present during the trial as an
11 observer, Judge Adams quashed Mardeuszs subpoena of Magers although at least
12 from the prosecutors perspective, he was the alleged victim and therefore, his
13 testimony was relevant.
14 398. Thus, J. Adams in concert with Vieira, publicly embraced the
15 perpetrator of domestic violence using the power of the state to protect him. They
16 revictimized and criminalized Mardeusz his victim because she sought protection
17 of the Court for her daughter and herself against the violence and sexual abuse of
18 Magers.
19 399. When Barry said Mardeusz was a victim of domestic violence in front
20 of a jury, Adams put her in a holding cell in front of the jury for speaking the truth
21 which J. Adams called a contempt.
22 400. The Daily Journal republished J. Adams defamation against Barry.
23 Barry faxed and mailed the following letter to the Daily Journal in 2001:
24 July 3, 2001
Megan Webb, Reporter
25 Los Angeles Daily Journal
915 East First St.
26 Los Angeles, CA
Dear Megan:
27
This serves as my Civ. C. Sec.48a request for the newspaper to publish in
28 the same location of your newspaper (front page) as it did your article on
Judge Verna Adams published June 26, 2001, a retraction of the following
106
106
1 statement of Judge Adams you quoted in your article: Judge Verna

Adams...had a defense attorney detained for screaming whore at her
2 during a rocky custody-battle-turned-kidnaping-trial.
3 The truth is that Judge Adams detained me on July 18, 2000, because I
objected to the prosecutor not allowing Carol Mardeusz, my client, to
4 answer her questions and I then stated that Ms. Mardeusz was a victim of
domestic violence. When I described Carol as such, Judge Adams had me
5 placed in the holding cell in front of the jurors.
6 Attached is a partial transcript of the trial of Carol Mardeusz in which the
incident of detaining me occurred.
7
Q. [BY MS. VIEIRA]: Now, on October 20th of 1996 when you went
8 to Sacramento for your ex parte order, did you notify Catherine
Conner [lawyer for Magers, father of Carols daughter]?
9
A. The father was abusing me
10
Q. Thats not the question, Miss Mardeusz.
11
A. and I
12
[MS. BARRY]: Yes, yes, this is Domestic Violence Protection --
13
MS. VIEIRA: Objection, your Honor
14
MS. BARRY: and let my client answer. Shes a victim of domestic-
15
MS. VIEIRA: I would
16
THE COURT: Bailiff, take that woman into custody right this
17 minute.
18 [(reminds one of Shakespeare in Love where the sheriff finds
19 out that Paltrows character is a woman playing a woman: That
20 woman -- IS a WOMAN! ] emphasis added
21 MS. BARRY: Shes a victim of
22 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury
23 MS. BARRY: Shes a victim of domestic violence
24 THE BAILIFF: Maam
25 MS. BARRY: And I will take this up with the State Bar. There are
better protections
26
THE COURT: you are admonished please take her with you, I
27 need to talk to the jury.
28 MS. BARRY: against this terrible, terrible prosecution.
107
107
1 THE COURT: You are admonished not to converse amongst

yourselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with the trial
2 or to form or express any opinion thereon
3 MS. BARRY: Its all right.
4 THE COURT: until the cause is finally submitted to you. Please
5 THE WITNESS [MARDEUSZ]: I beg of the Court not to
6 THE WITNESS: -- take my attorney to jail.
7 (Whereupon, Ms. Barry was escorted into the holding cell.)
8 I want this transcript reproduced word for word so that there is no
doubt in the readers mind that I was detained because of
9 describing my client as a victim of domestic violence. [and not
because Barry called Adams a whore, which Barry never did.]
10
401. J. Adams also convicted Ms. Barry for contempt, in part, because she
11
said to J. Adams she was a personal friend of Dufficy and that is why she rescued
12
him when he showed a blank look on his face when Ms. Barry asked him the
13
relevant question of whether he was familiar with the PKPA (Parental Kidnap
14
Prevention Act) a federal statute which defines jurisdiction in child custody cases.
15
402. The Declaration of Peter Romanowsky, a court observer and
16
supporter of Mardeusz states (found at eocities. com/promanowsky/declaration.
17
html)
18
I was in Marin County Court House, Judge Verna Adams Court
19 Room, during the court trial of People of the State of California v-
Carol Mardeusz, who was represented by lawyer, Patricia Barry.
20
During the weeks of July 7, 2000 through July 24, 2000, I was
21 present at three trial days and one day for an associated hearing.
22 On all four occasions I witnessed lawyer Patricia Barry being abused
by Judge Verna A. Adams. On one such occasion specifically I saw
23 Judge Verna A. Adams continuously pout, puff her cheeks, make
faces and turn red with anger as Patricia Barry flawlessly executed
24 her duty as officer of the court in the representation and defense of
Carol Mardeusz.
25
On another occasion Judge Verna A. Adams began twitching as Carol
26 Mardeusz took the witness stand to testify on her own behalf. Verna
Adams began making spastic motions and head cocking, notioning to
27 the jury to disbelieve Carol Mardeusz and her lawyer Patricia Barry.
28 ....It was the worse hack job that Ive ever seen a Judge do to a
lawyer, Patricia Barry, who was extremely cohesive and professional
108
108
1 in her conduct. ..... In my professional opinion as a Minister and

former full time Pastor, my first impression of Verna Adams was that
2 she was directing the jury to find Carol Mardeusz guilty and was
continuously downgrading Patricia Barrys professional conduct.
3
403. When Mardeusz was convicted, the recall against Dufficy and the
4
other judges as well as against D.A. Kamena heated up. Vieira was putting
5
pressure on probation demanding they recommend prison for Mardeusz because,
6
Vieira told them, they do not want Mardeusz free to work on the recall and to
7
hold press conferences concerning her own persecution by Judges Dufficy
8
and Adams, Prosecutors Kamena and Vieira. The reformers lost the recall and
9
Mardeusz went to prison.
10
b. Magers Ongoing Criminal Conduct After
11 Mardeuszs Conviction.
12 404. After the protective parent went to prison for trying to protect her
13 daughter, the abusive parent was prosecuted repeatedly for felony child abuse of
14 both his daughter and a son on November 3, 2004 in Solano County, People v.
15 Magers, Case No VCR 176183. The felony complaint alleged two counts. In
16 Court I, it alleged that Magers
17 On or about October 30, 2004 [daughter was 14] ...did willfully and
unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm
18 and death, injure, cause, and permit a child H.M. [daughter] and
L.M.,[son] to suffer and to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical
19 pain and mental suffering.
20 405. In Count II, the prosecutor alleged that Magers inflicted cruel and
21 inhuman corporal punishment and injury, resulting in a traumatic condition on
22 the daughter. The authorities removed the children from Magers custody.
23 406. Because Magers is close friends with Mike Mullins, a former
24 Sonoma prosecutor voted out of office, who went to Solano County and Magers
25 followed him there, Magers never served time for these heinous crimes against his
26 own children. Nor would juvenile court return the daughter to her mother despite
27 Mardeuszs efforts to regain custody of her daughter.
28 407. Ten months later, on October 3, 2005, four months after Barry
109
109
1 stipulated to a private reproval with the Bar on J. Adams contempt convictions,

2 Magers entered a plea to Count II for cruel and inhuman corporal punishment of
3 his daughter. He was neither fined nor forced to do any jail or prison time. He was
4 ordered to take a parenting class for a year which he never completed and attend
5 AA, no fines, no supervised probation. He was to obey all laws, which order he
6 disobeyed. The justice system never made Magers pay for his crimes just as San
7 Mateo never made J. Fotinos pay for his.
8 408. While the felony charges were pending, Magers was arrested for
9 drunk driving on June 13, 2005, and hit-run driving since he caused damage to the
10 other vehicle and fled the scene. Again, Mullins, it seems, stepped in because on
11 the same date Magers pled guilty to felony child abuse of his daughter, he also
12 pled guilty only to drunk driving, paid minimal fines, ordered to spend a mere four
13 days in jail, and no restitution to the victim of his hit/run was ordered. His license
14 was not suspended but restricted for only 90 days.
15 409. On July 7, 2007, the Solano D.A. filed yet another criminal complaint
16 against Magers alleging that once more, on May 7, 2007, Magers had committed
17 felony child abuse, this time on his son, only five years old. Count II alleged that
18 on May 7, 2007, Magers committed a felony by driving while under the influence
19 of drugs and alcohol, and in doing so, caused injury to his son who was in the
20 vehicle with his father. The complaint also pled the June 2005 DUI offense.
21 410. On September 13, 2007, the D.A. filed a misdemeanor complaint
22 against Magers for drunk driving, on September 11, 2007, just four months after
23 he had been arrested for drunk driving and injuring his son who was in the car.
24 The more criminal Magers became, the better he did in court. This time, the judge
25 dismissed the complaint.
26 411. Magers eventually lost his home and all his assets. The maternal
27 relatives of his son obtained his full custody. Mardeuszs daughter was reunited
28 with her mother and sister. Adams and Dufficy are responsible for the harm which
110
110
1 the daughter suffered at the hands of Magers. The governor should grant a pardon
2 to Mardeusz.
3 c. The Bars Prosecution of Barry for the Contempt Violated
Barrys Right of Due Process and Equal Protection and A
4 Violation of Anti-Trust Laws.
5 (I) Michael Nisperos, Unfit Chief Trial Counsel
6 412. On December 19, 2010, Barry learned from Brodies blog that on
7 August 10, 2010, a Bar complaint was filed against Michael Nisperos, the
8 former State Bar Trial Counsel who ordered Barrys prosecution. The
9 complaint alleged that Nisperos tried to board an airplane at the Burbank Airport
10 (date not given) carrying a dangerous weapon. He was arrested and criminally
11 prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed.
12 413. While under the influence of drugs, Nisperos fired a shot at an
13 imaginary intruder in his Oakland home. Nisperos was arrested and charged with
14 being under the influence of cocaine and possession of narcotics paraphernalia.
15 That charge too was dropped.
16 414. Nisperos was fired from his job at INS (now, ICE) due to cocaine
17 addiction and the arrest. Nisperos sued for reinstatement and won. The judges
18 decision did indicate that there were times that Nisperos went into rehab due to
19 drug addiction and was unable to perform his duties as an attorney. The Bar
20 should have placed him in inactive status. See Busi&Prof Code 6007, subd.
21 (b)(3) [attorney may be involuntarily enrolled inactive if habitual use of
22 intoxicants or drugs affects ability to practice law].)
23 415. Despite his obvious unfitness to serve as an attorney prosecuting
24 other attorneys, lacking the moral authority to do so, on information and belief,
25 Girardi got him the job. Nisperos acknowledges him as his mentor. Girardi was a
26 market participant who was supposed to be regulated by the Bar. Instead, he was
27 running it.
28 416. According to Menlo City Council Email found on the web entitled
111
111
1 Open Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger concerning Corruption at the State Bar

2 of California dated January 9, 2010, the concerned citizens who signed off on
3 that letter also noted that Nisperos was addicted to cocaine for five years while he
4 practiced law with no criminal or Bar prosecutions. The Menlo email further
5 alleged that Nisperos was also unqualified for the position of Bar Trial Counsel he
6 held from 2000-2005.
7 417. It was this individual who foisted Jerome Craig on Barry as a
8 special prosecutor.
9 (ii)Unconstitutionality of Appointment of Jerome
Craig, a Fellow Market Participant, Male
10 Corporate Attorney, and Barrys Potential
Opponent in the Courtroom, as Barrys
11 Prosecutor.
418. The Bar sat on Adams referral for 2-1/2 years. Out of the blue,
12
Nisperos appointed Craig a market participant whose practice is antithetical to
13
Barrys practice. He was not just obnoxious and overbearing; he and his law firm
14
had much to gain, prosecuting Barry.
15
419. Craigs law firm is the corporate law firm Morrison & Foerster
16
(M&F) which specializes in employment defense, including sexual harassment
17
claims. Barry is a plaintiff s attorney in employment law and civil rights and had
18
argued the first sexual harassment case in the U.S. Supreme Court. His law firm
19
defends cases like the ones Barry bring. To appoint someone like Craig to
20
prosecute an attorney like Barry is jawdropping unconstitutional. There is also no
21
symmetry. The Bar will never appoint Barry to prosecute a corporate lawyer like
22
Craig because the Bar never prosecutes corporate lawyers like Craig.
23
420. One of the rainmakers of M&F, James Brosnahan, posed in a photo at
24
a bar reception in Marin with his arm around the shoulders of Adams, making
25
Craigs appointment even more problematic.
26
421. Barry demanded to know why she qualified for a special
27
prosecutor. Nisperos said because she had filed a lawsuit against the Bars JNE
28
Commission.
112
112
1 422. The Bar is willy-nilly. Barry also sued the Bar in 2010 in the case
2 just reversed in the Supreme Court, Barry v. State Bar of California. This did not
3 keep the bar from appointing employees of the Bar, Tady and Joyce, for the later
4 prosecutions of Barry albeit, both white corporate attorneys, like Craig,
5 Towery, Falk, Brosnahan, Hebert.
6 (iii)
Unethical Misconduct of Craig and the
Bar.
7 423. In November 2002 the same year the Bar refused to prosecute Bar
8 Insider Krause for the crime of child abuse and Acevedo for covering it up, a case
9 also out of Marin like Mardeuszs, Nisperos appointed Craig and he wrote Barry
10 about the contempts. Barry immediately responded to the Bar. Barry wrote Craig
11 in January 2003, and he never responded. There was no activity for six months.
12 Craig rudely demanded documents from Barry which he obtained in August 2003.
13 Then nothing. Suddenly he popped up again in late November 2004 proposing
14 disciplinary charges, 4-1/2 years after the contempt convictions were filed.
15 424. In September 2004, while Barry was representing a small corporation
16 called Cytodyn, supposedly working on an AIDS-HIV drug, the Court granted
17 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Drescher, the attorney whose
18 attorney fees were reversed in Elwood v. Drescher, supra, filed a void malpractice
19 action against Barry on behalf of Cytodyn in December 2006 which was
20 eventually dismissed because Drescher had falsely claimed to represent a
21 corporation which did not exist and was in forfeiture. Cytodyn of New Mexico v.
22 Barry, Case No. BC 362909.
23 425. Unknown to Barry at the time she signed the stipulation for a private
24 reproval, which was on June 16, 2005, M&F had been serving as Cytodyns
25 attorney for one year which the Bar, Cytodyn, and Craig had failed to disclose
26 to Barry. Cytodyn had issued a press release on June 16, 2004 stating the
27 following:
28 CYTODYN RETAINS MORRISON & FOERSTER
Santa Fe NM - June 16, 2004 (BW). CytoDyn, Inc. is pleased to
113
113
1 announce it has retained Morrison & Foerster, one of the largest of

the international law firms. ....
2 Http://www.cytodyn.com/newsroom.html, p.1, emphasis added.
3 426. Craig was resurrecting Barrys prosecution, not in the interest of the
4 protection of the public, but for the benefit of M&F and his firms client, Cytodyn.
5 Craig, the Bar, and Cytodyn failed to disclose Craigs conflict of interest to
6 Barry before she signed the stipulation. In prosecuting Barry, the Bar and Craig
7 were looking out for the interests of Cytodyn, not that of the public.
8 427. During Craigs prosecution, Barry researched M&F in Los Angeles
9 Superior Court files. It had been sued for legal malpractice on several occasions,
10 including for charging excessive fees. On information and belief, the Bar has
11 never disciplined an attorney from M&F for fee gouging. Joyce and J.
12 Armendariz did prosecute Naegele, a solo practitioner eleven or twelve years after
13 his alleged fee gouging occurred and six or seven years after the five year statute
14 of limitations had run on the alleged violation.
15 428. During her research, Barry found a trust Craig had drafted for a
16 wealthy widow who subsequently passed away. Craig and the other trustee, the
17 son of the widow, edged out the woman trustee, a trusted personal assistant of the
18 widow in direct violation of the deceaseds wishes. Craigs self dealing was
19 brazen. After Craig appointed himself as a trustee of the estate he proceeded to
20 award himself a sculpture. See RULE 4-400. Gifts from Client
21 A member shall not induce a client to make a substantial gift,
including a testamentary gift, to the member or to the member's
22 parent, child, sibling, or spouse, except where the client is related to
the member.
23
429. Craig also went on a fishing expedition against Barry. Craig also
24
accused mind you, Reader accused Barry of representing Irene Jensen, a
25
protective mother who had lost custody of the daughter to the father who had
26
sexually molested and abused her. One attorney accusing another attorney of
27
misconduct for practicing law.
28
430. Craig a defense attorney elevated to a Grand Inquisitor status
114
114
1 actually threatened to prosecute Barry because he believed Barry was Jensens

2 attorney of record. Another prime example of the alternate universe the Bar exists
3 in. Jensens last attorney was driven out of practice by threats of prosecution by
4 the Bar for representing her just as Craig was trying to do to Barry. Craig dropped
5 the accusation.
6 431. The above should be of grave concern to the Reader, to the
7 Legislature, and to the governor that a male corporate attorney threatened Barry
8 with prosecution solely because she had represented a female protective parent.
9 432. Suppose Barry was the Special Prosecutor of Craig. Suppose she
10 threatened him and M&F for defending a corporation, ZZZZ Best, which M&F
11 did, for participating in what one U.S. attorney called the biggest fraud perpetrated
12 on investors in the history of the country. [That was before the crash of 2007-2008
13 and Countrywide.] The corporations would have had a fit. But Jensen is not a
14 corporation. She was a Mom trying to get her child back from the abusive father,
15 just like Elwood, just like Mardeusz, just like Fotinos, just like legions of mothers.
16 The Bar has made its misogynistic interpretation of the ethical rules clear
17 represent a female protective parent who has lost her child to the abuser and the
18 attorney runs the risk of having a male corporate attorney disbar her.
19 433. Jensen appeared on television to inform viewers what LASC did to
20 her and her daughter. Jensen also testified before the legislature to pass a law to
21 protect mothers from losing custody when they allege sexual abuse and the judge
22 rules there is insufficient or no evidence of such abuse. Karen Anderson, Barrys
23 other former client, and many others worked on the drafting of the bill and
24 testified in favor of it. It did get passed. Judges repeatedly nullify this statute up
25 and down the state. Just for alleging the father sexually abused the child, the
26 mother almost always loses custody, and generally the father continues sexually
27 abusing the child, as in the two Karen Anderson cases, the mother named in this
28 paragraph and in para. 781.
115
115
1 434. Barry contacted Jensen to let her know what Craig was alleging to see
2 if there was a docket to show the extent of Barrys representation of her. Jensen
3 said that her attorney had left town, he was so intimidated and had not returned her
4 files to her. Barry mentioned Craigs name to her.
5 435. Jensen informed Barry that she had called Morrison & Foerster
6 and had spoken to Craig about her custody dispute. Barry confronted Craig
7 with this fact, and he stated that he did not have to recuse himself from
8 prosecuting Barry although he had been contacted by Jensen.
9 436. Jensen probably informed Craig that Barry had represented her, and
10 that is how Craig learned about Barry representing Jensen. He had obtained
11 information from Jensen protected by the attorney-client privilege which
12 benefitted him as he went after attorneys associated with Jensen.
13 437. No attorney, least of all, a corporate attorney like Craig should be
14 allowed to serve as Bar prosecutor. Anti-trust violations and conflicts of interest
15 repeatedly occur as it did in Barrys case and in the Girardi/Lack discipline
16 scandal.
17 438. The Bar violated Barrys due process rights also by letting the matter
18 go for five years, thus making it impossible to mount a defense, and locating
19 witnesses to prove how badly J. Adams treated Mardeusz, Barry, her other
20 attorney, and Mardeuszs supporters.
21 439. The Bar having assisted in putting Adams, a corrupt attorney, on the
22 bench, the Bar came full circle and was there for Adams to prosecute Barry..
23 2. The Elwood Matter and Failure to Pass the MPRE left over
from the Mardeusz Matter.
24
440. Rule 1101, Bar Rules, requires that [f]air, even-handed and
25
consistent application of these rules by all concerned is vital to the conduct of
26
proceedings before the Court. The Bar honors this rule more in the breach than in
27
the observance. There was nothing fair, even-handed, and consistent in the Bars
28
prosecution of Barry for filing federal lawsuits on behalf of Darla Elwood, a
116
116
1 battered woman trying to regain custody of her children from the abusers,
2 including Morin. The other abusive father was Rodney Delaplane.
3 441. In late 2007 Tady contacted Barry about discipline for failure to pass
4 the MPRE on two tries. How that constitutes an intentional ethics violation the
5 Bar has never explained. In any event, only the failure to pass the MPRE was at
6 issue.
7 442. Tady suddenly switched gears and on January 14, 2008, Tady sent a
8 letter to Barry stating that she was guilty of moral turpitude because she had filed
9 frivolous federal lawsuits six years ago on behalf of Elwood, a battered woman,
10 her parents, her son, and her friend.
11 443. The timing of Tadys announcement was very suspicious making it
12 very likely that the prosecution was a sham to retaliate against Barry on behalf of a
13 so-called public member who was not a public member but a public official,
14 Laura Chick, controller of the City of Los Angeles.
15 444. Putting individuals like Chick on the Board is inherently dangerous to
16 the public because it gives public officials like Chick an opportunity to initiate
17 sham prosecutions against attorneys suing the government agency the official was
18 elected to. That is precisely what happened to Barry.
19 445. It cannot possibly be coincidence that the Bar prosecuted Barry, the
20 attorney who argued the first sexual harassment case in the U. S. Supreme Court
21 and Kay, the attorney who won the biggest sexual harassment verdicts in the
22 history of such litigation around the same time.
23 446. It cannot be coincidence that the spate of prosecutions which are
24 politically motivated are of seasoned, experienced, older attorneys, all representing
25 women: Barry (Mardeusz, Jensen, Elwood, Fotinos all domestic violence victims
26 trying to regain custody of their children from the abuser), Kay (Ralphs women
27 employees), Martin (Latina who had been defrauded by Keck a caucasian attorney
28 who stole money from her), Don Loftus, Case No. 08-9057 (woman suffered
117
117
1 irreversible brain damage because of hospital negligence); Daniel Dydzak, Case

2 Nos. 09-11066, 11-6353, 11-6775 (woman seeking damages from a corporate
3 client of a former bar president); Jeffrey Lustman (woman denied constitutional
4 right to jury trial in conservatorship proceeding).
5 a. There Were Too Many Factors in the Lawsuits which
Favored Barry Making Tadys/Drexels/Towerys
6 Prosecution of Barry an Abuse of Discretion.
7 447. Tadys prosecution of Barry based on the Elwood cases makes so
8 sense. Barry had filed two federal lawsuits in the Central District of California on
9 behalf of Darla Elwood, a battered woman and mother, her parents, Terri and
10 Edward Elwood, her friend, Amy Meinke, and her son, Anthony Delaplane,Case
11 No. Elwood v. Morin, Case No. 01-8582 in October 2001 and Elwood v. Drescher,
12 Case No. 02-4656 in June 2002.
13 448. Tady and Scott Drexel, then Chief Trial Counsel who later was forced
14 to resign in June 2009, substituted their judgment for that of the ten federal judges
15 who had all scrutinized Barrys complaints and did not seek discipline against her.
16 Nor did any of them refer her to the Bar.
17 449. As already alleged, the Ninth Circuit and the Central District of
18 California declined to prosecute after the Bar imposed discipline.
19 450. Drexel and Tady should have deferred to the two federal courts since
20 neither had any background in federal law, let alone federal civil rights litigation,
21 and let alone most of all, federal civil rights attorney fee litigation.
22 451. Further, as stated supra, Barry had too many defenses to the
23 prosecution.
24 452. Summary of Factors Tending to Prove the Causes of Action Were Not
25 Frivolous Besides the Reversal of Three of the Awards, including to
26 the five LASC Jurists, in a Reported Decision:
27 * Judge Baird withdrew the OSC re: sanctions in the Drescher
28 case.
118
118
1 * A Ninth Circuit attorney nominated the Boyle appeal for

2 settlement (part of the Morin lawsuit). The 9th Circuit attorney
3 obviously believed the case had merit.
4 * A Ninth Circuit panel found merit to Barrys briefs arguing the
5 Drescher claims and denied the numerous motions for
6 summary affirmance. The appeal went forward and oral
7 argument took place.
8 * In affirming the two judgments of dismissal, the three judge
9 panel said nothing about the claims being frivolous.
10 * The ruling that the cause of action against California
11 Department of Justice brought on behalf of Anthony Delaplane,
12 the son of Darla Elwood, was frivolous is inconsistent with
13 another published decision of the Ninth Circuit.
14 Anthonys claim was the precursor to, or the trailblazer for,
15 Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.
16 2009) revd on issue of attorney fees awarded against County
17 in 562 U. S. _(2010) No. 09350. (Monells policy or custom
18 requirement applies in 1983 cases irrespective of whether the
19 relief sought is monetary or prospective.) Humphries was
20 filed in the same court Barry had filed the Elwood lawsuits just
21 six months after Barry filed on behalf of Anthony. If Barry had
22 known about Humphries, she would have sought to join in its
23 appeal. Barrys only legal error was not naming either the
24 Attorney General or the head of the department in charge of the
25 child abuse index in the DOJ in his/her official capacity, rather
26 than the DOJ itself. Once she realized her error, she sought to
27 correct it at the trial level and was denied the opportunity. The
28 claim for Anthony as for the Humphries was that they were
119
119
1 cleared of child abuse but a (malicious) social worker placed

2 their names in the child abuse index without notice and
3 opportunity to defend themselves. The 9th Circuit held in
4 Humphries which was the relief Barry was seeking for
5 Anthony that individuals whose names are placed in the
6 Index are entitled to some kind of due process hearing. The
7 Humphries have helped many individuals and advanced the
8 public interest. Barry was hoping to accomplish the same kind
9 of across-the-board injunctive relief for Anthony and the
10 people of California.
11 * Judge Baird ruled that the Morin case was frivolous only after
12 the case was remanded after the first appeal affirming the
13 dismissal.
14 * As a result of filing the Drescher lawsuit, the plaintiffs
15 obtained some relief. Besides obtaining a reversal of the
16 attorney fee awards to all five LASC jurists, one of the judicial
17 defendants, Judge Farrell, quit holding hearings after Elwood
18 had filed an appeal of the denial of her anti-SLAPP motion
19 which automatically puts a stay on superior court proceedings.
20 Another example was that LASC summarily terminated
21 Commissioner Zakon whom Barry sued for gross misconduct
22 after Barry had sued him. In an email dated May 18, 2005, to
23 Jeff Belmont, who is a supporter of protective parents, Judge
24 Peetris who used to supervise Comm. Zakon acknowledged
25 that he had had a lot of problems with him, as a result of which
26 he had administratively reassigned him, prior to the date that
27 Barry had sued him. Finally, in 2005 or 2006, the then
28 presiding judge informed Comm. Zakon to pack his bags and
120
120
1 leave.
2 b. The Prosecution Based on the Filing of
the Elwood Lawsuits Is Retaliatory.
3 453. According to the Cal Bar Journal, February 2007 edition found at
4 http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/Archive.aspx?articleId=83462&categoryId=83481&m
5 onth=2&year=2007, Chick announced the first time she was appointed in 2006,
6 that She also wants to take a look at malpractice insurance for lawyers and
7 wondered, What are insurance companies doing to continue to reduce the
8 regulatory actions?
9 454. Chick claimed an interest in malpractice insurance at the same time
10 that her ex-husband Robert Chick was President/CEO of Lawyers Mutual
11 Insurance Co, from 1978-2003, Vice Chair from 2003-2009, which included the
12 year, 2006, when his ex wife was appointed to the Board, and then Chair
13 2009-present. Laura was on the Board from 2006 to 2012. Lawyers Mutual was
14 a frequent exhibitor at bar conventions. Attorneys probably signed up in droves
15 with Liberty Mutual to insure they would not be prosecuted by the Bar while
16 Chick was on the Board. Chick probably generated a lot of business for her ex
17 husband. A real quid pro quo between ex spouses. It is not known whether her ex
18 gave her a kickback. While she probably did not directly benefit from the favors
19 she was doing for her -ex, the kids they had together would, when he passed away.
20 455. Barry had been litigating whistleblowing lawsuits on behalf of
21 janitors employed by DWP since 2005. Barry also represented Candido Marez, a
22 DWP vendor also alleging retaliation. They all alleged they were retaliated against
23 because they complained about the corruption of Empire Janitorial Supply
24 Contracts.
25 456. Chick continued to refuse to conduct an audit of a multi-million
26 dollar contract with Empire Janitorial Supplies Company although DWP, Airports,
27 and Harbor (the profit making departments for the City) did not require Empire to
28 compete for the contracts Empire has or had with the three departments, and
121
121
1 Empire continues to provide shoddy, dangerous, and overpriced products to the

2 City, and the three departments
3 457. In the February 2007 edition of Cal Bar Journal, found at
4 http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/Archive.aspx?articleId=83462&categoryId=83481&m
5 onth=2&year=2007 Chick is described as having ...established herself as a
6 taxpayers watchdog since taking office and, according to the Los Angeles
7 Business Journal, has emerged as a central voice in the ongoing debate over how
8 the city handles its contracts.
9 458. On January 12, 2008, Barry's clients and Barry met with Steve
10 Murphy a videographer to tape interviews of her and her clients which were
11 uploaded to YouTube on January 17, 2008.
12 ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bm7oZyMcw
13 459. Barry believes that Chick learned about the videotaping of Barry and
14 her DWP clients because the cases were at the center of an ongoing controversy
15 about Empire at DWP. So, on January 14, 2008, two days after Murphy
16 videotaped Barry and her DWP clients, Tady sent out the letter to Barry
17 about committing moral turpitude in filing the Elwood lawsuits.
18 460. The Steve Murphy interviews made Chick look bad hardly a
19 taxpayer watchdog showing how once more conflicts of interest abound at the
20 Bar in making decisions about discipline and why statutory cronyism like Chicks
21 good buddy Bar President Sloan suggesting that she serve on the Board of
22 Governors wrecks havoc on the discipline system. Chick had a clear motive in
23 having Barry disciplined. Even if the Bar tries to dismiss this allegation, having
24 Chick on the Board created the appearance of retaliation against Barry by Chick.
25 Put in a public member on the Board, not a public elected official.
26 461. Barrys discipline case dragged on for two years. Chick remained on
27 the Board until 2012. Although in 2009 she had left the City, nonetheless, her
28 loyalty would lie with the City. Any win Barry obtained against DWP regarding
122
122
1 retaliation for reporting the corrupt Empire contracts would continue to reflect on
2 her when she was controller. Barry did win big on appeal against DWP.
3 462. On October 6, 2009, oral argument took place in the Marez case. It
4 went well for Mr. Marez. Mr. Paquette, city attorney defending the case, was in
5 attendance and he looked very upset after the oral argument ended.
6 463. Barry won a reversal of the judgment in favor of DWP in a published
7 decision in the Ninth Circuit in Marez v. Bassett, 595 F.3d 1068 on February 18,
8 2010. The opinion detailed Marezs allegations of retaliation for making a report
9 on the Empire contract, the same janitorial supplies contract that Supervising
10 Janitor Sandra Miranda had successfully fought to have cancelled. Anyone
11 throughout the nation reading the opinion would know how badly the City of Los
12 Angeles treats whistleblowers. There were about sixty links to the Marez opinion
13 on the internet. The opinion was a reproach of Chicks performance as Controller.
14 464. Tady, Chick, and the City stiffened their resolve, that Barry must have
15 some kind of stigmatizing punishment for obtaining the reversal of the Marez case
16 in a published opinion, one directly impacting on her ability to practice law, like a
17 suspension. And so Tady pushed for the stipulation, and trial was set in March
18 2010 just as Barry was trying to enforce a judgment of approximately $98,000.00
19 with costs she had won in February 2010 (unanimous jury verdict) on behalf of
20 Tony Hill, an impoverished African-American man recently released from prison.
21 Barrys and her clients financial circumstances were perilous. Barry capitulated
22 and signed stipulation on March 18, 2010.
23 465. Nor was Barry the only victim of Chick.
24 466. At http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/fine110507.htm
25 Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported on Monday, November 5, 2007, p.1.
26 Chick Denies Conspiring Against Attorney Richard Fine
27 Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick denied Friday that she had
any involvement in State Bar Court proceedings that have resulted in
28 a recommendation that a Beverly Hills attorney Richard I. Fine. [sic]
Fines allegations that he was targeted, in part, because Chick, a
123
123
1 public member of the State Bar Board of Governors, has received

contributions from lobbyists for the developers of Playa Vista
2 while Fine represents area residents who oppose the project are
frivolous and without merit, Chick said through a
3 spokesman.
4 Chick added that she had absolutely no recollection of any
conversation with, or briefing by, the Office of the Chief Trial
5 Counsel regarding Mr. Fine. [Really? The Board of Governors has
control over discipline as a matter of statute.]
6
Fine last week filed a notice in the Los Angeles Superior Court case
7 Environmentalism Through Inspiration and Non Violent Action v.
City of Los Angeles (Playa Capital Company, LLC), BS 073182,
8 informing the court that he had been placed on involuntary inactive
status by the State Bar and alleging that the State Bars action was
9 invalid because Chick had a conflict of interest.
10 Finewho acknowledged in a MetNews interview that there is
nothing the trial court can do to remedy the alleged conflictsaid in
11 his filing that the State Bar charged him with misconduct for the
purpose of benefiting [sic]...Chick, who, according to public records,
12 received contributions to her officeholder account from lawyers at
Latham & Watkins, which represents Playa Capital, as well as from
13 other lawyers and lobbyists interested in the project, and from Playa
Capital itself. The donations cited totaled $5,000. emphasis added
14
467. Of interest is that cronyism and anti-competition tainted the Bars
15
prosecution of Fine, since Sloan, the friend of Chick who got her appointed to the
16
Board, also had an unethical conflict of interest in seeing the Bar disbar Fine:
17
Fine has made similar charges against former State Bar President
18 Sheldon Sloan, who opposed Fine in other litigation during the
time that Fine was under investigation by the State Bar. Sloan,
19 like Chick, has denied any such involvement. Emphasis added
20 [Sloan Was Partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,
Another Corporate Partner Running the Bar.]
21
c. Assigning Tady to Prosecute Barry Violated Barrys
22 Right to Due Process.
23 (I) Tadys Incompetency to Prosecute Based on
Federal Litigation.
24
468. Tady was incompetent to prosecute Barry because he had no
25
background in federal law, and he failed to inform and educate himself about the
26
law involving Sec.1983 conspiracies and awards of attorney fees to prevailing
27
defendants under 42 U.S.C. Sec.1988. He failed to review thoroughly the Elwood
28
cases (eight federal cases, counting the Boyle early appeal and an appeal from
124
124
1 enforcement of the judgments, besides the other four appeals from the two
2 judgments and from the two orders of awards of attorney fees) plus one juvenile
3 court case, two family law custody cases, Child Support Enforcement including
4 both civil and criminal.
5 (ii)
Tadys Pursuit of the Case After He
Knew that He Did not Have Probable
6 Cause to Proceed.
469. Tady admitted twice, if not three times, to Barry that she would
7
probably prevail on the Elwood case. Tady knew he could not prove that at the
8
time Barry filed the Elwood cases she knew or should have known that some of
9
the causes of action were frivolous.
10
470. Barry provided a disc to Tady as early in August 2008 with legal
11
research as well as information from a case she had litigated in the same court as
12
Elwood involving the same claim, civil rights conspiracy between a parent and
13
police officers, (in Elwood, it was social workers) to deprive the plaintiff parent of
14
custody. Goodrich v. Aschle, Case no. 00-07947 DT (CWX). She had defeated
15
the motion to dismiss the civil rights conspiracy claim.
16
471. Tady also ignored the fact that three of the claims were reversed in a
17
reported decision, Elwood v. Drescher, supra. She pointed out Humphries to him
18
and how Anthonys claim was identical to it.
19
472. Tady knew he had Barry between the proverbial rock and the hard
20
place. The Bar does not follow the law as evidenced by the refusal of the Bar to
21
apply res judicata in at least five cases, including Barrys. Thus, Tady could
22
invent a new offense. Indeed, Tady was threatening her with prosecution
23
based on one of Dreschers frivolous complaints as a back up that she better
24
stipulate.
25
(iii) Tadys Imposition of Sanctions Never Imposed
26 on Any Other Attorney Before or After Barry
and then Sabotaging Her Efforts to Fulfil the
27 Sanction by Failing to Inform Her She Could
Take His Class on Attorney Trust Accounts to
28 Satisfy the Requirement.
125
125
1 473. Tady imposed on Barry excessive punishment forcing her to attend

2 the Ethics Bar School AND attend four live units of ethics for a simple rule
3 violation. There is no attorney, even those who harmed his/her client, who was
4 forced to attend both the Ethics Bar School AND a class of four live units of
5 ethics either before Tady prosecuted Barry or after her prosecution based on
6 Barrys review of 60 cases. Barry did not learn of this unauthorized and excessive
7 discipline until 2015 when doing research on attorney discipline.
8 474. Tady committed extrinsic fraud because Barry had no way of
9 knowing the sanction was not ordinary and customary without doing substantial
10 research. Tady had the superior knowledge, he was the prosecutor, and he took
11 advantage of Barrys distraction because she had just won an unanimous jury
12 verdict on a malicious prosecution action for Tony Hill, an African-American man
13 and there was no insurance. She was trying to collect the judgment of
14 approximately $98,000 counting costs.
15 475. Having imposed discipline no other attorney has suffered, when Barry
16 asked for Tadys help in locating live ethics classes, Tady refused to assist her
17 although he knew that the class he taught on attorney trust accounts satisfied the
18 live ethics requirement. Farfan, Barrys probation officer, finally informed
19 Barry about the trust account class, Barry signed up, and Barry walked into the
20 class to see Tady teaching it. By this time Barry was late in taking the class.
21 476. Now the Bar wants to disbar Barry for being late on completion of
22 this excessive discipline when it was unconstitutionally imposed on her in the first
23 place and when Tady concealed from her she could take his trust account class for
24 3 of the 4 units of credit.
25 477. As evidence of his malice, Tady defamed Barry by stating to other
26 Bar employees and possibly individuals outside the Bar that Barry has a history of
27 filing frivolous complaints.
28 3. Filing Reports Late, Taking the Ethics Class, and Four
Live Ethics Late.
126
126
1 a. Filing Late Reports.

2 478. According to J. Purcell, Barry should be disbarred in part for filing
3 four out of nine quarterly probation reports late. The report is a perfunctory
4 preprinted form asking for confirmation of current address, whether the member
5 was following the law, and meeting probation requirements by xing boxes. The
6 January 10, 2012, report was one day late; the October 10, 2012 report five days
7 late; April 10, 2013, report two days late, and the final report July 29, 2013, one
8 day late.
9 479. Being late with these reports is so petty that this ground cannot
10 possibly pass constitutional muster. The Bar waited 13 months after the last report
11 was filed but just one month after Barry complained in a federal pleading about
12 Foxs close friend Munks being a pedophile to file a NDC on this ground.
13 480. On the January 2013 report, Barry inadvertently wrote the date as
14 "January 8, 2012" rather than "January 8, 2013". Farfan refused to accept by email
15 the corrected report which Barry emailed her with the date "January 8, 2013" and
16 resigned "Patricia J. Barry".
17 481. Speaking with her supervisor, Farfan insisted that Barry either mail or
18 handdeliver the report with the corrected date but the report would be dated on the
19 date the report with the corrected date, January 8, 2013, was received. Barry said
20 no dice, because Farfan would try to disbar her for the late report. Which is what
21 Farfan did.
22 482. Farfan probably conferred with a supervisor or an attorney and they
23 came up with CCP 2015.5 which is the statute describing the requirements of a
24 declaration. This was more insanity. Barry was using the Bars preprinted report
25 form which was in the proper declaration form per that Section 2015.5.
26 483. Barry took time out from her practice to locate cases concerning
27 nunc pro tunc, i.e., correcting a clerical error in a judgment or order which does
28 not affect the substance of the judgment or order or the date of the order.
127
127
1 484. Farfan prepared a report, insisting that Barry be disbarred in part for
2 not filing the report for January 2013 when in fact she had filed it two days
3 prior to its due date.
4 485. Joyce and McFarlane, using members dues, litigated this issue all the
5 way to trial. Finally, J. Armendariz whose salary is also paid by member dues
6 was forced to listen to testimony about this absurd, petty issue and decided not to
7 count it as a late report. J. Purcell had to spend time reviewing J. Armendarizs
8 ruling on this silly issue and take the time to affirm her ruling. To paraphrase Bill
9 Maher, Lets make the Bar sane omitting Mahers again because the Bar was
10 never sane.
11 b. Bars Denial of Barrys Motion to Extend Time to Take
Ethics School, 4 Live Ethics, and MPRE.
12
486. In August 2012, Barry filed a 20-page Motion to extend the time on
13
taking the ethics classes and the MPRE. 2 She detailed her efforts to protect
14
Michele and Rachel and to remove Austin from the toxic household of his father
15
and Grover. J. Remke, made a judge through the Spoils system, denied her
16
request.
17
(i)Attorney Carol Sternberg Who Stole from Her
18 Attorney Client Trust Account to Pay Personal
Expenses and Refused for 13 Months to Pay a
19 Settlement to A Client Granted a Generous Extension
to Take MPRE by Blaming Her Secretary for Missing
20 the Deadline.
487. The disciplinary rulings in the Sternberg case prove not only the
21
disparate treatment to which the Bar has subjected Barry, but proves also the harm
22
the Bar causes the public by protecting the attorney as J. Honn and the review
23
Court did in the case of Attorney Sternberg.
24
488. Sternberg refused for 13 months to pay $25,000.00 to her client who
25
was a teacher. She stole from her trust account to pay personal expenses for a
26
significant period of time, and blamed it all on her deceased husband who handled
27
28
2
Being late taking the MPRE is no longer an issue.
128
128
1 the trust account. J. Honn imposed only 30 days suspension on Sternberg. J. Honn
2 attacked the credibility of the client which one would think should be sacrosanct
3 in a Bar proceeding where the evidence was conclusive the attorney had been
4 stealing from her trust account for some time.
5 489. J. Honn subordinated the interests of Sternbergs client to those of his
6 dishonest attorney. J. Honn said he did not believe the clients testimony that he
7 had asked repeatedly for the $25,000.00 settlement during a period of 13 months
8 of communication with Sternbergs office. Sternbergs trust account often had
9 balances below $25,000.00 in those 13 months providing the motive why
10 Sternberg did not pay the settlement. (And possible tampering with her time
11 records. Common sense makes it reasonable that he did.)
12 490. Sternberg missed the deadline to take the MPRE. Sternberg once
13 more blamed it on someone else, this time her secretary. Judge Honn once more
14 gushed over this dishonest attorney and immediately gave her a generous amount
15 of time to take and pass the MPRE. But not Barry.
16 (ii)
Michele and Rachel Testify at Hearing about their
Fears and Desperation in Trying to Get Protection
17 from the Courts against J. Fotinos During the Time
Barry Was Supposed to Take the Ethics Classes and
18 MPRE.
491. The August 2015 hearing before J. Armendariz was for the probation
19
tardiness and for the failure of Barry to pay discovery sanctions to Montalvo and
20
judicial sanctions to San Mateo Court.
21
492. Barry forgot to sign up for Ethics class and took the next one on
22
August 23, making her 23 days late (should have had completed it by July 29)
23
because she was focused on protecting Michele and Rachel and trying to obtain a
24
restraining order. Joyce, J. Armendariz, and J. Purcell knew it. Michele and
25
Rachel testified at the hearing what Barry and they were going through fear of J.
26
Fotinos killing Michele and Rachel because Barry could not get a restraining order
27
for them and the five women (Joyce, Asst Prosecutor McFarlane, J. Armendariz,
28
Batchelor, and J. Purcell) dismissed the well-founded fear of two domestic
129
129
1 violence victims they might be murdered by a violent felon with guns.

2 493. The U. S. Supreme Court itself recognizes that domestic violence is
3 endemic in the United States and a matter which should be taken seriously:
4 494. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 117 (2006)
5 It is not that the dissent exaggerates violence in the home; we
recognize that domestic abuse is a serious problem in the United
6 States. "Family disturbance calls . . . constitute the largest single
category of calls received by police departments each year." Mederer
7 & Gelles, Compassion or Control: Intervention in Cases of Wife
Abuse, 4 J. of Interpersonal Violence 25 (Mar. 1989) (emphasis
8 deleted); see also, e. g., Office of the Attorney General, California
Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Domestic Violence Related Calls
9 for Assistance, 1987-2003, County by Year,
http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/misc/dvsr/tabs/ 8703.pdf (as visited
10 Mar. 1, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court's case file) (providing
data showing that California police received an average of
11 207,848 domestic violence related calls each year);.... Emphasis
added
12
495. At the hearing Michele and Rachel testified to the fear they lived in
13
during the period between December 2011 when Rachel left J. Fotinos home and
14
sought refuge with her mother, and late June 2012 when J. Foiles finally issued a
15
one-year restraining order against J. Fotinos and Grover. Michele and Rachel
16
were without restraining orders for seven months, right at the time that Barry had
17
to meet probation requirements.
18
496. Here is a portion of Micheles testimony at Barrys hearing in J.
19
Armendarizs courtroom on August 11, 2015, Case No.14-O-02579-LMA and No.
20
14-O-03165-LMA3
21
Q. [by Barrry]: So did you get the restraining order?
22
A. [by Michele]: No.
23
24
J. Armendariz has an appropriate judicial temperament. It is very sad that
3
25 she ended up in the Bar where she is forced to write bad decisions because of
26 political pressure and Bar corruption. Ironically, in all the years that Michele
litigated it was only in J. Armendarizs courtroom that finally Michele and
27
Rachel got to tell part of what it was like to be domestic violence victims, and
28 J. Armendariz would not allow the two bar prosecutors to interfere while
Michele and Rachel testified.
130
130
1 Q. All right. And did we make an appearance in January of 2012?

2 A. Yes.... How did he [J. Foiles] treat you?
3 Q. He scared me. I had never I mean, Id been through a lot of court
hearings up to that point. Ive had judges be abrupt. He was more
4 than abrupt. He told me to be quiet, I have an attorney, and I am not
allowed to speak, and I had never been in a courtroom before I
5 mean, most of the judges would allow me to speak. This was a very
scary process, as what was going on, and I just and he wouldnt
6 even let Pat get a word out. I dont t even think he read the
paperwork, and if he did, he didnt care. [Neither does the Bar.]
7
Q. Did he try to restore Bonnie Miller as minors counsel?
8
A. Yes, and you objected.
9
Q. And, now, during this time, do you recall how many times I tried in
10 court, between January 2012 and June of 2012, to get you a
restraining order in San Mateo Court?
11
A. I think there were three more hearings I mean, two subsequent
12 hearings after the January, and then the fourth after they found the
guns.
13 Q. And did I go to the Court of Appeals?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did I go to the California Supreme Court?
16 A. Yes. That period of time was just intense. Rachel was scared to
death, trying to keep her in school, trying to go over and over and
17 get all this paperwork in, and, I mean, all you were doing was
working on my case, constantly.
18
Q. What was our greatest fear, collectively, the three of us, Rachel,
19 you, and me?
20 A. Either he [J. Fotinos] was going to come after all three of us, or
four of us, Austin. I mean, you dont just put out there where
21 they are, and he threatened to kill both of my kids if they ever
told, [about him having weapons as a felon] and not judge, not
22 one police officer, not one CPS did anything. Okay? emphasis
added
23 497. Michele went on to testify how even in June 2012, J. Foiles would not
24 allow anyone to testify or allow Barry to question any witness. J. Foiles was
25 exceedingly hostile and unfriendly. He reluctantly issued only a one year
26 restraining order against J. Fotinos and Grover, kept custody of Rachel with J.
27 Fotinos although J. Fotinos had to stay away from her and she had been living
28 with her mother for the past seven months , and refused to issue a temporary order
131
131
1 of child support for Michele. He kept custody of Austin with J. Fotinos although
2 he knew that Austin was a key witness for the prosecution on the weapons
3 possession charge against J. Fotinos.
4 498. Michele testified about Barry writing brief after brief after brief just
5 to obtain a DVPA restraining order and how all mothers (seeking protection) run
6 into this problem:
7 I think it would have been imperative to have him [J. Foiles] go
further into why an investigation was not done, why we had to live
8 six months in fear [during the time that Barry was supposed to be on
time with Bar probation requirements)] and why Pat had to go to the
9 Supreme Court, brief after brief after brief, and this isnt just me.
This is all mothers running into this problem, where we are
10 constantly having to put in paperwork after paperwork, and its
exhausting. Emphasis added
11
499. Later, Michele again described the nightmare she and Rachel were
12
experiencing during the time Barry was supposed to complete probation
13
requirements (December 2011 through July 2012):
14
Q. [Barry]: Did you call me frequently about your fear that Mr.
15 Fotinos was going to come and murder you and Rachel,
because there was no restraining order in place between
16 December 2011 and June 2012?
17 A. Yes. I mean, I had to drive her [Rachel] to school and drop her
off. My daughter, I mean, literally was like frozen walking in.
18 She was not getting better. She was in pain. Theres so many
instances, and its all before the Court, of his behavior. Hes
19 threatened two therapists. One of them thought he had a gun
wrapped up in a newspaper. She wrote it in her report. Hes
20 threatened people at the school. It goes on.
21 c. Four Live Ethics.
22 500. Tady imposed on Barry what no other attorney was ever required to
23 take Four Live Ethics and the Ethics class offered through the Bar. See paras
24 473-477 of this complaint.
25 d. J. Purcell Feigns Ignorance of Defense of Necessity
501. In her decision, J. Purcell rejected Barrys defense of necessity,
26
claiming she never heard of such a defense. It is an affirmative defense of a
27
defendant who admits she broke the law (Barry: Yes I was late in meeting
28
probation requirements for a greater good, in this case, defense of the safety of
132
132
4
1 others, my clients) And J. Remke denied Barrys motion to extend time to
2 complete the requirements while J. Honn allowed Sternberg additional time to take
3 the MPRE after she had missed the deadline.
4 502. J. Purcell is imbued with judicial authority. By her ruling, she
5 signaled to J. Fotinos and all violent felons who have guns illegally that it is ok to
6 threaten, harm, or kill domestic violence victims.
7 503. Barry also has fears for her physical safety along with Michele's and
8 Rachel's. Out of all defendants Barry has sued it was J. Fotinos and La Flamme
9 who contacted her when J. Purcell placed her in involuntary status on November
10 3, 2016. J. Fotinos left a voicemail on Barrys office phone. He said that her
11 disbarment could not happen to a better person and he can't wait to see her
12
13
4
To assert the legal defense of necessity, one must prove the following:
14
15 1.1. Preventing significant bodily harm or evil. J. Fotinos is dangerous,
16
had guns, and Michele and Rachel, having lived with him and Rachel
threatened with getting killed by J. Fotinos if she reported the fact he had
17 guns establish a well founded belief they would be killed if Barry did not
18 act to get them protection.
19
1.2. No adequate legal alternative Other than seeking restraining order in
20 all three courts, going to D.A. and Sheriff, and finally picketing and passing
21 out the flier, there was nothing else Barry could do.
22 1.3. Act did not create a greater danger Barry completed the classes.
23
1.4. Actual belief that act was necessary J. Fotinos is violent, a felon, and
24
was in fact picked up with 14 guns, 2 assault rifles, 20 high capacity
25 magazines, and 10,000 rounds of live ammunition.
26
1.5. Reasonable to believe act was necessary. It was.
27
28 1.6. Barry did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
http://www.shouselaw.com/necessity.html
133
133
1 prosecuted for perjury in San Mateo. LaFlamme wrote a letter to Barry stating
2 something to the effect he was happy Barry was going to be disbarred so that she
3 could no longer make false accusations against him. All the allegations against
4 LaFlamme in the two federal lawsuits in which Barry named him as a defendant
5 are based on what he said and he did. He was damned by his own words and
6 actions.
7 504. By late 2014, J. Fotinos had become increasingly abusive in emails to
8 Michele, and she stopped visiting Austin for fear he might snap:
9 * Sep 25, 2014, at 6:13 PM, John Fotinos
10 <jfotinos@sbcgiobaLnet> wrote: Just found out about it today
Im not sure when the kids are going to be done so I would
11 suggest [stop?] acting like a bitch (sic) and deal with it;
12 * Date: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:23 PM: "Fuck you
Michele".
13
* Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:49 PM: "They don't deliver mail
14 on Sunday jackass". Emphasis added
15 505. Thus, when J. Fotinos stalked Rachel twice in his truck in May 2015,
16 Michele and Rachel packed up and vacated their apartment within a day to go into
17 hiding where they have been ever since.
18 4. Failure to Pay Discovery Sanctions to Montalvo and
Judicial Sanctions to San Mateo
19
a. The Lawlessness of San Mateo Court
20
506. As already established, In November 2012, J. Karesh and J. Labson-
21
Freeman illegally made Michele and Barry VLs. J. Labson-Freeman then the
22
presiding judge signed an order ordering Barry to pretend she is a VL seeking to
23
file documents on her own case. Barry filed four applications for prefiling order
24
to file motion seeking reconsideration of Austins custody order, J. Fotinos failure
25
to pay support, application for wage assignment, application for restraining orders.
26
To this date, J. Foiles failed to rule on them. San Mateo effectively closed its
27
doors on Michele, Rachel and even Micheles mother, Esther.
28
507. If J. Fotinos murdered Michele, Rachel, and/or Barry San Mateo
134
134
1 would see to it he would spend only a few years in a mental hospital (claiming he
2 went temporarily insane because Michele or Barry or Rachel or all three drove him
3 to murder one or all of them). After a few years in a mental institution, he would
4 be found competent, he would be convicted of involuntary womanslaughter, and
5 sentenced based on time served. Wagstaffe, Bolanos, and the judges then would
6 unleash him once more on the Bay Area residents with time served.
7 b. The Extreme Misconduct of Montalvo Making
Barrys Prosecution an Anti-Trust Violation and the
8 Bars Failure to Prosecute yet a Second San Mateo
Attorney Who Has Caused Harm to Michele, a
9 Violation of Busi & Prof C. Sec.6001.1 Which
Mandates That the Protection of the Public Shall Be
10 Paramount.
11
(I)
Failure of Montalvo to Enforce Micheles
12 Right of Custody.
508. In December 2007, Montalvo failed to protect the rights of Mother
13
and Children when minors counsel Bonnie Miller suborned the perjury of former
14
therapist Renee LaFarge to obtain an unconstitutional exparte order reversing
15
the six day order of custody M. Fotinos had just obtained from Judge Cretan. It
16
was foreseeable to Montalvo at the time that the children would suffer irreparable
17
harm if they remain in the custody of the father, and yet he took insufficient steps
18
to regain custody for their mother.
19
509. Montalvo failed to demand the phone records of the father and the
20
cell phone records of the two children to prove that first J. Fotinos had violated the
21
no contact order and second it was his orders given by phone to the children that
22
caused them to run away, to break a window, and to say they would rather go into
23
foster care than live with their mother. M. Fotinos had been making great progress
24
with her children and but for the telephone orders from J. Fotinos, the children
25
would not have acted as they did. M. Fotinos begged Montalvo to obtain the
26
phone records. He refused to do so.
27
510. Montalvo had a duty and obligation to his client and to the children to
28
demand in accordance with the due process protection set out in CCP 1008 which
135
135
1 requires that a motion for reconsideration or change of an order be transferred

2 back to the judge who made the original order, in this case, Judge Cretan.
3 511. At this hearing judge Pfeiffer asked Judge Cretan for clarification of
4 his order. Judge Cretan refused to change the order of custody. J. Pfeiffer had
5 no jurisdiction to change custody in the face of the ruling of the judge who made
6 the original order that he would not change the order.
7 512. Rather than immediately return the children to their mother, instead,
8 J. Pfeiffer humiliated M. Fotinos by placing her in an intolerable situation,
9 visitation in a public restaurant, with the violent, unstable J. Fotinos and his
10 woman partner, Grover, acting as visitation monitors. Judge Franchi changed
11 all that and in doing so, had upset the San Mateo practice of denial of due
12 process to parents.
13 (ii)
Montalvos and Romas Fictional
Child Support Order against
14 Michele.
513. Montalvo repeatedly committed fraud by representing in court papers
15
and to Michele that there was an order of child support against her, that the
16
amount was $198.00. When J. Pfeiffer picked out a number out of thin air for the
17
arrearages, of $10,098.00, Montalvo did not object.
18
514. At some point, the court awarded joint custody to the parties which J.
19
Fotinos repeatedly frustrated. This order meant that if J. Fotinos motion for child
20
support had gone to hearing, Michele would have been awarded the support and
21
not J. Fotinos. J. Fotinos motion for child support fell off the calendar.
22
515. At one of the numerous hearings in 2005, Roma claimed there was an
23
order of child support against Michele she was not paying. Initially, Roma and
24
Montalvo could not get their stories straight about the amount. Eventually, they
25
settled on $198 a month.
26
516. Montalvo joined with Roma against his own client to claim there was
27
an order made against Michele in some unknown chambers conference without
28
Michele being present, and this unknown chambers conference is not noted on the
136
136
1 docket, for some amount of support again not noted on the docket, on a date that
2 Montalvo and Roma never identified and not noted on the docket, before a judge
3 that Montalvo and Roma never identified and not noted on the docket, with
4 attorneys present and not noted on the docket.
5 517. In March 2009, Judge Cretan made an order declaring there was a
6 child support order because Montalvo pressured and coerced Michele into signing
7 a declaration there was such an order although there is no record of it. Later, when
8 Judge Pfeiffer ordered that M. Fotinos pay J. Fotinos $10,098.00 in child support
9 arrearages, a figure she picked out of thin air, Montalvo did not argue that there
10 was no child support order in effect, that no motion to set arrearages had ever been
11 filed, and no order to set arrearages in the amount of $10,098.00 had been made.
12 Instead, he paid the $10,098.00 to J. Fotinos out of his trust account holding the
13 community cash.
14 (iii) Micheles Loss of Community property,
Attorney Fees, and Support.
15
518. The harm M. Fotinos suffered caused by Montalvos failure to
16
perform in a competent fashion is reflected in a Statement of Decision filed on
17
March 2, 2009. A final judgment was never filed.
18
519. Some of the many acts of malpractice Montalvo engaged in with
19
respect to the division of community property and support are as follows:
20
520. Montalvo failed to obtain a certified abstract of judgment of
21
conviction of J. Fotinos for felony grand theft auto less than two years prior to the
22
trial on property, debts, and support to impeach J. Fotinos when he testified at the
23
trial. Montalvo was duty bound to impeach J. Fotinos honesty at the time of trial
24
since Judge Pfeiffer repeatedly took J. Fotinos at his word.
25
521. Montalvo failed to conduct full discovery concerning property and
26
debts and support.
27
522. M. Fotinos placed Montalvo on notice that she had a personal injury
28
case. Montalvo failed to notify the attorney who litigated the personal injury case
137
137
1 that he was to place whatever net proceeds M. Fotinos obtained in a trust account
2 until they were disposed of in the family law trial on community property. M.
3 Fotinos received net proceeds of $80,000.00. Community property law states that
4 personal injury damages of a spouse are community property but must be awarded
5 to the injured spouse unless the other spouse proves that he or she is entitled to a
6 share based on his/her care of the spouse while injured. J. Fotinos could never
7 prove he cared for M. Fotinos because he has never cared for anyone else in his
8 life, least of all M. Fotinos.
9 523. The attorney who litigated M. Fotinos personal injury case violated
10 his fiduciary duty to M. Fotinos because he allowed J. Fotinos to pursue an absurd
11 loss of consortium claim after the couple separated and as a result a clear conflict
12 of interest had emerged. The attorney should have informed the court there was an
13 inherent conflict of interest and request the court to sever the loss of consortium
14 claim from M. Fotinos claim of injury. Instead, the lawyer forced M. Fotinos to
15 sign an agreement giving J. Fotinos whopping 50% of whatever M. Fotinos
16 recovered, meaning J. Fotinos stole $40,000.00 from M. Fotinos. However, if
17 Montalvo had contacted the lawyer about the family statute, the entire amount
18 could have gone into Montalvos trust account until the matter was finally
19 resolved by stipulation or order. Michele had a cause of action against the
20 attorney for making her give away her property to J. Fotinos.
21 524. Even with this gross violation of his fiduciary duty to M. Fotinos the
22 attorney handling the personal injury case had committed, Montalvo failed to
23 include in the community property schedule the $40,000.00 J. Fotinos received
24 from Micheles personal injury damages award which was one half of what
25 Michele actually received after all liens were paid. Montalvo failed to demand
26 that the Court order the entire amount of the personal damages award as the
27 separate property of Michele. That would mean that Fotinos owed $40,000 to
28 Michele which should have been used as an offset for any amount Michele owed
138
138
1 to John.
2 525. M. Fotinos was a stay-at-home mother. Montalvo had failed to obtain
3 an order of temporary spousal support for her. The Court made a finding it was a
4 long term marriage. Michele ended up with only $67 a month spousal support
5 because of Montalvos malpractice. Even that amount did not commence until
6 the conclusion of the litigation, six years later.
7 526. Another act of serious malpractice is that Montalvo conducted no
8 discovery on whether J. Fotinos was working by demanding his income tax returns
9 for the past four or five years. Montalvo could have hired an investigator to trail
10 him for a few days, learn who his employer was, and then serve that employer with
11 a SPDT, which is what Michele and Barry did years later.
12 527. For $45,000.00 or more, Michele ended up with no kids, no
13 community property, $67 a month spousal support, and ordered to pay $433.00
14 child support to J. Fotinos.
15 c. Kimballs Subornation of Montalvos and Romas
Perjury in the Legal Malpractice Lawsuit, and the
16 Bars Ratification of the Misconduct of the Three
Attorneys in Its Case against Barry.
17
528. To compound the fraud of Montalvo and Roma, Kimball suborned
18
the perjury of both Montalvo and Roma, with the two attorneys once more falsely
19
stating, but this time under oath, there was an order of child support against
20
Michele when there was not, in declarations in support of Montalvos Motion for
21
Summary Judgment in the malpractice action.
22
529. At the hearing on the sanctions before J. Armendariz, in August 2015,
23
Kimball was such an evasive witness that J. Armendariz announced at the trial that
24
Kimball, the only witness Joyce and McFarlane used for the sanctions prosecution,
25
was of no help to her uh, no offense intended, J Armendariz said to Kimball.
26
530. Joyce knew or should have known when she put on Kimball as her
27
star witness that she herself was ratifying an attorney who had suborned the
28
perjury of the two other attorneys. In her zealousness to suspend Barry Joyce lost
139
139
1 perspective and violated her ethical duty to avoid using an attorney as her star
2 witness who had suborned perjury from two other attorneys. The Bar
3 compounded the harm to Michele and Barry.
4 Joyce uses Kimball in the Bar prosecution who uses Montalvo and
5 Roma to commit perjury in the malpractice case who lied and committed fraud
6 against Michele in the family law case. Triple fraud from family case to
7 malpractice case to Bar case.
8 531. Batchelor, J. Armendariz, and J. Purcell did not wink an eye at the
9 misconduct of Joyce and the three attorneys.
10 d. Kimballs bad Faith Motions to Compel Answers to
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and
11 Micheles Deposition.
12 532. Fox had been serving as a consultant of sorts to Kim since August
13 2011. Barry had served Montalvo with the malpractice complaint on March 8,
14 2012. In 2012 the Bar Board of Trustees, probably at the insistence of Fox,
15 appointed Kimball to the Bar malpractice insurance committee. Kimball showed
16 up at the Figueroa building in Los Angeles on a date that Barry had to appear at a
17 pretrial hearing on the Montalvo disciplinary matter. Her office is in Sacramento.
18 (I) Interrogatories.
19 533. Kimball served interrogatories designed only to humiliate,
20 embarrass, and harass Barry and Michele. She asked four questions about Michele
21 and Barry being VLs. The lawsuit was about Michele when she was a
22 represented litigant, represented by Kimballs client, Montalvo. The period of
23 time material to the lawsuit was when Montalvo represented Michele, not years
24 later when J. Karesh and J. Freeman decided illegally to make Michele a VL in
25 violation of the law. Kimball also unethically injected Micheles attorney into the
26 lawsuit by asking questions about her status, which was not at issue. Kimball
27 knew that Michele and Barry were unconstitutionally made VLs because she had
28 provided Barry with the Judicial Councils list of VLs which included Barrys
140
140
1 and Micheles names on it.

2 534. Joyce, Armendariz, Batchelor, and Purcell know or should have
3 known that Code of Civ Proced. Sec. 2017.020(a) states:
4 The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the
burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs
5 the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
6
535. And Code of Civ. Proced. Sec.2023.010(a) and ( c) prohibits trying
7
to obtain information or materials outside the scope of permissible discovery over
8
objection and without substantial justification and employing a discovery method
9
causing unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression..... like Kimballs
10
Motion to compel.
11
536. In violation of the anti trust law these four Bar employees chose to
12
prosecute Barry in place of Kimball, although it was clear that she had pursued
13
answers to the rogs in her motion to compel unethically and in bad faith.
14
(ii)
Request for Production of Documents
15 and Scheduling Micheles Deposition and
Purpose of Continued Hearing on
16 Kimballs Motion to Compel.
537. Kimball filed Motion to Compel production of documents scheduled
17
to be heard on June 26, 2013. On June 17, 2013, Barry had served responses to
18
the request and Michele began producing the documents, in fact, thousands of
19
pages. Barry did not file a written opposition.
20
538. Barry contacted Judge Buchwalds courtroom on that date and was
21
able to obtain a continuance specifically so she could argue Kimballs motions
22
orally. Barry was ordered to give notice to Kimball. Kimball requested July 24
23
for the hearing date. Barry faxed a letter to J. Buchwald on July 2 stating in part:
24
I am willing to move the hearing ...to July 24, 2013 as Ms. Kimball
25 requested, if it is possible to order that the deposition occur in
Redwood City on July 24, 2013, right after the hearing. In addition,
26 because my client has little money and her daughter is very ill,
making it very difficult for her to find work, I would ask that the
27 Court reschedule the CMC from July 19, 2013 to July 24, 2013.
28 539. Judge Buchwald did reschedule to July 24. The invisible hand of J.
141
141
1 Foiles interrupted the due process rights of Michele. J. Buchwald was the law
2 and motion judge per the appointment by J. Foiles, and he had worked up
3 Kimballs motion.
4 540. When Barry showed up for the hearing, it was not J. Buchwald but J.
5 Bergeron, appointed by Foiles as a trial judge, not law and motion. J. Foiles
6 probably substituted J. Bergeron in J. Buchwalds place because of J. Bergerons
7 repeated mistreatment of women at the courthouse: See In re Judge Joseph E.
8 Bergeron, CJP, January 25, 2016:
9 The commission found that, despite having been warned by the court
about his behavior, Judge Bergeron treated certain women at court
10 inappropriately, and thereby failed to maintain high standards of
conduct, to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
11 judiciary, and to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with
whom he deals in an official capacity, ....
12
541. Bergeron had been warned that six employees had complained against
13
him and he had to change. He did not. The CJP issued a private admonishment to
14
him based on his mistreatment of women. Bergeron was stubborn, self entitled,
15
and unrepentant. He did not change his behavior. Finally, on the basis of three
16
more incidents of misconduct toward women employees, the Commission publicly
17
admonished him:
18
First, in October 2013, less than one year before the August 2014
19 incident, Judge Bergeron was informed by the court's presiding judge
and the court executive officer that six female court employees had
20 complained that he treated them in a rude, abrasive and
condescending manner. They told him that it was imperative that he
21 alter his behavior and prevent future complaints.
22 Second, in April 2014, four months before the August 2014 incident,
Judge Bergeron received a private admonishment from the
23 commission for embroilment and abuse of authority.
24 542. At the hearing in July 2014, Bergeron was still the same rude,
25 imperious, and arrogant individual described in the CJP ruling. He would not
26 allow Barry to argue the motions orally which was the only reason for continuing
27 the hearing. As stated in the letter to J. Buchwald, Barry wanted the deposition of
28 Michele to be taken in Redwood City. Instead, J. Bergeron ordered it to be taken
142
142
1 for the convenience of Kimball who was being paid substantial attorney fees and
2 all her costs by an insurance company at the same location Kimball forced
3 Michele to drive to, to produce documents, a 150-160 mile round trip for Michele.
4 543. Barry asked Joyce to obtain the Bergeron transcript and she
5 refused to do so, although it was clearly exculpatory evidence showing that
6 Michele and Barry had once more, in San Mateo, been denied due process. At
7 the hearing on Barrys bar prosecution Kimball admitted she had the transcript and
8 would not produce the transcript unless ordered to do so. J. Armendariz refused to
9 order this critical piece of evidence.
10 544. The circle of Bar/San Mateo judicial corruption remains unbroken: J.
11 Karesh and J. Freeman unconstitutionally declare Michele and Barry VLs which
12 leads to a Judicial Council employee placing Micheles and Barrys names on a
13 VL list which leads to Kimball using the list to serve interrogatories on Michele
14 about her and Barry being VLs which leads to San Mateo Judge Bergeron
15 imposing unconstitutional sanctions on Barry for not answering the interrogatories
16 which leads to Bar prosecution for not paying them which leads to Bar seeking
17 disbarment of Barry. Illegality and retaliation in; illegality and retaliation out.
18 Clearly the Bar and San Mateo are joined at the hip. The public, Michele, and
19 Barry pay the price. Montalvo continues posing a danger to the public.
20 e. Barrys Two Trips to San Mateo Specifically for
Hearing on Sanctions and Hearing Does Not Go
21 Forward
545. The parties are agreed there was at least one hearing on the sanctions,
22
Michele corroborated Barrys and Kimballs testimony at the hearing before J.
23
Armendariz that J. Buchwald did not want to hear about the sanctions the first
24
time a hearing was set on the sanctions. He wanted the parties to reach some kind
25
of agreement. Barry believes his heart was in the right place and knew that Barry
26
did not have the money. Unfortunately, Judge Buchwald was under the thumb of
27
J. Foiles.
28
546. There was yet a second hearing scheduled on the sanctions, on
143
143
1 December 20, 2013. Barry also scheduled an ex parte to reopen discovery to take
2 Montalvos deposition and gave Kimball ex parte notice the day before by email.
3 Kimball wanted a copy of the exparte papers because she said she would not be
4 appearing. She had decided to defy an order to appear on the sanctions.
5 Kimball sent an email to Barry requesting the exparte papers and Barry responded.
6 547. Patricia Barry pbarrylegal@gmail.com>
Dec 19 (4 days ago) 8:47 PM
7 to Betsy, bcc: michele
8 I checked the local rules which rely solely on the CA Rules of Court.
I did not see where I had to do so [email her the exparte papers.]. Can
9 you advise?
10 548. bkimball@kimballwilson.com via srs.bis6.us.blackberry.com
Dec 20 (3 days ago) 6:10 AM
11 to me [Barry]
12 I asked that you do so. You are not obligated by law or rule of court.
Have a nice trip.
13
549. Barry was steered to J. Foiles Courtroom for the ex parte application
14
to reopen discovery to depose Montalvo. Barry tried to exercise a peremptory
15
challenge against J. Foiles and got nowhere. She gave up. San Mateo judiciary
16
was doing everything to protect Montalvo and defeat Michele. There was no way
17
that Barry could ever get Michele to a jury trial.
18
550. Because Kimball was part of the San Mateo cabal, she knew that San
19
Mateo would not have the hearing on the sanctions and would not grant the
20
exparte to take Montalvos deposition which is why she did not appear although
21
ordered by the Court to do so. Barry wasted an enormous amount of time
22
preparing the exparte and appearing for the sanctions and exparte, and either she
23
or Michele spent money on Barrys plane fare for nothing.
24
f. Kimball Does not Enter Judgment and Scheduled
25 Hearings on Nonpayment of Sanctions after
Deliberately Not Appearing for December 20, 2012
26 Hearing.
27 551. Barry and Michele had run out of money for Barry to be flying up to
28 San Mateo to discuss sanctions Barry had no money to pay, and J. Fotinos and
144
144
1 Grover had no restraining orders for almost a year, making Barry, Michele, and
2 Rachel vulnerable to attacks by J. Fotinos, and possibly getting shot and killed.
3 g. Barrys Voicemail to J. Buchwalds Courtroom and
His Entry of the Judgment Based on Micheles
4 Failure to Prosecute Without Incorporating the
Sanctions Orders into It.
5
552. As already alleged, after Barry called J. Buchwalds courtroom
6
confronting him with the fact he would not stand up to the tyranny of J. Foiles, J.
7
Buchwald entered a judgment in May 2014 which did not incorporate the
8
discovery and judicial sanctions into it. See paras 659-666, infra. As already
9
alleged, Joyce refused to obtain the voicemail and the transcript of the voice mail
10
from J. Buchwald.
11
G. Dissemination of Defamation against Michele and Barry.
12
553. J. Freeman forwarded the information, including the prefiling order,
13
to the Judicial Council about Barry and Michele being VLs. DEFENDANT
14
UNNAMED UNKNOWN JUDICIAL COUNCIL EMPLOYEE disseminated false
15
defamatory information that Barry and Michele were VLs to all courts in
16
California although the employee should have seen a red flag that both a client and
17
her attorney had been illegally and unconstitutionally declared VLs by Freeman
18
and Karesh.
19
554. Kimball used the false and defamatory Judicial Council document
20
naming Barry and Michele as VLs to insult and degrade Michele and Barry and to
21
harass Michele to answer four interrogatories about being VLs which had nothing
22
to do with Montalvos malpractice and fraud he committed against Michele.
23
555. The Bar and J. Fotinos possibly used the document to harass and
24
threaten Barry with discipline, resulting in further stigma plus harm.
25
H. In Violation of Anti-Trust Policies the Bar Refuses to Apply
26 Statutory Law on Judgments, the Doctrines of Res Judicata and
Collateral Estoppel, and Relevant Case Law to Benefit Bar
27 Insiders and to Harm Bar Outsiders, Treating Market
Participants Differently in Violation of Anti-Trust Law and
28 Fourteenth Amendment Due Process.
145
145
1 1. Refusal of the Bar to Apply Statutes Concerning Judgments

and the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
2 to Protect Bar Insiders.
3 a. Attorneys Marshall Krause and Sandra Acevedo
4 556. In several disciplinary proceedings, the Bar refused to apply the
5 statutory law regarding judgments such as Code of Civ Proced Secs 1904
6 (definition of judicial record); 1908 (effect of a judgment); 1908.5 (conclusive
7 judgment can be alleged in pleading or as evidence); 1911 (only what appears in
8 judgment deemed to have been adjudged); 1916 (impeaching a record); 1917
9 (need jurisdiction over cause, parties, and the thing) as well as the doctrines of res
10 judicata and collateral estoppel.
11 557. The Bar refused to discipline Marshall Krause, an attorney in Marin
12 County, although he stipulated that he had abused his daughter, Alanna Krause, in
13 Los Angeles Juvenile Court in 1998. This is a crime of moral turpitude which
14 should have led, at a minimum, to suspension if not disbarment. The Bar refused
15 to apply the statutes regarding judgments and doctrine of res judicata. Krause
16 should also have been disciplined for having a sexual relationship with Alannas
17 therapist, Lana Clark, while Alanna was reporting Krauses child abuse.
18 558. The Bar also declined to sue Sandra Acevedo, minors counsel for
19 Alanna who concealed Krauses abuse. The Bar refused to apply statutory law
20 affecting judgments and doctrine of collateral estoppel against Acevedo based on
21 Krauses conviction for abuse in the juvenile court. While she was not a party to
22 the action, nonetheless, collateral estoppel could be invoked against her. Acevedo
23 would be bound by the finding Krause had engaged in abuse of Alanna.
24 559. in 2002, Alanna sued her father, his paramour, Lana Clark, Alannas
25 therapist and Acevedo, in District Court, Krause v. Acevedo, et al.,
26 02-cv-05277-JSW, N. D. CA. From the docket of the case, it appears that Krause
27 and Clark settled with Alanna while the case was pending.
28 560. Jerome Falk the corporate attorney appointed by Towery in 2010 as a
146
146
1 very special prosecutor in the Gerardi/Lack discipline fiasco represented Krause

2 in Alannas civil rights lawsuit. He probably influenced the Bar to decline to
3 prosecute Krause and Acevedo. Falks and Krauses bond as two staunch male
4 chauvinists was far stronger than the fractured father-child bond. These two
5 bullies used every tool in the patriarchal toolbox they could against Alanna.
6 561. The child custody case originated in Marin, which is not surprising,
7 given its record of mistreatment of protective mothers and abused children. This
8 is the same court which prosecuted Mardeusz in July 2000 because she sought an
9 order to regain custody of her abused child. When Alanna was 15, she had run
10 away to Los Angeles and somehow got a juvenile court petition filed on her
11 behalf. According to an article in the internet found at
12 thttp://www.newsmakingnews.com/krause7,2,2.htm,
13 The LA Juvenile investigation noted that that incidents of abuse
had been brought to the attention of Marin Child Protective
14 Services nine times and Commissioner Shapiro Pritchard, both of
whom who had failed to take appropriate action. It also reported
15 evaluations by Dr. Edward Oklan were lacking professionalism
and that they, and the rulings by Shapiro-Pritchard were based
16 on "tainted" reports offered by social worker Lana Clark, who
had been involved in an intimate relationship with Krause at the
17 time. Emphasis added
18 562. J. Adams had referred Barry to the Bar for prosecution in July 2000.
19 563. A complaint against Krause was filed with the California State Bar
20 asking that he be disbarred. On June 27, 2002 Jeff Dal Cerro, Assistant to the
21 Chief Trial Counsel confirmed their investigation of Krause was still open and
22 ongoing. Acevedo was also being investigated by the Bar.
23 564. The complaint against Acevedo, filed in January 2000, alleged that
24 she conspired with Krause and others to commit fraud and illegally obtain money;
25 delay, hinder and prevent evidence, testimony and prosecution; commit and
26 suborn perjury; and commit child abuse, neglect and endangerment.
27 565. Despite these allegations, Acevedo was serving as the chair of the
28 Marin County Bar Association's Family Law Committee.
147
147
1 566. Bar Counsel Nisperos refused to prosecute Krause and Acevedo

2 because both were Bar insiders. Krause was the former Counsel, Board Member
3 and Fundraiser for the ACLU of Northern California; Past President of the Marin
4 County Bar Association and partner (of counsel) in the firm of Krause and
5 Baskin. Alanna is thus a victim of the Bars cronyism and favoritism of market
6 participants like her father in violation of the anti trust laws.
7 567. Krauses long time partner, Larry Baskin was President Elect of the
8 Marin County Bar Association and on the current Board of Directors. Baskin was
9 representing Kevin Dufficy, the son of Marin Superior Court Judge Michael
10 Dufficy.
11 568. Commissioner Shapiro-Pritchard, had known Krause for over thirty
12 years. She is the daughter of lawyers Carl and Helen Shapiro. Carl Shapiro was
13 the former head of the Marin County Chapter of the ACLU. Carl Shapiro and his
14 law firm, Shapiro, Shapiro & Shapiro and Krause worked on cases together. So
15 why didnt Comm. Shapiro recuse herself immediately?
16 569. Acevedo, then working for the firm of Diamond, Bennington &
17 Simborg was part of a team of family court lawyers trying discredit the Karen
18 Winner Report: Findings on Judge Michael Dufficy, Commissioner Sylvia
19 Shapiro Pritchard & Court Appointees in Marin Countys Superior Court in
20 California," , which exposed Marin family court corruption. The report notes
21 Acevedo's role in Alanna's case. J. Adams who had convicted Barry of contempt in
22 July 2000 was implicated for her misconduct in the Winner Report.
23 570. The issues related to the Krause case and corruption in Family Court
24 were reported in over 100 articles since the release of the Winner report, including
25 the San Francisco Chronicle, California Lawyer Magazine, the Los Angeles
26 Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Weekly, the Pacific Sun,
27 The Los Angeles Daily News, the Marin Independent Journal, the National Law
28 Journal, the Daily Journal legal news and the Marin Court Reporter.
148
148
1 571. In November of 2000, KCAL-9 TV in LA did a three part expose,

2 "Crimes of Custody," on Alanna's case. She and her mother were both
3 interviewed, Krause declined any participation.
4 572. The Bar refused to prosecute Krause although he had committed acts
5 of moral turpitude abusing his daughter. It refused to prosecute Acevedo, just as it
6 refused to prosecute Miller, LaFlamme, and Lawrence, all minors counsel. All
7 four minors counsel covered up and protected the respective abusive fathers,
8 Krause, J. Fotinos, Jeremiah Morgan, and Bruce Adair, thus harming the children
9 they were supposed to represent. The Bar is a clear and present danger to the
10 public.
11 573. Alanna is also a victim of the Bars secret vetting of those seeking a
12 bench appointment from the governor. Both J. Dufficy and J. Adams got on the
13 bench through that process. As judges they determine whether commissioners can
14 keep their jobs. They protected Comm Shapiro.
15 574. The complaint against Acevedo was filed in 2000 the same year that
16 J. Adams filed a complaint against Barry. The Bar had been sitting on Adams
17 referral for almost 2-1/2 years since July 2000.
18 575. The Bar turned to Barry in 2002 the same year the Bar was
19 investigating Krause and possibly Acevedo, probably not a coincidence because
20 both cases originated in Marin.
21 576. The Bars choice of which market participant to prosecute - Barry and
22 not Krause and Acevedo resulted in harm to Alanna, to Mardeuszs child, and
23 to the public.
24 577. That Krause and Acevedo were not prosecuted by the Bar and Barry
25 was, more than reinforces the gender divide in law. Barry is not just female; she
26 litigates cases about what it is to be female. Krause abused his daughter and
27 Acevedo covered up child abuse causing grave harm to a child, and the Bar
28 declined to prosecute them. Barry defended a mother exposing abuse of her child
149
149
1 and trying to regain that childs custody from an abusive father, and the Bar
2 prosecuted her. Barry is disciplined opposing domestic violence but not Krause
3 who engaged in it and Acevedo who covered it up.
4 b. John F. Henning III, Attorney
5 578. Henning became angry with a rabbi and the rabbis friend. He
6 attacked them on the street, causing them injury.
7 579. J. Remke approved a stipulation for discipline, suspending Henning
8 for the same period of time as the Bar did Barry, 60 days yet, Henning had a
9 prior discipline less than two years before, for the same crime, battery.
10 580. J. Remke did not apply res judicata to the prior conviction for battery
11 which should have increased the punishment. Henning was placed on probation
12 for only 18 months. Barry was given two years probation and a significant penalty
13 of $5,000. J. In typical bar fashion, Remke also determined that the battery
14 crimes which are crimes of moral turpitude were not crimes of moral
15 turpitude. The Bar disciplined Barry because she opposed violence suspending
16 her for 60 days, the same amount of time J. Remke suspended Henning for
17 engaging in it, not just once but twice. She now heads up the Fair Political
18 Practices Commission ironically, to insure that politicians are ethical.
19 c. The Girardi/Lack Discipline Fiasco.
20 581. In its 2010 ethics update it selected the Girardi/Lack 9th Circuit case is
21 an example of attorney misconduct while Towery refused to prosecute
22 Girardi/Lack and impose mandatory reciprocal discipline on them. Here is
23 what the Bar 2010 update has to say about the case:
24 In re Thomas V. Girardi (9th Cir. July 13, 2010) __ F.3D __, 2010
U.S. APP. LEXIS 14292
25
An experienced and respected plaintiffs attorney [Girardi] was
26 formally reprimanded for allowing his name to be signed by co-
counsel on appellate briefs that turned out to contain false statements.
27 Another experienced and respected plaintiffs attorney [Walter Lack]
28
and his colleague were suspended from practicing before the Ninth
Circuit for six months for filing a frivolous appeal and briefs
containing false statements.
150
150
1 A junior associate, who tried unsuccessfully to persuade more senior

lawyers at his firm not to continue an appeal, was privately
2 reprimanded for allowing his superiors to overcome his sound
instincts and for his role in drafting an appellate brief that contained
3 false statements.
4
582. What the Bar does not state in its update on ethics, itself an ethical
5
lapse of the Bar, is that oh, and by the way, we did not find a thing wrong with
6
Girardis and Lacks conduct. As will now be shown, rather than follow the law,
7
found at Busi. & Prof. C. Sec.6049.1(b)(1)-(3), which is compulsory, Towery
8
refused to issue Notices of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) against Girardi and Lack
9
although the Ninth Circuit had found that Girardi and Lack had violated Cal. Rule
10
Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Bus. & Prof.Code 6068(d) (lawyer's duty not to seek to
11
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or
12
law.). Girardi and Lack did not appeal. The judgment was final as were the
13
findings of fact.
14 583. Towery was obligated to apply the statutes on judgments, in particular,

15 Code of Civ. Proced Sec. 1917 which states that the Court must have jurisdiction
16 over cause, parties, and the thing (res) in order to tinker with a judgment.
17 Towery and Falk did not have jurisdiction over the case in which the misconduct
18 occurred. Not having jurisdiction over the case, they had no jurisdiction over the
19 parties. Their only job was to follow the State Bar Act, specifically Busi & Prof
20 C.Sec.6049.1 which requires they accept the findings of the other jurisdiction
21 unless Girardi and Lack were denied due process which is absurd.
22
584. Falk is a partner and owner of the law firm, Howard, Rice,
23
Nemerovski, Canady, Falk, & Rabkin (Howard Rice). Just four years before
24
Towery appointed Falk, Falks law firm Howard Rice had successfully defended
25
both Girardi and Lack in a lawsuit in which Robert Copple, a former client of
26
Girardi and Lack and a class member, had sued Girardi and Lack and the other
27
plaintiffs attorneys for conspiracy in obtaining far greater attorney fees than they
28
should have received sixty million dollars which was taken from the fund to
151
151
1 pay the class members. Copple v. Astrella & Rice, P.C., 442 F.Supp.2d 829
2 (U.S.C.D. 2006). Rather than reduce their fees for the sake of the class members,
3 Girardi, Lack, and the other firms maxed out their fees to the detriment of their own
4 clients.
5 585. The decision of the Ninth Circuit against Girardi and Lack was issued
6 in July 2010. Besides Falk, Douglas Winthrop is a managing partner of Howard
7 Rice. At the time of Girardis and Lacks discipline, Winthrop was also the
8 president of the State Bar Foundation. Howard Miller (not to be confused with the
9 Howard Rice firm) is the law partner of Girardi and was President of the Bar at the
10 time that Girardis and Lacks discipline was announced. Miller was also
11 originally named in the Ninth Circuit OSC along with Girardi and Lack but the
12 Court dismissed the charges against him.
13
586. As already stated, but it should be emphasized, in July 2010 when
14
Girardi and Lack were supposed to be disciplined by the Bar Girardis law partner,
15
Miller, was both a board member of the Bar Foundation and the Bar President at
16
the same time as Winthrop was serving as Bar Foundation president while at the
17
same time Winthrops law partner Falk was investigating Girardi and Lack. Girardi
18
and Lack made generous donations to the Bar foundation.
19
20 587. The tentacles of cronyism extend even further. Thomas Nolan, a
21 partner with Skadden Arps, defended Girardi in the Ninth Circuit disciplinary
22 proceeding. Skadden Arps was the defense counsel in the Coppel class action case.
23 Girardi and Lack never disclosed to their clients, the class members, that the
24 opposing counsel, Skadden Arps, had defended Girardi in the disciplinary action in
25 the Ninth Circuit. Prior to Towery appointing Falk as very special prosecutor,
26 Skadden Arps (including Raoul Kennedy) and Howard Rice (including Falk) had
27 worked together as cocounsel (in addition to other law firms) representing the same
28 defendant in City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. (2008) 43
152
152
1 Cal.4th 375, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 333, 181 P.3d 142.

2 588. Even as Falk was supposedly pondering Girardis and Lacks
3 discipline, Falk, Winthrop, and their firm Howard Rice were busy with Nolan,
4 Raoul Kennedy, and ten other attorneys of Skadden Arps serving as cocounsel in
5 representing MGA Entertainment Inc., as Intervenor Re: Cv04-09059" in Bryant
6 v. Mattel Inc, U. S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No.
7 2:04-cv-09049-DOC -RNB which terminated on August 4, 2011. Judge Carter
8 awarded Falks and Nolans client MGA $105,688,073.00 in attorneys' fees and
9 $31,677,104.00 in costs.
10
589. Towery was involved in litigation with Falk. Towery (law firm
11
Hoge, Fenton, Jones, & Appel) represented ConnectU, the company founded by the
12
Winklevoss twins, Tyler and Cameron in U. S. District Court for the District of
13
Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-10593 (DPW).
14
15 590. Falk and other attorneys of the Howard Rice law firm represented the
16 twins and Narenda as intervenors in appeals in the Ninth Circuit. The Facebook,
17 Inc., et al v. ConnectU, Inc., et al, Case No. 08-16745 associated and/or
18 consolidated with five other appeals involving the same parties. On April 4, 2011,
19 the Court ruled in favor of Facebook in a published opinion written by Chief Judge
20 Kozinski. Falk argued the appeal.
21
591. Working so closely with Falk and the other Howard Rice attorneys,
22
and serving as Bar Counsel, Towery knew all of these crony connections and
23
conflicts of interest. Precisely because Towery knew of them is why he chose Falk.
24
25 592. To make matters even worse for attorneys who are not Bar insiders,
26 Girardi is personal friends with the former Chief Justice of the California Supreme
27 Court, Ronald George. Justice George appointed Girardi to the California Judicial
28 Council. The Supreme Court determines the final discipline to be meted out to
153
153
1 attorneys.
2 593. In an article entitled Los Angeles Lawyers Settle on Music By
3 Kristina Horton Flaherty, Staff Writer, CA Bar Journal, November 2010, Flaherty
4 writes that
5
....During the State Bars annual meeting in Monterey last September,
6 the Girardi Keese law firm had the [70 attorney member] orchestra
flown in to perform along with singer -songwriter Paul Anka at
7 a special reception for retiring Chief Justice Ronald George and
outgoing State Bar President Howard Miller..... [Girardis law partner]
8
9 594. The Ninth Circuit published its decision on discipline of Girardi and
10 Lack on July 13, 2010. Girardi paid for the orchestra and Anka and flew them up
11 at his expense to perform at the Chief Justices retirement party in September 2010.
12 Falk announced the Bar would not discipline Girardi and Lack in December 2010.
13
595. Just two years before Falk declined to issue NDCs against Girardi and
14
Lack, Lack and his law firm cocounseled a class action lawsuit with Justice
15
Georges son, Eric George, whose law firm is Browne, George, & Ross LLC
16
representing the plaintiff in Taste of Nature, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Co., Inc., et
17
al., Case No.08-CV-03073-PA-SS in the Central District of California before it was
18
transferred to the Western District of Washington.
19
20 596. Just when the reader might think the Bar could not become cronier for
21 Girardi and Lack, it did. Girardi and the former Executive Director of the Bar Joe
22 Dunn are the best of friends. In 2009 Girardi, Dunn, and another well-heeled,
23 corporate attorney, James Brosnahan (Morrison & Foerster which figured in Bar
24 prosecution of Barry for Adams contempt convictions in 2000 ) founded Voice of
25 O.C. In October 2010 the Bar appointed Dunn to be Executive Director. On
26 information and belief, Girardi and Brosnahan played a role in getting Dunn
27 appointed as Executive Director. Dunn returned the favor by insuring Girardi and
28 Lack would not be disciplined.
154
154
1 597. In December 2010, Falk wrote a letter to Lack and stated that the three
2 judges of the Ninth Circuit did not know what they were talking about. Girardi,
3 Lack, Lacks associates none of them intentionally misled a federal judge!
4 598. To sum up, Girardi had a close friend in Dunn, the executive director,
5 a bar partner in Miller, the Bar President and board member of the Bar Foundation,
6 another buddy in Towery, the bar trial counsel, one of their former attorneys in
7 Falk, the very, very special prosecutor, and still another buddy, in Justice George
8 whom Girardi had just treated to a symphony performance at his birthday party.
9
2. The Bar Refuses to Apply Statutes on Judgments and
10 Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel to Harm
Bar Outsiders.
11
599. Judge Armendariz, in particular, has repeatedly denied members
12
rights to rely on the official record of the litigation, even investigations of the Bar
13
itself, on which the Bar prosecutions are based. Armendariz findings of fact,
14
orders, and judgments from the federal and state courts, the real courts created by
15
Article III of the U.S. Constitution and Article VI of the California Constitution.
16
17 600. Prosecutors, like Tady and Joyce, likewise ignore the doctrines which
18 if applied in many cases, including as examples, Kays, Martins, and Barrys,
19 exonerate the member of the violations they are charged with in direct violation of
20 Busi&Prof. C. 6101.
21
a. Disbarment of Phil Kay
22
23
601. Phillip Kay was a beacon of hope to workers everywhere in California,
24
especially to women. Prior to winning the sexual harassment case Kay won against
25
Ralphs for women grocery checkers, Gober v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Kay had
26
won another landmark sexual harassment case, Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie in
27
1994 in San Francisco Superior Court. Kay proved that the rainmaker partner
28
Martin Greenstein had sexually harassed at least seven or eight women, including
Weeks who was a secretary and did nothing to remedy the harassment. Kay may
155
155
1 have won at that point the largest sexual harassment punitive damages award in
2 litigation history which was $7.1 million dollars besides an additional $50,000 in
3 compensatory damages.
4 602. Kay then went on to trump his punitive damages award in the Weeks
5 case to win what was at that point the largest sexual harassment punitive damages
6 award in the history of the country in the Ralphs case, 30.6 million dollars.
7
603. J. Armendariz engaged in the Bars customary practice of disregarding
8
the statutes on judgments and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel
9
leading to Kays disbarment.
10
11 604. Towery figured in Kays prosecution. Just as Towery refused to apply
12 res judicata and collateral estoppel in the Girardi/Lack discipline fiasco to protect
13 the wealthy white male Bar insiders, so he refused to apply the doctrines in Kays
14 case to harm Kay, a Bar Outsider, and the women workers whom Kay represented
15 to help a judge with a bruised ego and Ralphs corporate defense attorneys.
16
605. Towerys loyalties lay with Ralphs and Kroger Corporation which
17
had purchased Ralphs from Yucaipa, the company owned by billionaire Ron
18
Burkle. Kay had just hit Ralphs with the biggest sexual harassment punitive
19
damages verdict in the history of the world, on behalf of women grocery checkers,
20
$30.6 million dollars.
21
22 606. What is ironic is that it was the Ralphs attorneys who took the 3
23 million dollar punitive damages verdict to the court of appeal and demanded a new
24 trial. They got their wish. Kay clobbered them on remand and the 3 million dollar
25 verdict morphed into a 30.6 million dollar verdict.
26 607. Because of the structure of the Bar, arguably all disciplinary actions
27 are inevitably fraught with financial conflicts of interest, like Chicks interest in
28 seeing Barry and Fine disciplined. J. Armendariz worked for the former Los
156
156
1 Angeles City Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa when he was in the California

2 legislature. On information and belief, Villaraigosa has personal ties to Ronald
3 Burkle, the billionaire. Burkle would be delighted to help out a fellow corporation,
4 Kroger, which bought Ralphs from Yucaipa, Burkles corporation. After all, We
5 billionaires have to stick together. as Trump proves, given his choices for his
6 cabinet. Burkle could easily have asked Villaraigosa to steer Kays case to a
7 sympathetic judge who owes him for getting her the judicial appointment at the
8 Bar.
9 608. J. Anello one of the judges on the Ralphs case had secretly
10 complained to the Bar about Kay. His complaint was all about himself, although as
11 a judge he is supposed to develop some thick skin. He and San Diego Judge Weber
12 reinvented what occurred in the real courtroom as they testified at the Bar hearing
13 and gave a fictionalized version.
14
609. Kay alleged in his class action filed in San Francisco Superior Court
15
(Barry was an attorney in the lawsuit), Kay v. State Bar of California, that he had
16
never been found guilty or cited for any kind of attorney misconduct in the
17
underlying lawsuit:
18
19 16. In the prior State Bar proceeding, Kay was falsely charged and
then when he contested the false charges, he was denied his
20 constitutional - due process rights and privileges. Kay was
never found to have violated any orders in the article VI
21 court cases; nor was he the subject on an order of contempt,
sanctions or new trial based on misconduct, establishing
22 jurisdiction in the State Bar to commence an investigation,
pursuant to the State Bar Act - 6086.7, as admitted by
23 Chief Trial Counsel Towery. (See discussion below.)..... (See
e.g., Goddard v. Security Title Ins. & Guarantee Co. (1939) 14
24 Cal.2d 47, 51; Johnson v. Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61,
77.)
25
17. The affirmance on appeal of these final judgments and the
26 absence of any findings by the appellate and trial courts that
Kay engaged in misconduct is final and preclusive. (See e.g., In
27 re Kittrell (2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 195, p.7 [". . .we
conclude that principles of collateral estoppel can properly
28 be applied in this (State Bar) proceeding. .."]; p. 8 [Only
final judgments and orders have preclusive effect.].)
157
157
1 For example:
2
There are no article VI court orders of contempt, sanctions or
new trial based on attorney misconduct establishing jurisdiction
3
in the State Bar. (See State Bar Act [fn 6 omitted] - 6086.7);
4
There are no Court of Appeal remands based on attorney
5 misconduct;
6
7 There is no evidence that any of the alleged statements made
during the article VI court trials are false. (See U.S. v. Wunsch
8 (9th Cir.1996) 84 Fed.3d 1110, 1119, as cited in Matter of
Anderson (Rev.Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 775, 785.);
9
10 Kay was found vicariously culpable for the alleged contempt
of other attorneys in violation of law [fn 7 omitted];
11
12
There are inherently preposterous findings of yelling at jurors,
13 witnesses, bailiffs and judges throughout three trials and
engaging in fisticuffs with opposing counsel during the first
14 Gober trial. Of course, if any of this had occurred, there would
be orders of contempt and/or sanctions - none of which exist.
15
16 Moreover, the actual Court of Appeal Opinions from the
17 underlying trials, one of which is published (see Gober v.
Ralphs Grocery Company (2006) 137 Ca1.App.4th 204),
18 impeach the central findings - if not the entire Decision.
610. Armendarizs opinion, In re Philip Kay, Case Nos. 01-O-01930-LMA
19
(02-O-15326; 03-O-00142; 05-O-03685) December 2009 reads as if Kay
20
repeatedly engaged in misconduct in front of the jury that was so heinous Ralphs
21
did not receive a fair trial. Yet, no judge in any of the courts which reviewed the
22
trial transcripts reversed the verdicts based on Kays misconduct or even chided
23
Kay for misconduct. The reader should review Gober v. Ralphs Grocery Company
24
(2006) 137 Ca1.App.4th 204. The only time that Kays name is mentioned is at the
25
beginning identifying him as the plaintiffs attorney. The opinion says nothing
26
about Kay or any other attorney.
27
28 611. Armendarizs ruling is why unqualified inexperienced attorneys
158
158
1 should never serve as bar judges. What little litigation experience Armendariz
2 had, made her jaundiced towards plaintiffs attorneys since her brief stint as a
3 litigation attorney (one or two years) was at a now- defunct and bankrupt,
4 corporate defense employment law firm, Heller/Ehrman as an employment defense
5 attorney.
6 612. Not to speak of the fact that unqualified individuals are obligated to
7 those who install them in the position and are vulnerable to political influences. J.
8 Armendarizs rulings repeatedly appear to be influenced by outside political forces,
9 including in the Kay, Barry, Martin, Naegele, Karnazes, Yellin cases.5
10
613. Armendarizs prejudice against plaintiff civil rights attorneys is
11
reflected by her choice of statements Kay made outside the hearing of the jury to
12
justify her lopsided ruling against Kay. The statements she chose were Kay
13
complaining that the judge was rigging the case in favor of the defendants, making
14
rulings on the evidence which repeatedly favored the defense, and doing everything
15
16
17 5
Yellin should have been, and was, disciplined for loan modification fraud
18 against her clients but she was small fry compared to what Countrywide attorneys
did to all Americans. On information and belief, J. Armendariz permitted a
19
Countrywide attorney to testify in her courtroom as an expert against Yellin,
20 the small fry. Despite Countrywide attorneys having their office in
21 Calabasas, the Bar never prosecuted even one of them despite the fact that
Countrywide committed some of the worst crimes of mortgage fraud in the
22 history of the country and was a major contributor to the collapse of the
23 economy in 2007-2008. The Bar is a coward when it comes to attorneys
representing big corporations although they pose the greatest danger to all
24
Americans. The Bar does not prosecute corporate attorneys because corporate
25 attorneys run the Bar. The bar picks on solo practitioners, civil rights attorneys,
26 and attorneys the judges do not like to justify its existence. web article by Attorney
Timothy D. Naegele entitled The State Bar Of California Is Lawless And A
27
Travesty, And Should Be Abolished found at
28 (h..ps://naegeleblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/dscf29392.jpg)
(h..p://www.naegele.com/a..orneys.html#tdn)
159
159
1 to gut the plaintiffs case. J. Armendariz refused to acknowledge that generally an

2 attorney must object to rulings even if it irritates the judge to preserve the record
3 on appeal. J. Armendariz did not consider the fact that the judges probably were
4 doing what Kay complained of, which is why they took no action against him
5 fearful of reversal upon appellate review. J. Armendariz disbarred Kay for doing
6 his job for his clients.
7 614. Armendariz also did not consider the possibility that offensive
8 personality works both ways, that the judges were upset because the Ralphs
9 attorneys kept losing no matter how much they helped them, they were harassing
10 and insulting Kay in front of the jury, and J. Anello had filed the bar complaint
11 against Kay in bad faith violating judicial canons.
12
615. J. Armendariz relied on the judges revisionist interpretation at the
13
Bar trial that Kay had an offensive personality at the real trial which is all they had
14
to go on, since he was never convicted of anything during the real trials or on the
15
real appeal:
16
17 During his representation, respondent was repeatedly unprofessional,
disrespectful, and rude to the court, opposing counsel, witnesses,
18 parties, and all participants, both in the original trial in 1998 (Gober I)
and the remanded trial on punitive damages in 2002 (Gober II). Both
19 Judges Joan P. Weber and Michael M. Anello, who presided over the
Gober trials, found that respondent committed misconduct throughout
20 the trials.
21 616. If this were true J. Weber, J. Anello, and the appellate courts had all
22 kinds of tools to rein in this attorney: sanctions, contempt, reversals of the verdicts
23 based on attorney misconduct. None of this happened. Nor did the transcript
24 support these false conclusions of J. Armendariz. So, J. Weber and J. Anello
25 reinvented the wheel at the Bar to punish Kay because he won big for women.
26
617. Even if Kay had what these two judges J. Webster and J.Anello
27
would call an offensive personality, the Bar cannot prosecute, let alone suspend
28
or disbar an attorney for an offensive personality. In U. S. v. Wunsch, 84 F.3d
160
160
th
1 1110 (9 Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit struck down Busi & Prof C. Sec.6068(f)
2 directing attorneys to abstain from all offensive personality as unconstitutional.
3 At the time that Armendariz stripped Kay of his right to practice law based on
4 almosts (almost found in contempt, almost admonished in front of the jury,
5 almost sanctioned almost reversed for attorney misconduct), Sec.6068(f) was
6 deleted by the Legislature by the time J. Armendariz was prosecuting Kay.
7 618. To add disparate insult in addition to irrevocable injury, when Kay
8 complained against corporate opposing counsel for their misconduct in 2009,
9 Joyce6 herself a corporate attorney like Towery denied Kays complaint. Joyce
10 stated that the Bar declined to investigate and discipline the attorneys in part
11 because no court had found that they had violated the orders in limine Kay
12 said they had violated. Besides, Joyce said, the Court is in the best position to
13 determine whether the attorney had violated Busi&Prof C Sec.6103 or had
14 provided false testimony in violation of Sec.6068(d). Really, Joyce?
15
619. The corporate market participants Towery and Joyce had
16
determined that since no judge had found their fellow corporate market participants
17
in violation of limine orders or had provided false testimony, well, they certainly
18
were not going to get involved. On the other hand, if it is a plaintiffs civil rights
19
attorney who has never been found guilty of misconduct by the real Court, well, we
20
Bar corporatists will step right up to the plate and disbar him.
21
22 620. J. Armendariz finding that Ralphs did not get a fair trial because of
23 Kay, is an astounding claim since no jury verdict was reversed based on Kays
24 misconduct. Besides, such a preposterous assertion would have most Americans
25 laughing that a huge corporation like Ralphs could ever be denied a fair trial.
26 Walk into any courtroom and listen to the jurors responses about corporations in
27
28 The internet is replete with complaints of misconduct and unethical
6
behavior on the part of Joyce.

161
161
1 voir dire.
2 621. The case was all about, once more, assuaging Judge Anellos ego, as J.
3 Anellos letters to the Bar prove (well, and the egos of Ralphs attorneys who took
4 a horrible bruising and lost the case). Just as Arch Cunningham lost all contact
5 with his daughter and his million dollar home to assuage a judges ego, so Kay lost
6 his bar license for the same reason. The public lost out thanks to the Bars
7 malicious and vindictive prosecution of Kay. He is now deceased probably caused
8 by the loss of his right to practice law. The Bar is a danger to the public and a boon
9 to the judge and the corporate attorneys.
10
The line up against Kay identical to the lineup against Fine -- is
11
dangerous to the survival of our democracy and should concern any
12
person reading this complaint: The superior court judges, the Bar, the
13
Bar judge, the corporate attorneys, and the corporation lined up against
14
Kay and his women workers-clients.
15
16 622. If J. Anello and J. Weber manufactured a case against Kay it is a
17 violation of their judicial ethics. See In Inquiry Concerning Freedman, 49 Cal.4th
18 CJP Supp. 223, June 2007, where the CJP described various levels of judicial
19 misconduct:
20
The most serious form of wrongdoing is willful misconduct, which is
21 (1) unjudicial conduct that is (2) committed in bad faith (3) by a judge
acting in his or her judicial capacity...... The bad faith requirement for
22 willful misconduct is satisfied when a judge is (1) performing a
judicial act for a corrupt purpose (which is any purpose other than the
23 faithful discharge of judicial duties), or (2) performing a judicial act
with knowledge that the act is beyond the judges lawful judicial
24 power, or (3) performing a judicial act that exceeds the judges lawful
power with a conscious disregard for the limits of the judges
25 authority...
26 623. The Legislature and Governor must launch an investigation of the Bar
27 prosecutors and J. Armendarizs misconduct in the Kay case, reopen it, absolve
28 Kay of all wrongdoing, vindicating his reputation posthumously, and punish the
162
162
1 wrongdoers at the Bar.

2 b. Disbarment of Craig Martin
3
624. Craig Martin (Martin) is an African-American attorney who was
4
disbarred also by Armendariz.
5
6 625. According to the allegations of Martin in his brief filed in the Ninth
7 Circuit, Case No. 12-16132 filed August 9, 2012, J. Armendariz withheld
8 exculpatory evidence showing that the Bar had investigated a caucasian male
9 attorney, Michael Keck, who had represented Martins client Maria Teresa Perez as
10 the administrator of her deceased husbands estate from 1995 to 2009. Eventually,
11 in 2015, the Bar was forced to disbar Keck because his misappropriation of client
12 funds had happened once too often.
13
626. According to what Martin alleged, the Bar knew from its three year
14
investigation of Keck, he had maintained the estate funds in an unsegregated trust
15
account for years in his name which is a violation of the Probate Code and he
16
caused the foreclosure of a property in San Francisco (of all places to lose a
17
property in foreclosure) in 1996 causing the estate to suffer a loss. Keck also failed
18
to communicate regularly with Perez, the widow-administrator who was his client.
19
20 627. The first time Martin ever had contact with Perez was in 2000, four
21 years after Keck caused the Lexington property to go to foreclosure. Martin never
22 had control over the estate, only Keck.
23 628. In 2000 when Perez met with Martin for the first time, her main
24 complaint was that Keck would not communicate to her about the Estate (Keck was
25 holding the funds, not Perez, illegally in his trust account). Martin wrote Keck
26 three letters and finally Keck sent a check to Perez in April 2001, which was the
27 first timed he communicated to her in years. In November 2001, Martin filed a
28 civil action against Keck because once more Perez complained to Martin that Keck
163
163
1 would not communicate with her. For the $5,000 fee Perez paid Martin, she
2 received full value conferences with Martin attempting to reconstruct what Keck
3 was doing, Martins three letters to Keck, a payment to Perez from Keck, and a
4 lawsuit against Keck to get the estates records.
5 629. Rather than file an NDC against Keck for losing a property to
6 foreclosure, for not communicating with his client, for not reimbursing her
7 immediately for expenses, for maintaining the estate funds in his unsegregated
8 client trust fund, and for using the Estates money for himself, the Bar filed against
9 Martin, claiming he was the attorney who caused the estate substantial loss, the
10 Bar does not know the amount, but Martin caused substantial loss. Again, alt-
11 universe, alt-facts, so speculative that J. Armendariz could not describe the amount
12 of the loss.
13
630. In 2010 Armendariz disbarred Martin. The Bar and Armendariz also
14
violated the rights of Perez who was Kecks client by protecting Keck, not forcing
15
him to make restitution to Perez, and not disbarring or suspending him. As already
16
alleged the Bar finally disbarred Keck but not until 2015 for stealing money from
17
his clients, like Perez, and using it for himself.
18
19 631. According to Martins brief, on March 20, 2012, Perez filed a
20 declaration in the case, Estate of Perez. Attorney McDonnell who represented Perz
21 filed the Administrator's Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
22 The memo stated the probate examiner suggested that Kecks fee should be
23 calculated to include the loss of $258,482.00 on the Lexington Street property.
24 [citation.]
25
632. On April 26, 2012, Superior Court Judge Mary E.Wiss issued an Order
26
denying attorney fees to Keck based on his negligence and misconduct. The Court
27
made the following findings against Keck:
28
164
164
1 Petitioner,(MARIA PEREZ) in her capacity as administrator was

represented by MICHAEL KECK in March 1995 to February 2009.
2 Cash in the estate was not always invested in proper interest-bearing
accounts or investments. Between February 1997, when the estate first
3 received cash funds after the foreclosure and April 2009,the estate's
funds were usually deposited and held by attorney KECK in an
4 unsegregated attorney trust account of the Law Offices of C.L.Keck,
Wells Fargo no.0359660719, except when Chicago Title held funds
5 between September 1996 to December 2000 when the sales proceeds
for the Cortland/Santa Marina property were at Wells Fargo Bank in
6 two separate interest bearing accounts (n/o Maria Teresa Perez,
administrator, and Luisa Perez) established by Chicago Title
7 Company.
8
633. Based on these facts, Judge Wiss denied all attorney fees to Keck.
9
634. As already alleged, the Bar disbarred Keck five years after it had disbarred
10
Martin in 2015.
11 The State Bar Court found Keck culpable of two counts of

misappropriation in the amounts of $30,000 and $25,000,
12 respectively as well as commingling personal funds in his client trust
account and paying personal or business expenses from that account.
13
635. The profile also states that
14
In addition, in 2009, Keck commingled $18,000 intended to pay for
15 his sons private school tuition in his client trust account. Keck also
wrote a series of checks from his client trust account for the payment
16 of personal or business expenses.
17 636. Although Martin was disbarred in 2010, the 2012 judicial findings
18 against Keck and the Bars later disbarment of Keck are binding on the Bar based
19 on collateral estoppel. See e.g., In re Kittrell (2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 195,
20 p.7 [". . .we conclude that principles of collateral estoppel can properly be applied
21 in this (State Bar) proceeding. .."]; p. 8 Only final judgments and orders have
22 preclusive effect.
23 637. The Bar knew all of the above from its three year investigation of
24 Keck. The Bar endangered the public and Perez by not taking action against Keck
25 and instead chose the African-American attorney as its scapegoat despite the fact
26 that Perez did receive legal services from Martin for the $5,000 she had paid him.
27
638. A Bar employee calling Martin the N word twice in two phone calls
28
is itself a basis for reopening Martins case, and the Legislature opening up an
165
165
1 investigation of the Bar, Gil-Torres, and J. Armendariz, with reinstatement to

2 Martin and vindication of his ethical conduct in the case.
3 c. Purcells Recommendation for Disbarment of
4
Barry.
(I). J. Purcells Disregard of the Bars Finding
5 that Adams Conviction of Barry for
Contempt Was Not a Serious Matter,
6 Violating Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel.
7 639. J. Purcell and Batchelor revisited the Bars finding of fact that the
8 matter was not serious and morphed it into an extremely serious matter in
9 violation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
10
640. In the stipulation, the Bar noted "...an absence of any prior record of
11
discipline over many years of practice" (from 1974 to 2004, 30 years) and the Bar
12
also found that the contempt convictions were "not... serious". These are
13
findings of fact Batchelor and Judge Purcell are bound by but are not following. It
14
is like the Ralphs case only Batchelor and J. Purcell are ignoring its own
15
employers finding of fact.
16
17 641. They both ignore the fact that the punishment was only a private
18 reproval. They ignore the fact that the Bar had sat on Adams referral for almost
19 five years, one month shy of the expiration of the statute of limitations. They
20 ignore the fact that the contempt is stale 16-1/2 years old. They ignore the fact
21 that in the subsequent 16-1/2 years, no judge has found Barry in contempt. They
22 ignore the corruption of J. Adams as the Bar did in the Kay case.
23 (ii). The Elwood Matter, April 2010.
24
642. The Bar insinuated itself into federal court. Tady had never practiced
25
in federal court. Tady made a blanket charge that Barry filed frivolous lawsuits
26
when only some of the claims were ultimately deemed frivolous. Once more Tady
27
disregarded the reported decision in Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943 (9th Cir.
28
2006) reversing three of the six causes of action found to be frivolous. He also
166
166
1 knew that ten federal judges had reviewed Barrys pleadings and not one referred
2 her to the Central District disciplinary Committee for misconduct.
3 643. Tady violated his ethical duty as a prosecutor to dismiss the
4 prosecution. Tady had admitted to Barry she would prevail on the matter. Yet, he
5 continued to pursue the discipline when he knew he lacked probable cause.
6
(iii). The Failure to Pay Discovery Sanctions to
7 Montalvo and Judicial Sanctions to San
Mateo.
8
(A) Barrys Inability to Comply with the
9 Orders.
10 644. In the current case, failure to pay discovery and judicial sanctions, the
11 Bar also shows a disregard for the rule of law.
12
645. A San Mateo case, Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th
13
1153, squares on almost all fours with Barrys. San Mateo judges had jailed
14
Attorney Koehler several times for sanctions he did not owe, his client did. It was
15
Judge Cretan, who made the unconstitutional order stating that Koehler had to pay
16
sanctions pursuant to Fam.C.Sec.271 which section authorizes sanctions only
17
against the party-litigant. Judge Cretan is the same judge who violated Micheles
18
constitutional right of custody of Austin labeling her a detriment to Austin rather
19
than the convicted felon, J. Fotinos.
20
21
Petitioner's counsel pressed on, concluding that there was a "defective
order" to show cause re contempt, and objected to "any order for
22
contempt based on payment of 271 sanctions . . . as such 271 sanctions
are not enforceable against him as a matter of law." [fn. 5. It is not
23
disputed that Family Code section 271 sanctions can be assessed only
against a party.] It was all to no avail. Id., 181 Cal.App.4th 1164.
24 646. As noted by the Court of Appeal, Koehler was in the same position
25 Barry is: older, living on social security, and not earning much from his law
26 practice. In fn 7 the Court also noted that Petitioner is 75 years old, has a hearing
27 impairment, and frequently appears in a wheelchair in his court appearances.
28
647. The Court of Appeal let the aging, wheel-chair bound attorney go to
167
167
1 jail twice before it finally took action on his behalf. The court of appeals ruled as
2 Barry has argued in the bar proceeding, that there must be proof of an intentional
3 violation of the order of sanctions: Bar Rule 1-100 states: For a willful breach of
4 any of these rules, the Board of Governors has the power to discipline members as
5 provided by law. See also Busi&Prof C Sec.6103:
6 A wilful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring
7
him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of his
profession, which he ought in good faith to do or forbear,...Emphasis
8
added
648. The Court of Appeal took the San Mateo judges and Opposing Parties
9
to task just as the San Mateo judges and the Bar should be taken to task in Barrys
10
case:
11
12 As noted, from the outset petitioner's counsel took the position that
third parties had the burden to prove that petitioner had the ability to
13 pay. Third parties' position was that inability to pay was an
"affirmative defense." The trial court expressly agreed. The law is
14 contrary. [Citations.] [fn. 8 omitted.]
15
649. Barry was not retained to sue Montalvo only to file postjudgment
16
motions to modify custody and support and to disqualify Miller. Barry sued
17
Montalvo because she was outraged at the extent of Montalvos malpractice as well
18
as his fraud and gaslighting of his own client just to keep Roma and her client, J.
19
Fotinos, happy. Michele could not pay Barry fees because Montalvo had almost
20
bankrupted her taking more than $45,000.00 from her with not even a twinge of
21
conscience.
22
23 650. Joyce directed Barry to provide her a Financial Statement which she
24 did. Joyce informed the settlement judge Barry could not pay the discovery
25 sanctions actually reciting similar facts to Koehlers situation: 72 years old,
26 collecting social security, and not collecting much in the way of attorney fees. In
27 typical Bar fashion, Joyce still forged ahead. Barry repeatedly pointed out that
28 there can be no intentional violation subjecting her to suspension or disbarment if
168
168
1 she cannot comply with the orders.

2 651. They ignored the holdings in Koehler, supra and the bad faith conduct
3 of the San Mateo judiciary in both the Koehler case and in Micheles case. These
4 bar officials behaved towards Barry the way the San Mateo judges behaved
5 towards Koehler, (and Michele and Barry):
6
One of the many inexplicable aspects of this case is how a person
7 deemed sufficiently impecunious to be entitled to appointed counsel
can be held in contempt and incarcerated for failure to pay a $10,000
8 fine--indeed, on the trial court's theory, repeatedly so held and
repeatedly incarcerated, apparently ad infinitum Thus, there was no
9 substantial evidence that petitioner had the ability to comply with the
order, so the contempt "must be reversed and annulled." (In re Cassil,
10 supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1088-1089.) Id., 181 Cal.App.4th at 1170,
1171.
11
652. As with Barry, so with Koehler:
12
13 Not only did the trial court hold petitioner in contempt, but on May 27,
2009, it also caused a discipline referral form to be submitted to the
14 State Bar. [fn. 9 omitted.] Despite all that had occurred, the form
inexplicably stated that the referral was "for a" $10,000 discovery
15 sanction imposed against Mr. Koehler on November 27, 2006,
pursuant to Family Code] section 271." And, the form said, the "nature
16 of the criminal offense" was petitioner's "contempt of [] court failed to
comply with November 27, 2006 court order." This referral apparently
17 had a drastic effect, as at oral argument his counsel represented that
petitioner has been "disbarred." [fn. 10 omitted.] Id., 181 Cal.App.4th
18 1171
19 653. One of the many inexplicable aspects of this [Bar] case is how a [an
20 attorney] deemed sufficiently impecunious .... can [lose her license and be ordered
21 to pay sanctions the Bar knows she cannot pay].
22
(B). San Mateo J. Buchwalds Unusual
23 Judgment with no Merging of the
Discovery and Judicial Sanctions
24 into It.
25 654. In April or May 2014, fed up with the mistreatment and ongoing
26 denial of due process for Michele, Rachel, and herself, Barry called San Mateo
27 Judge Buchwald, She left a voice mail on the judges courtroom phone telling
28 Judge Buchwald that he lacked courage and would not stand up to the tyranny of J.
169
169
1 Foiles. She continued along this line. Judge Buchwald saved the voice mail and
2 had a transcript made of Barrys phone call.
3 655. Barry asked Joyce to obtain the transcript and voice mail of Barry
4 because it was exculpatory evidence showing why Judge Buchwald dismissed the
5 orders of discovery and judicial sanctions (crise de conscience). Joyce refused
6 just as she failed to obtain the transcript of the hearing before Judge Bergeron
7 denying Barry oral argument on Kimballs Motions to Compel.
8
656. About a week ago, Barry left a message on Presiding San Mateo
9
Judge Etezadi asking her to forward the Bergeron transcript and Barrys voice mail
10
recording and its transcript to the Bar, Barry, and the Supreme Court. Barry does
11
not know whether she responded.
12
13 657. Shortly after Barry made the call to his courtroom, Judge Buchwald
14 indicated that he was inclined to dismiss the entire action, oddly enough, for
15 Micheles failure to prosecute.
16
658. At the time that Judge Buchwald decided to enter such a judgment,
17
there was nothing left for Michele to litigate since Kimball had obtained an order
18
of summary judgment.
19
20 659. Kimball had malpracticed her own client in order to harass Barry.
21 Kimball did not obtain a judgment based on the order of summary judgment. The
22 discovery sanctions orders would have merged into such a judgment. Barry could
23 have appealed them. Kimball did not anticipate the favor J. Buchwald did Barry.
24 660. On May 19, 2014, J. Buchwald entered the following judgment:
25
Defendant Stephen J. Montalvos motion for Summary Judgment
26 hving been previously granted by the Court (Hon. Lisa A. Novak), and
Order Granting Summary Judgment having been filed on February 19,
27 2014;
28 And, in the alternative, the Court (Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald) having
more recently Ordered a discretionary dismissal of this case under
170
170
1 Calif. Code of Civil Proced. Section 483.420(a)(2)(B) for Plaintiffs

failure to bring this cse to trial within two years, Minute Order of May
2 12,2014 having been filed,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. ADJUDGED. AND DECREED that this
action is Dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff Michele Fotinos
4
shall take and recover nothing against Defendant Stephen J. Montalvo.
Defendant to have and recover his costs of suit herein. emphasis
5
added
661. Joyce, J. Armendariz, Batchelor, and J. Purcell all refuse to give res
6
judicata effect to the judgment from which J. Buchwald specifically omitted the
7
discovery and judicial sanctions orders and awarded only costs of suit to Montalvo
8
which are taxed against the plaintiff, not the attorney. They ignore the statutes on
9
judgments. They cannot pick and choose which orders to enforce: the interim
10
orders or the final judgment. The final judgment trumps the interim orders.
11
12 662. In California, only sanction orders exceeding $5,000 are appealable
13 prior to final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., 904.1, subd. (a)(12).) Both federal and
14 California state courts hold that nonappealable orders are not merged into final
15 judgments based on the plaintiffs failure to prosecute.
16
663. See, e.g., Vernon v. Great Western Bank, Case No B091406 (2d
17
Appell DCA, 12/18/96), certified for publication.
18
19 We also hold that, on appeal from an order dismissing a case for a
failure to diligently prosecute, there can be no review of earlier, non-
20 appealable summary adjudication orders that would otherwise be
reviewed on an appeal from a final judgment on the merits.
21 664. John Insulation Inc v. Addison and Associates Inc., No. 97-2286, U.S.
22 Court of Appeals for First Circuit, Decided: September 11, 1998:
23
However, six circuit courts of appeals have recognized an exception to
24 the rule, holding that interlocutory rulings do not merge into a
judgment of dismissal for failure to prosecute, and are therefore
25 unappealable. See, e.g., Marshall v. Sielaff, 492 F.2d 917, 919 (3d
Cir.1974) (interlocutory rulings did not merge with judgment of
26 dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute); Hughley v. Eaton
Corp., 572 F.2d 556, 557 (6th Cir.1978) (same); DuBose v.
27 Minnesota, 893 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Cir.1990) (same); 1 Huey v.
Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.1979) (same); Ash v.
28 Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 497 (9th Cir.1984) (same, but dismissal
without prejudice); cf. Sere v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of
171
171
1 Illinois, 852 F.2d 285, 288 (7th Cir.1988) (Rule 37(b) dismissal with
prejudice for failure to complete discovery and to attend a deposition);
2 Bowe v. First of Denver Mortgage Investors, 613 F.2d 798, 800-801
(10th Cir.1980) (commenting favorably on holding in Huey )
3 665. Accord, Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1984):
4 We hold that interlocutory rulings do not merge into a judgment of
dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute whether the failure
5 to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.
6 666. While these cases refer to the plaintiffs inability to appeal the orders,
7 nonetheless, Kimball and Montalvo have only a judgment giving Montalvo costs of
8 suit and no discovery sanctions.
9
667. After J. Buchwald filed this judgment, both J. Buchwald and Kimball
10
conducted themselves as if the sanctions orders were extinguished. They ceased all
11
enforcement activity. Kimball never filed a lien against Barry. She did not object to
12
the judgment in its present form being filed. Kimball did file a Memorandum
13
for only costs of suit to be taxed against Michele per the judgment.
14
15 668. J. Purcell ignored the unusual judgment J. Buchwald entered. She
16 cited a case in her decision which held sanctions per Code of Civ. Proced.
17 Sec.177.5 against attorneys are immediately appealable. There was no judgment in
18 that case, let alone a judgment for failure to plaintiff to prosecute. She said nothing
19 about the discovery sanctions. Joyce, J. Armendariz, Batchelor, and J. Purcell
20 skirted around the judgment itself in which J. Buchwald specifically did not
21 incorporate the sanctions orders in order to suspend, now disbar, Barry.
22 J. The Bars Secret Vetting of Applicants for Judicial Appointments
23
Is a Danger to the Public.
669. The Bar controls the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Appointment
24
Commission (JNE Commission). The vetting of the applicants for judicial
25
appointment is a secret process. The Bar controls those who are appointed to rate
26
the applicants, virtually guaranteeing the continuity of patriarchy, racism, and
27
sexism.
28
172
172
1 670. The applicants must all be attorneys and Bar members for at least ten
2 years. It is a closed, elitist system and invites corrupt appointments based on who
3 the applicant knows more than the applicants qualifications.
4 671. Over and over again the Bar has rated attorneys highly qualified or
5 exceptionally highly qualified who have gone on to become among the worst
6 judges on the California bench, including Persky and Dufficy who thwarted the
7 public will and turned to the Bar to get them appointed to the bench. Like Trump,
8 these two men lost the popular vote Dufficy twice and similar to Trump elected
9 by an outdated, rigged electoral college, these two individuals obtained a judicial
10 appointment by an outdated, rigged, secret Bar commission.
11
672. We now provide seven examples of whom three are directly related to
12
the Bars harassment and prosecution of Barry, demonstrating the circle of
13
corruption from which the public cannot escape from Bar to Bench to CJP.
14
15 673. These seven judges dramatically prove the point that the JNE
16 Commission must be declared a threat to the public and unconstitutional.
17 1. Dufficy and Adams, Marin.
18
674. The JNE Commission/governor appointments of Dufficy and Adams
19
demonstrate how a corrupt attorney who could not get elected gets on the bench
20
and then assists another corrupt attorney who could not get elected to get her on the
21
bench. Like incest and domestic violence, judicial corruption becomes
22
generational. Dufficy and Adams are inseparable in their corruption. They were
23
close friends as judge and attorney; they continued that close friendship on the
24
bench especially in Mardeuszs case in which J. Dufficy oversaw the indictment
25
against Mardeusz and was the key witness against in the criminal case, and his
26
good friend J. Adams oversaw Mardeuszs conviction based on her close friends
27
indictment.
28
173
173
1 675. In October 2000 the San Francisco Weekly published an extensive

2 article about Marin court corruption involving Dufficy and Adams. sfweekly.com,
3 Originally published by SF Weekly October 18, 2000 2000 New Times, Inc. All
4 rights reserved. { http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2000-10-
5 18/feature.html/page1.html }
6 676. Dufficy had run for a judgeship twice but lost both elections.
7
However, he had played the political game well, most notably
by co-chairing George Deukmejian's successful 1982 and 1986
8
gubernatorial campaigns in Marin County. That service paid off
when the governor appointed Dufficy to the Municipal Court
9
bench in 1990. Dufficy finally attained his judge's robes by
accepting a political plum. Id., p.4
10 677. Chaos reined and scandal broke out about the Marin bench after
11 Dufficy became a judge. Such as, wild parties at Dufficys ranch where he ran
12 around in his black robe with nothing on underneath, and whipping cream and a
13 cherry on his bald pate. Heavy drinking was the order of the day. Only members of
14 a clique of attorneys were invited to the orgies. They, including Adams, called
15 themselves in a fitting Freudian slip of an acronymFLEAs (Family Law Elite
16 Attorneys).
17
678. Dufficys wife worked for Adams and other FLEAs which Dufficy
18
and the FLEAs never disclosed to opposing parties and their attorneys in cases
19
where the FLEA was the attorney for the other party.
20
21 679. Attorney Camera who was personal friends with Dufficy demanded
22 that Dufficy recuse himself in a case because Adams was representing the other
23 party. Dufficy got off the case while denying his relationship with Adams was
24 unethical.
25
Camera had won a minor victory for his client, but the attorney had
26 actually spoken for many other lawyers and litigants who had lost faith
in the judge. Things had gotten so bad, Camera says, that the facts of
27 the case didn't matter in Dufficy's courtroom -- it was all about the
attorney. "We called it the "Verna Factor,'" he says. "If Verna
28 Adams was representing the opposing side in Dufficy's court, you
might as well not show up." Emphasis added
174
174
1 And it was not just Adams, Camera says. It was a little group of five or
six attorneys who could do no wrong as far as Dufficy was concerned.
2 "It got to the point that we weren't practicing law anymore," says
Camera. "We were practicing politics." Id., p.2
3 680. Marin county residents were in an uproar. Mardeusz became involved
4 in spearheading a judicial reform group. To punish Mardeusz, Dufficy sought an
5 indictment against her for child kidnap because she sought an exparte order to
6 regain custody. Dufficy was the judge who signed the exparte order for Carol.
7
681. In 2000 or 2001 after Mardeusz was convicted, Barry filed a lawsuit
8
on behalf of Marin and Los Angeles County residents to force the JNE
9
Commission to make public the ratings of the judicial applicants citing Adams as
10
the prime example of how secrecy harms the public good because Adams had, even
11
at that point, caused so much harm to litigants appearing before her. Planet-Irish
12
v. Adams, Case no. BC 236013, Los Angeles Superior Court
13
14 682. Barry and the Marin residents believed that Dufficy was instrumental
15 in getting Adams on the bench. The case was dismissed, and the public lost out.
16 The bar continues its control and its secrecy over judicial appointments.
17
683. At para 12-13, Barry alleged:
18
Under Govt. C. Sec.12011.5, no member of the public can know
19 whether an individual, including a current sitting judge, even applied
for a position as a judge, whether that individual or sitting judge was
20 considered by the JNE Commission, or what the JNE Commission
ratings of the applicant were.....
21 Besides having only 4 public members out of 31 with the rest being
22
lawyers, the pool of raters is extremely limited and designed to insure
the cloning of judges, rather than infusing fresh blood into the ranks of
23
the judiciary with fresh perspectives, such as, for example, supporting
democratically-run, consensus-building courtrooms, eliminating
24
gender, racial, and class bias, demonstrating respect for every person
stepping foot into a courtroom, ensuring that the rights of the
25
handicapped are observed, not favoring corporations and the
government in proceedings, attempting, where possible, to divert the
26
mentally ill and those addicted to drugs to creative programs where
they will be cared for and rehabilitated, rather than being locked up in
27
jails and prisons, and attempting to make legal proceedings as speedy
and economical as possible rather than filled with delay and extremely
28
costly. Most of all, if the proceedings become public, the likelihood of
applicants who owe members of the judiciary such as occurred in
this case, with Adams, beholding to Dufficy, becomes less likely.
175
175
1 684. Not so surprising, a judge dismissed the case.

2 a. Since Mardeuszs Conviction Ten Years Ago, Marin
3
Residents Continue to Make the Same Complaints
against Adams and Dufficy with Adams Harming
4
Other Protective Mothers and Their Children as She
did Mardeusz and Her Daughter.
5 685. The Marin Bench continues to be mired in controversy. J. Adams
6 served as Presiding judge from January 2008 to January 2010 with Judge Dufficy
7 as her Assistant Presiding Judge.
8
686. Center for Judicial Excellence, headed up by Kathleen Russell, posted
9
on line the following about Adams.
10
https://www.facebook.com/centerforjudicialexcellence/posts/10153724063231508
11
12 VERNA ADAMS HALL OF SHAME: Ok Folks, big announcement.
While we hate to do anything to detract from celebrating the 4
13 deserved honorees who will be inducted into the Marin Women's Hall
of Fame this year, we simply cannot sit idly by as a woman who has
14 caused so much lasting pain and suffering for Marin County women
and children is being held out as some sort of role model for women
15 and girls.
16
If you or someone you love has been harmed by Judge Verna Adams
17 in any way in the past few decades, then please contact
info@centerforjudicialexcellence.org ASAP to be added to our "Verna
18 Adams Hall of Shame" list, where we will discuss an organized
community response to this serious misstep by the Marin Women's
19 Hall of Fame. If you want to participate in an anonymous fashion
out of fear of judicial retaliation, then mention that in your email,
20 and we will work to facilitate your involvement behind the scenes.
Emphasis added
21 687. According to the Capitol Weekly, June 26, 2008, as J. Adams was
22 serving as Presiding Judge, Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, was
23 circulating a letter asking the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) for an
24 audit of California's family court system and the way it handles child custody
25 disputes.
26 ....Assemblywoman Liebers letter cites eight counties where "large
numbers of problematic cases appear to arise." At the top of this
27 lists, are Sacramento and Marin, which is also the home of a group
pushing for the audit. emphasis added.
28
688. Rama Diop (Diop), a mother from Marin County who lost sole
176
176
1 custody of her son in J. Adams courtroom, testified before the Commission about
2 the "bias, corruption and blatant disregard for the law" in the Marin court. Diop is
3 poor, is black, and from Africa (Senegal). She married a wealthy white male,
4 Richard Meredith Owens (Owens) . They had a son and eventually divorced,
5 sadly enough in Marin, with her case assigned to Adams.
6 689. Barbara Kauffman, a brave, intrepid, brilliant attorney opposing J.
7 Adams corrupt rulings, represented Diop in numerous Petitions for Writ of
8 Mandamus in which Kauffman attempted without success several times to sit aside
9 J. Adams ruling striking Diops Statement of Disqualification against herself. In
10 the petition, Kauffman, on behalf of Diop, alleged
11
This case involves a protective mother of color, without funds to file
12 writs and appeals, fearful of losing her only son to a wealthy white
father with a history of domestic violence and troublesome sexual
13 issues, ...In this case, the father is a 64-year-old multi-millionaire, with
an admitted lengthy history of mental illness, who in recent years
14 reportedly has advertised himself as a male stripper and erotic model
(Ex. 1, pp. 289-306), and told Petitioner you are so black that I could
15 hit you and no one would even see the bruises (Ex. 1, p. 99, lines 23-
25). ...
16
690. In Diops writ petition, Kauffman predicted that
17
18 Judge Adams is about to dispense her special brand of justice,
violating Ramas federal and state due process rights in the process,
19 just as she did in [Yupas case, another mother of color and victim of
domestic violence who had married a wealthy white man and J. Adams
20 took custody from her.]
21 691. On one occasion, during oral argument Kauffman tried to point
22 out further evidence but Adams shut her up by threatening to have the bailiff
23 remove her from the courtroom.
24 692. In her writ petitions for Diop, Kauffman often referred to another writ
25 petition she had filed on behalf of YUPA ASSAWASUKSANT (Yupa).
26 According to Kauffmans petitions for Yupa, Yupa is a woman from Thailand
27 without funds who married a wealthy older white male just as Rama did and had a
28 son as Rama did. In Yupas petition, Kauffman described Adams unethical, if not
177
177
1 criminal, manipulations of the legal process and refusing to confirm she had
2 attended a cocktail party where the minors counsel and counsel representing the
3 father, James Heierle, were present.
4
Kauffman alleged that
5 [Adams] had even failed to read Yupas detailed custody motion, with
attached police reports, medical reports, school reports, restraining
6 orders, trial testimony, hearing transcripts, sample graphic
pornography to which the child had been exposed at his fathers
7 home, and much more....
8 693. Adams stripped Yupa of all custody and visitation rights without a
9 finding that she was a detriment to her own child.
10
694. Kauffman filed Petition for Review of the denial of the writ petition by
11
the First Appellate. Kauffman so aptly put it in Yupas Petition for Review:
12
13 .... The overwhelming odds are that the actions of the corrupt or
biased judge will never see the bright light of day.
14 695. In Yupas petition for Review, Kauffman alleged a prima facie case of
15 prejudice on the part of Adams against both Yupa and Rama on the basis of gender,
16 national origin, economic status, and status as a battered woman:
17
Each mother is a financially disadvantaged immigrant mother of color
18 [Yupa - Thai; Rama - African], in a very wealthy white county. They
each have one child, a son. The respective father of each boy is a much
19 older, wealthy, white Marin resident. Each father had demanded that
the mother abort the child. Each mother had refused to have an
20 abortion, and had been forced to leave Marin and the father, in order to
have the child. Each mother swore she had been brutally abused by the
21 father during and after the pregnancy. Each father has had multiple
emergency protective orders and/or restraining orders issued against
22 him. Each father was absent from his childs life for extended periods
following the birth of the child. Each mother had expressed grave
23 concern about the fathers prurient sexual behavior, and the effect of
that behavior on her child. Each father had admittedly shown
24 extraordinary lapses of judgment in caring for his child. Each father
had repeatedly violated court orders....Each mother had filed three
25 prior challenges against Judge Adams, based on Judge Adams
increasingly troubling and prejudicial actions in their cases. Judge
26 Adams herself had denied each mothers second and third
disqualification. Each mother had filed Petitions for Writ of Mandate
27 regarding Judge Adams illegal denial of the disqualification requests
made by the mother.... Each mothers sworn writ petition stated as
28 a basis for recusal Judge Adams repeated failure to follow the
law, to the mothers detriment; her repeated failure to require
178
178
1 Marin Family Court Services to follow the law, to the mothers

detriment; Judge Adams undisclosed out-of-court contact with
2 opposing lawyers or other bench members involved in the case;
apparent conflicts of interest; and unjudicial and inappropriate
3 behavior during court hearings. Each mother filed Petitions for
Review regarding the disqualification issues, when the Petition for
4 Writ of Mandate was summarily denied by the Court of Appeal.
emphasis added.
5 696. Kauffman got nowhere, either in the First Appellate or in the
6 California Supreme Court, in both Yupas and Ramas cases.
7
697. Then, as already established, because of these cases and others, the
8
Joint Legislative Audit Committee ordered an audit of Marin and Sacramento
9
Courts, as being the top two of the eight worst courts in the state based on the
10
complaints the legislators were getting from their constituents.
11
12 698. Marin Family Courts response to the audit?
13
Court officials destroyed documents.
14
15 GROUPS PROTEST DESTRUCTION OF FAMILY COURT
DOCUMENTS [http://rightsformothers.coml20IO/IOIl2/aoc-and-
16 marin-court-crimes-pf]
17
Civic Center demonstrators call for criminal investigation by Jason
Walsh
18 While the Marin Family Court awaits the results of a state-ordered
audit of its family law processes, local court watchdog groups
19 gathered outside the Marin County Civic Center today to protest the
court's destruction of child-custody files in autumn of 2009. The
20 shredding of the files-which contained such things as images of
children's injuries, illustrations drawn by children, witness statements,
21 police reports and more were allegedly ordered by court
administrator Kim Turner about three months after state
22 Legislators, including Marin Senator Marc Leno, called for an
audit of the Marin and Sacramento family courts. Court
23 detractors have for years accused the Marin Family Court of bias
and negligence. emphasis added.
24
699. According to this article, in July 2010 the presiding Judge, Terrence
25
Boren, called for the Administrative Office of the Court [AOC] to conduct an
26
investigation ...after a court transcript revealed that a family law mediator
27
had destroyed files on the order of her supervisors. emphasis added.
28
179
179
1 700. Of note is that while Dufficy and Adams were on the bench between
2 1999 to 2005, Marin Court Executive Officer John Montgomery was arrested on 10
3 felony counts of conflict of interest for funneling over $650,000 in court consulting
4 contracts to his live-in girlfriend. acquiring property with that girlfriend and
5 concealing the acquisitions, and taking out-ofstate trips without proper court
6 authorization.
7 701. J. Adams was openly defiant about the state audit:
8
Judge Verna Adams ...said that her court is already audited regularly
9 by the Judicial Council of California. Adams, who presided over
Diop's case, said she is confident an audit will find no major
10 problems. Capitol Weekly, June 6, 2008, emphasis added.
11 702. Adams also went on the attack against Marin residents and the CJE
12 pushing for the audit and made it clear she would not go down without a fight
13
"In Marin we have a long history of well-funded special interest
14 groups who are trying to exert political pressure on judges to rule in
favor of parents who belong to these groups," Adams said. ''This group
15 (CJE) has been trying for months to find a legislator to carry
legislation to change the family court structure in California. They're
16 trying to influence a small number of cases in Marin. I can assure you
that our judges are not going to succumb to this kind of pressure."
17 emphasis added.
18 703. Adams knew her conduct as a judge was at stake in the investigation
19 by the State Auditor, and was doing everything to subvert the auditors
20 investigation of one of the worst family courts in California.
21 704. The Bars secret vetting of candidates led to putting on the bench a
22 corrupt judge whose reign of terror continues to this day.
23
2. Towery and Persky - Santa Clara.
24
25 705. The JNE Commission rating of Towery as highly qualified or
26 exceptionally highly qualified also unleashed another corrupt judge on the public.
27
706. As a Santa Clara judge, Towery gave overnight visitation of a fifteen
28
month old breast- feeding baby to NFL San Francisco 49'ers player Ray McDonald
180
180
1 a violent man who beat up the mother of the baby when she was pregnant with the
2 baby. In August 2014 McDonald was arrested on felony domestic violence charges
3 which legally required that Towery place McDonald, at the very least, in limited
4 supervised visitation. Later, the San Jose D.A. as is usual for many D.A.s
5 throughout the state declined to file on the charges. However, the mother had
6 bruises and probably had obtained a restraining order under the Domestic Violence
7 Prevention Act (DVPA in family court. Also later in 2014, a woman in a
8 hospital alleged possible sexual assault by McDonald, and he was released by the
9 49'ers.
10 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/sports/ray-mcdonald-is-released-by-san-fran
11 cisco-49ers-amid-sexual-assault-investigation.html?_r=0
12 707. Towery nullified the DVPA when he ordered McDonald to have
13 unsupervised overnight visitation of a baby just as he nullified res judicata and
14 collateral estoppel for the benefit of the two Bar insiders, Girardi and Lack. The
15 mother has gone public. The case is receiving publicity including on the local
16 television news station reflecting very negatively on the court and Towery.
17
708. Another woman Towery is harming is Susan Bassi, another victim
18
caught up in the nightmare of family court in Santa Clara. She filed a complaint
19
against Attorney Nat Edward Hales, Jr. who violated rules of protocol and failed to
20
disclose financial conflict of interest including a secret payment from the ex
21
husband. Hales also charged interest on unpaid invoices. All the Bar did was issue
22
a letter in lieu of discipline, ordered him to stop charging interest on unpaid bills,
23
and to take the Ethics Bar School once more favoring a Bar Insider.
24
25 709. Towery refused to refer Hales to the Bar. Without discovery, what
26 role, if any, Towery played in Hales extremely light sentence is unknown. The
27 Bar did not order Hales to pay restitution to Bassi, although he charged her
28 exorbitant fees. J. Towery declared Bassi a VL in retaliation for her activism
181
181
1 against the Court.

2 710. The notorious Stanford rapists case is typical for Persky. He always
3 favors the violent male criminal over the female victim. Perskys judicial
4 discretion clearly bends toward misogyny and in favor of a patriarchal
5 interpretation of the law.
6
In Perskys courtroom, a Cisco engineer pleaded no contest to severely
7 beating his fiancee and received weekend jail time to ensure he would
not incur absences from work. A plumber convicted of possessing
8 highly disturbing images of child pornography depicting young and
infant girls was invited to return to court to have his sentence reduced
9 to a misdemeanor. A man who pleaded no contest to beating and
choking a former girlfriends had his sentencing delayed for several
10 months to allow him to play football at the University of Hawaii. In
August, news broke of the arrest of the same, now former, UH football
11 player on separate charges of domestic violence in Washington state.
Ms. Magazine, Judge on Trial, Winter 2016 edition, p.8.
12
711. The CJP backed Persky up with an intellectually dishonest analysis of
13
Perskys persistent anti-woman bias and support of violent men, and refused to
14
discipline Persky. The CJP is using our taxpayer dollars to pay Kerr/Wagstaffe, a
15
white male dominated law firm to fight the State Auditor investigation of the CJPs
16
omissions failure to discipline judges.
17
18 712. An example of how extreme anti-woman judicial discretion can
19 become is the case of People v. Mark Edward Mesiti. Mesiti is alleged to have
20 drugged, raped, tortured, and murdered his own daughter, Alycia, a beautiful
21 teenager, after multiple Santa Clara County judges, including, Persky and Vincent
22 Chiarello (in attendance at the Christmas luncheon) gave custody to Mesiti, despite
23 his extensive violent criminal record, while denying the mother legal fees and
24 ability to protect her own child. Mesiti had also sexually abused two other girls,
25 one age 8 and the other while she was 16 and 17, according to prosecutors.
26
Mesiti, records show, had committed several federal and state crimes,
27 including bank fraud and drunk driving. He had also been charged
with domestic violence and ordered to attend anger-management
28 classes, according to the San Jose Mercury News. ... Mesiti
committed most of the sexual assaults against his daughter while she
182
182
1 was drugged, sometimes with anesthesia, according to criminal

complaint documents obtained by the Modesto Bee.
2 ....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114526/Death-penalty-so
ught-man-accused-raping-killing-14-year-old-daughter.html
3
4
713. The judges rigged the case against the mom:
5 Roberta Allen, a former assembly worker now working for a

restaurant, was deemed unfit by the court. She had made a frank
6 admission to feeling depressed after what she described as years of
persecution by her childrens father. Before Chiarellos decision,
7 records show, Allen told the court she had fled multiple states to get
away from Mesiti and even to Canada, where she and the children
8 stayed in battered womens shelters.
9
But while Mesitis court filings were formal, typed responses from his
10 private attorney, Allens pleading letters to judges were handwritten.
She reluctantly agreed to sign off on the custody order in large part,
11 she says, because she could not afford to raise the children without the
child-support payments Mesiti had been ordered to make and was not
12 paying.
13
http://www.mercurynews.com/2009/05/13/may-2009-tragic-santa-clar
14 a-county-custody-case-dad-suspected-in-girls-death/ emphasis added
15 714. Persky and other judges exercised their judicial discretion by
16 punishing the victim because she suffered from PTSD as a result of Misitis
17 ongoing domestic violence, child abuse, and failure to pay Allen child support.
18 Misiti spent the child support money on an attorney for himself.
19 715. Having rigged judicial discretion so as to harm the mother, the
20 judges handed custody over to the violent, abusive criminal. The child paid for that
21 judicial discretion with her life. The legislature must do away with judicial
22 immunity in cases such as this case where there is no question that the judges were
23 the proximate cause of the childs rape, torture, and murder by a father the judges
24 knew was dangerous and psychopathic and the mother needed a helping hand to
25 protect her daughter.
26
716. At a Santa Clara County Bar Association Family Law Section holiday
27
luncheon held in San Jose on December 2, 2016 and caught on tape, Towery and
28
Persky and other Santa Clara judges Mary Ann Grilli, Rise Jones Pichon,, Mark
183
183
1 Pierce, Vincent Chiarello, Michael Clark and Erica Yew, court clerks, and select
2 attorneys made fun of in pro pers and celebrated the obscene money Towery and
3 other judges award the select family law attorneys in attendance at the party. Using
4 a personal email, Towery invited only certain attorneys and employees of the court.
5 The conduct of the Santa Clara County judges and lawyers
6
attending the holiday luncheon appears to intentionally mock the
victims of domestic violence and rape contained in family law
7
cases is unconscionable. Many claimed the songs appeared to
indicate lawyers gloating over the excessive fees and costs these
8
victims face as reality in Santa Clara County Courts. Media Sting
on Family Court Holiday Lunch: Judges and Lawyers Make Songs
9
and Flyers to Mock Litigants- General Counsel Lisa Herrick Threatens
Jane & John Q Public, 12/4/2016,
10
http://www.janeandjohnqpublic.com/blog/media-crashes-santa-clara-c
ounty-court-holiday-party-threatens-poor-parents-watchdogs.
11 3. J. David Cunningham - LASC
12
717. J. Cunningham finished a trial in the child sex abuse/custody case
13
IRMO Lesserson and McRoberts, LASC, just as Barry was starting a 60 day
14
suspension in August 2011. SEGALIT MCROBERTS (McRoberts) the former
15
wife of STEVEN LESSERSON, (Lesserson) a rabbi, contacted Barry asking for
16
assistance. J. Cunningham had ordered McRoberts to turn over custody of her four
17
children to Lesserson. Barry filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and the Court
18
placed a temporary stay on the custody order while the petition was litigated in the
19
court of appeal for ten months.
20
21 718. The two eldest, two daughters, R.L. age 11 years and four months, and
22 R (2).L., age 9 years and 8 months, had since 2006 repeatedly told numerous health
23 care providers, including the custody evaluator, Stan Katz, Ph.D., (Katz) had
24 molested them by inserting his fingers into their rectums and vaginal areas, rubbing
25 the areas, and rubbing their breast areas. The younger daughter ended up with
26 genital warts lesions, actually all over the areas she reported where Lesserson
27 was touching and fondling her.
28
719. The plan of the two men, Katz and Lesserson, was to institutionalize
184
184
1 the older daughter because of all her severe and significant psychiatric problems,
2 the biggest one being that she will not back down from her disclosures that her
3 father molested her. Katz is a self promoter of the worst sort, finding child sexual
4 abuse when he knows he can make a lot of money as he did when he was involved
5 in a lawsuit suing a black man, Michael Jackson, for child abuse and denying child
6 sexual abuse when he knows he can make money and also protect a rabbi.
7 720. Katz was able to extort $25,000 of the couples money and yet he
8 failed, not just once, but twice, to file a custody evaluation with the Court.
9 McRoberts attorney did not inform her of her rights. Katz got away with this
10 ourageous behavior.
11
721. Katzs misconduct was a reverse Inquisition. He advocated for the
12
religious rights of the Rabbi father who is a member of a cult-like, fundamentalist
13
group called Aish Hatorah while challenging McRoberts right to convert to
14
Christianity although she still views herself as a jew.
15
16 722. Katz relied on the old fallback, the odious Parental Alienation
17 Syndrome (PAS) invented by Richard Gardner to explain away childrens reports
18 of child sexual abuse, that Mommy had gotten the children to make up the sex
19 abuse allegations against their father. Katz knew that Gardners PAS which he
20 used against McRoberts at an April 1, 2009, hearing and then in December 2010
21 through January 2011, is not recognized by American Psychiatric Association and
22 American Psychological Association. It is not found in any of the Diagnostic
23 Statistic Manuals. PAS was also a cover for his own religious discrimination
24 against McRoberts and her new found religion.
25
723. Katzs religious discrimination and vicious use of the misogynistic
26
PAS against McRoberts were the sole reasons for her losing custody.
27
28 724. Joel Seidel, Lessersons attorney who was also an orthodox Jewish
185
185
1 man, also turned the courtroom at a hearing in February 2010 into a religious
2 inquisition with a good dose of misogyny thrown in for good measure:
3 Mrs. Lesserson, are you a Jew? Yes. Do you practice Judaism?
4
No. But youre a Jew? Yes, I was born a Jew. I am a Jew. So
youre not a Christian. Do you go to church? Yes. And you take
5
the kids to church? Yes. Last I heard, this is America, where were
free to believe what we want.
6 [J. Meisinger]: Counsel, what is your point?
7 Your honor, I am pointing out that Petitioner is an impulsive,
emotionally unstable person and it is confusing the children who
8 were raised orthodox. Emphasis added.
9
725. Judge Meisinger dissolved the restraining order and said he did not
10
believe the mother or that sexual molestation had occurred. Id., 3:18-24
11
12 726. McRoberts produced a plethora of evidence to prove the molestations.
13 She photographed R(2)s thighs on October 12, 2008, upon her childs return from
14 an overnight visit at her fathers home. The photo shows bright red marks on both
15 sides. This was the second time that McRoberts saw marks on her daughters body
16 after returning home from a visit with her fathers.
17 727. On June 3, 2008, R(2) disclosed to Dr. Harriman, her therapist to help
18 her get through the divorce, that her dad tickles her in her private parts and they
19 get red and sore.
20
728. On June 3, 2010, R(2) was diagnosed with genital warts in both her
21
rectal and vaginal areas which diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Elisha Hicks at
22
UCLA Hospital on June 9, 2010.
23
24 729. The photos of R(2)s buttocks area show that R(2) was badly infected,
25 and the warts are almost like abscesses. They caused the little girl a lot of pain and
26 the acid which is the treatment increased the pain. She now is a carrier of human
27 papilloma virus for the rest of her life and if she has sexual partners, she will have
28 to disclose she has a STD. It will affect her labor when she gives birth. Any
186
186
1 future children of hers going through her birth canal could easily contract the virus.
2 McRoberts demanded that Judge Cunningham view the photos to drive home to
3 him the seriousness and gravity of the offense the father had committed against his
4 own daughter. He and the fathers attorney, Joel Siedell, laughed over viewing the
5 childs buttocks.
6 730. Despite genital warts being glaring physical evidence of sexual
7 contact, Judge Cunningham ruled that the children must be turned over to their
8 father on August 1, 2011 with sole legal and physical custody now switched to the
9 father who never had it. The children were about to be taken from the only
10 caretaker they have had for their entire lives. Barry obtained a temporary stay
11 which lasted ten months while the writ petition was litigated. On June 19, 2012,
12 inexplicably the Court of Appeal denied the petition. In the opinion the Court did
13 indicate that the trial judge should reconsider its prior ruling since McRoberts had
14 had sole custody of the children for an additional ten months.
15
731. On remand, J. Cunningham became unspeakably hostile, overbearing,
16
and repeatedly engaged in misconduct. He did grant an evidentiary hearing on the
17
issue of custody in August 2010. There were many supporters for McRoberts and
18
her children in the courtroom, which angered J. Cunningham even more. The
19
hearing went badly. J. Cunningham permitted Katz who had not seen the children
20
in two years to render opinions for which he had no factual foundation. His
21
testimony was vicious, preposterous, unethical, anti-child, and anti-McRoberts.
22
23 732. J. Cunningham refused to follow the advice of the Court of Appeal to
24 reconsider his prior order giving sole custody to Lesserson. Instead, he was so
25 vengeful, he and Katz made it worse for McRoberts and her children, cutting them
26 off from one another for something like six months. McRoberts and Barry
27 continued with litigation.
28
733. In late August 2012 McRoberts, her husband, and the four children
187
187
1 left the jurisdiction. They have not been seen since. J. Cunningham and Katz had
2 made McRoberts and her childrens lives intolerable.
3 734. J. Cunningham went out of his way to humiliate Barry. Judge
4 Cunningham falsely claimed in front of a full courtroom on November 14, 2012,
5 when she appeared in the McRoberts case, that Barry was committing a
6 misdemeanor, practicing law without a license. He also made a false statement
7 about what her Bar profile showed on the State Bar website at the time he claimed
8 to have looked at it. He would not let her speak in her own defense. He was having
9 too much fun humiliating her.
10
735. Farraj had the misfortune of being assigned to J. Cunninghams
11
courtroom. In April 2013, Barry filed Motion to Strike Reports of Bruce Harshman
12
serving as a therapist proving that Harshman and Steven Shaps, anger
13
management therapist Harshman ordered Farraj to see had exchanged racist emails
14
about Farraj because he is Palestinian Arab (and a muslim) which was the sole
15
basis for keeping Farraj in unsupervised visitation. Lauzon used the Harshman
16
reports as the sole reason for Salas to take the children to India where
17
discrimination against Muslims is endemic and widespread.
18
19 736. J. Cunningham sanctioned Ayman Farraj $123,000.00 because, in part,
20 Barry brought to J. Cunninghams attention that reports of Harshman were racist
21 (to the core) resulting in Farraj, an innocent father, and his children being denied
22 access to one another solely because Farraj is Arab Palestinian so are his kids --
23 and he is a muslim. Judge Cunningham called the motion to strike the reports
24 frivolous because Lauzon demanded that he do so. The finding was reversed in the
25 court of appeal, cold comfort since Justice Purless affirmed most of the sanctions
26 against Farraj.
27
737. Ironically (and hypocritically, given his conduct in the McRoberts and
28
Farraj cases) , on November 23, 2013, J. Cunningham claimed racial
188
188
1 discrimination/profiling and excessive force after being stopped by UCLA police

2 officers because he did not have a seat belt on while driving. He then got out of the
3 car after the officers ordered him to remain in the car, became angry, he was
4 handcuffed, and placed in a squad car. He claims tight handcuffs and a scratch on
5 the arm as excessive force, and emotional distress for the entire incident.
6 738. Court observers at the McRoberts hearing provided declarations in
7 support of Farrajs second Statement of Disqualification of J. Cunningham filed in
8 December 2013.
9
739. Here is what Malinda Sherwin, a court observer, at the August 27,
10
2012, hearing in the McRoberts case has to say about Judge Cunningham.
11
His behavior before these officers is the same behavior he exhibits
12 in his courtroom, poor judgment, arrogance, entitlement and the
belief that he is above the law. emphasis added.
13
740. Idelle Clark who was also an observer /supporter at Seras hearing in
14
Judge Cunninghams courtroom on August 27, 2012 at 1:30 PM. Ms. Clark states
15
in part in her declaration for the disqualification statement:
16
17 Judge Cunningham made angry references to the mother and her
counsel [Patricia Barry] who he literally taunted during the
18 proceedings.
19
741. Judge Cunningham will demand justice when he is the victim of
20
racism, but will deny justice to other victims of racism when as the judge he is in a
21
position to dispense it.
22 4. J. Fujie - LASC
23
742. J. Fujies unfitness to be on the bench is demonstrated by the 35 or so
24
complaints and negative ratings against her on the Robing Room website. There is
25
not even one positive comment. (The cliched worn-out defense of judges,
26
disgruntled litigants is just that: cliched and worn out.) Fujies refusal to accept
27
Hansons complaint against La Flamme when serving as Bar President in 2009 was
28
followed by Towerys refusal to accept Micheles complaint against Bonnie Miller
189
189
1 when he served as Bar Counsel in 2010. Protecting unethical and dangerous

2 minors counsel when they were bar officials is consistent with their conduct on the
3 family law bench. Here are some of the comments about J. Fujie from the website:
4 The quality of judges has deteriorated so greatly since our new Chief
5
Justice Tani CantilSakauye took over in 2011 that we should stop
using the word "justice" in connection with the courts . The courts
6
now turn lose [sic] predators like Fujie on the unsuspecting public.
Her antichild bias is evident from her attempts to deprive children of
7
legal representation by making it too expensive for attorneys to
represent minors. ....
8
9 She is a negative grade [redacted by Editor]. I beg ALL of you to write
the commission even if after she destroyed you or your children's
10 lives, and STOP this madness and help others. Can anyone repost on
here if they actually got anything corrected in Judicial Commission
11 complaint and how long it took? I know complaining to Chief Judge
Gordon is pointless as he sends a letter he cannot change anything and
12 send to Judicial Commission. Obviously this is not a person who
should be a Judge, but also it seems no one really cares as they simply
13 like to protect their own it appears.....
14
15 this is the one of the worst, they got her right, mean and stupid. she
should take the money she stole from our wonderful state bar, (who by
16 the way let her go forward to be this judge after her impropriety) and
retire to another country. get her the heck out of our system.
17 5. Judge Karesh - San Mateo.
18 743. In this complaint, Parts D, E, F, we showed how J. Karesh acted
19 without jurisdiction making Barry and Michele VLs, thus engaging in criminal
20 obstruction of justice. He owed Fox because Fox was instrumental in getting him
21 on the bench. See para 359. He, like J. Cunningham, invokes anti-discrimination
22 laws for himself, having intentionally come out and announced his homosexuality.
23 As a judge he not only violated the rights of Barry, Esther, and Michele he allowed
24 a conservator and her law firm to rob and plunder Esthers estate. Civil rights for
25 himself but not for those coming before him as a judge. Amazing - these two
26 judges, J. Cunningham and J. Karesh.
27
//
28
190
190
1 K. The Bar Failed to Prosecute Robert Singer Court Referee for

Unlawful Practice of Law (UPL), A clear Violation of Anti-
2 Trust Law, of the State Bar Act, and of the First Amendment
Rights of Members.
3 744. Receiver Kevin Singer regularly practices law without a license
4 (UPL) throughout California, Nevada, and Arizona. In Cunningham v. Singer,
5 Case No. 14-CV-09104-GW-JC, Central District of California, Arch Cunningham
6 sued former Bar President Holden for failure to prosecute Singer for UPL. Barry
7 signed on also. The Court granted Holdens motion to dismiss under Sec.1983.
8 However, Holden and the Bar cannot violate the Sherman Anti Trust Act nor the
9 State Bar Act nor the First Amendment rights of members, like Cunningham and
10 Barry.
11
745. An internet article on Singer at
12
http://statebarnews.blogspot.com/State Bar of California News, entitled
13
Whistleblower Records Show Statewide Unauthorized Practice of Law by Court
14
Appointed Receiver Continues Without Consequences indicates that Singer has
15
been practicing law without a license for years:
16
17 Whistleblower leaked court records indicate that court appointed
receiver Kevin Singer routinely practices law without a license...
18
"Preparation of stipulations and releases constitutes the practice of
19 law," according to Ellen R. Peck, a former State Bar Court judge and
co-author of The Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Professional
20 Responsibility. In a San Francisco Superior Court case, Singer drafted
and filed an "ex parte application and application for orders" to
21 confirm a prior stipulation and order, which he also drafted and filed.
22 746. Cunningham and Barry demanded that the Bar investigate and
23 prosecute Singer. Holden filed a Motion to Dismiss in which he made disingenuous
24 arguments, played technical games, and obtained a dismissal without prosecuting
25 Singer. The Bars brief in the lawsuit proves why the Bar needs to be disbanded
26 it has no desire to protect the public from scoundrels like Singer.
27 747. Bar/Holden admitted that the Bar has full authority to file a lawsuit
28 against a person like Singer to enjoin him from engaging in UPL. Bar/Holden
191
191
1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss,

2 Cunningham, supra, Doc#14-1, pp.4-5 filed Jan. 9, 2015:
3 No one can practice law in California without being an active member
4
of the State Bar, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 6125. Anyone who is in
inactive status, resigned, disbarred or is not a member of the State Bar
5
and holds himself out as a practicing attorney, has committed the
crime of the unauthorized practice of law and is guilty of a
6
misdemeanor. Cal. Rules Ct., rule 9.20, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
6126(a). Business and Professions Code section 6030 authorizes the
7
State Bar to bring a civil action in the superior court to enjoin any
violations of the provisions prohibiting the unauthorized practice of
8
law under section 6125 et seq. Under this section, either the court on
its own motion or the State Bar may make an application to assume
9
jurisdiction over an unlawful practice of law in cases involving
individuals who hold themselves out as entitled to practice law, but are
10
not members of the Bar. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 6126.3.
In addition to criminal penalties, the prosecutors can award relief to
11 victims of UPL in an enforcement action. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.
6126.5. Section 6126.7 was enacted in 2013, and prohibits non-
12 attorneys from using the words notario, notario public, or like
terms on any advertisement, stationery, letterhead, business card, or
13 other comparable written material. The State Bar is also additionally
authorized to bring civil actions seeking up to one thousand dollars
14 ($1,000) per day for each violation. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
6127(c)(1).
15
748. Rather than stipulate that they would do precisely that, sue Singer in
16
court to enjoin him from engaging in any more UPLs and seek restitution for
17
Singers victims, Bar/Holden argued that the victims of Singer who had been
18
robbed of millions of dollars collectively, including Cunningham, had no standing
19
to make the bar do anything! Id., 7-8.
20
21 749. Holdens reasoning was devoid of reasoning. Singer is regularly
22 committing the crime of UPL. With the Bar doing its job, Cunningham whose case
23 was still ongoing would not only have obtained immediate relief as would the
24 members of the class, but the Bar could have sought restitution for Singers
25 victims.
26
750. Holdens defense in the Cunningham lawsuit is a violation of the State
27
Bar Act. It also violates anti trust laws in that it harms interstate competition
28
because Singer practices in several states. All the market participants in those
192
192
1 states are forced to go to law school, to pass the bar, to pay dues to a Bar, to abide
2 by the States Bar Act and ethical rules, to meet the requirements of continuing
3 education, and to submit to discipline of the respective State Bar. Singer, whom
4 Holden and the Bar are protecting, on the other hand has made millions while
5 committing repeated UPLs and is outside all the above requirements. This is
6 unfair competition.
7 751. Not prosecuting Singer is also a violation of the First Amendment
8 rights of Barry and Cunningham and other attorneys who oppose the Bars practice
9 of not prosecuting Singer because it is inherently repugnant and has endangered the
10 public.
11
L. The Blanket Refusal of the Bar to Investigate and Prosecute
12 Minors Counsel Is a Violation of Anti Trust Laws and a Clear and
Present Danger to the Public.
13
1. Harold LaFlamme, Orange Superior Court
14
15 752. Barry tried to serve a voluminous complaint with 85 exhibits on Fujie
16 and the Supreme Court against LaFlamme in 2009. Fujie and the Court returned
17 the complaint to Barry.
18
753. The allegations of misconduct in the Hanson bar complaint against
19
LaFlamme included the following:
20
21
754. LaFlamme is an attorney who is unqualified to serve as minors
22
counsel. From what Barry has been able to glean without discovery, he is an Israeli
23
gun dealer, has no undergraduate degree, has a law degree from an unaccredited
24
law school, and until around 2014, never filed a declaration in each case in which
25
he served as minors counsel indicating he has fulfilled the continuing education
26
requirements to serve as minors counsel.
27 755. On information and belief, LaFlamme does not meet the requirements
28 of California Rule of Court, Rule 5.242 Qualifications, Rights, and
193
193
1 Responsibilities of Counsel Appointed to Represent a Child in Family Law

2 Proceedings, which went into effect January 1, 2009. The Rule requires training in
3 Recognizing, evaluating and understanding evidence of child abuse
4
and neglect, family violence and substance abuse, cultural and ethnic
diversity, and gender-specific issues;
5
(D) The effects of domestic violence and child abuse and neglect on
6 children;.... emphasis added.
7 756. After the Bar refused to take action on Hansons complaint against
8 him, LaFlamme knew he was immunizd to Bar discipline. As already alleged,
9 LaFlamme went out of his way to write Barry when he learned that the Bar had
10 placed her in inactive status in November 2016 that he was happy that she was
11 disbarred. This is the kind of market participant the Bar repeatedly supports.
12
757. Besides the Hanson case, LaFlamme did not file declarations re:
13
education in the Dillon and Fearn cases. Only after the attorneys for Ms. Fearn
14
complained did he file one, for the first time, in 2015, six years after Barry first
15
complained about him not filing them.
16
17 758. In the Hanson case, the judge, Francisco Firmat, appointed Dr.
18 Oldroyd, a child psychiatrist, to serve as therapist for Kristin Hansons daughter,
19 R.M. and report to him whether Morgan was molesting her. When La Flamme
20 realized that Dr. Oldroyd would not play his game of hiding the molestation, he
21 kept her from testifying that R.M. was disclosing to her that her father who is an
22 attorney JEREMIAH MORGAN (Morgan) was molesting her. LaFlamme
23 asserted a privilege on behalf of R.M. to protect R.M.s alleged abuser. [only in the
24 mind of someone like LaFlamme could this make any sense, protecting the child
25 molester and harming his client.] Dr. Oldroyd had a duty to report to the judge that
26 R.M. was disclosing sexual abuse by Morgan per Evid.C. Sec.1027.
27 759. Evid C.Sec.1027 states:
28
There is no privilege under this article if all of the following
194
194
1 circumstances exist:
2
(a) The patient is a child under the age of 16.
3 (b) The psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the

patient has been the victim of a crime and that disclosure of the
4 communication is in the best interest of the child.
5 760. LaFlamme refused to provide the Court with the numerous mandated
6 reports about R.M. in accordance with the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act
7 at Pen.C. Sec.11166(a)(1) which requires certain professionals to make reports to
8 Social Services based on a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused.
9
761. The reports were made to Orange County Social Services (Child
10
Protective Services) (CPS), either about suspected sexual abuse or willful
11
physical injury, including Oldroyd (three reports on sexual abuse); Dr. Reardon, a
12
psychiatrist (one, on sexual abuse); Dr. Del Mundo, R.M.s pediatrician; a nurse at
13
Dr. Del Mundos office; Dr. Shapiro, an emergency room physician; his nurse,
14
Susan Pietro-Carol (or, her report was subsumed on willful injury as part of Dr.
15
Shapiros report); and Mike Handfield, a Garden Grove police officer. CPS
16
provided the reports to Morgan but refused to provide them to Hanson.
17
18 762. LaFlamme joined in with Morgan to allege falsely that R.M. suffered
19 from Williams Syndrome, and was so retarded that she was easily influenced by
20 her mother to say Morgan molested her when he had not. Neither Dr. Reardon nor
21 Dr. Oldroyd both highly qualified psychiatrists subscribed to this theory. They
22 both found her credible. R.M. does not have Williams Syndrome. Even if she
23 does have it, children with Williams Syndrome often go on to college and live
24 productive lives without a conservator as adults.
25 763. LaFlamme suppressed the most important evidence in this case, and
26 then made false representations on the record to cover up his crime. The evidence
27 is the letter/report of Oldroyd, court-appointed child psychiatrist, which Oldroyd
28 had written LaFlamme on January 2, 2003. At his deposition, Bussey a custody
195
195
1 evaluator produced a copy of the letter to Rombro, Hansons attorney, who read the
2 letter into the record.
3 Rachel has reported that she had to touch her fathers private parts,
4
that he has threatened to kill her mother and that he hit her in the eye
when he was angry. This has been reported to me [Oldroyd] and has
5
been consistent..... emphasis added.
764. LaFlamme denied on the record on June 4, 2003 that Oldroyd had
6
reported that R.M. had disclosed that Morgan was sexually molesting her.
7
8 765. LaFlamme failed to provide Oldroyds letter to J. Firmat who
9 accepted everything LaFlamme said without further inquiry or documentation, and
10 always looked to him for validation of his rulings against R.M. and Hanson. On
11 January 2, 2003, J. Firmat entered an order finding that based in part, on the
12 report of Oldroyd, there was no sexual abuse, and Hanson falsified the charges.
13 Oldroyds January 2, 2003, letter to LaFlamme states the opposite.
14
766. The above constitutes criminal misconduct on the part of LaFlamme
15
because he was covering up Morgans crime of child sexual abuse. R.M. continues
16
in Morgans custody. Barry had filed a civil rights complaint in federal court on
17
behalf of R.M. and Kristin Hanson in November 2014. The case was dismissed
18
because Barry sought an extension of time of two days to file an amended
19
complaint.
20
21 767. Barry had been forced to go to Bar trial in August 2014, although
22 she was ill, before J. Armendariz and had been in trial for two days when she
23 sought the continuance. Barry filed an appeal of the dismissal. It is now in
24 the Ninth Circuit. Joyce knew about this case because Hanson provided her a
25 change.org petition in which there were over 1500 signatures asking the Bar
26 not to suspend or disbar Barry.
27 768. Orange Court took its revenge against Chavira because Barry was
28 representing her. The County or Court falsely claimed Chavira owed attorney fees
196
196
1 to the Court for LaFlammes representation but not the batterer father, Antonio
2 Ramirez, in violation of Welfar & Insti C.which makes both parents liable for
3 attorney fees of a minors counsel. Chavira was the sole support of the two
4 children, Ramirez was not paying child support, and she could not afford to pay the
5 fees. Chavira had planned to pay Barry some of the tax return. Deposition fees are
6 still not paid in Chaviras federal lawsuit. Nonetheless, the Court or County
7 intercepted her federal income tax return and plans to keep going after her until the
8 fees are paid although she is a single mother retaliation and a violation of
9 Chaviras due process rights.
10 2. Bonnie Miller, San Mateo:
11
769. As already alleged, in September 2010, Michele filed a bar complaint
12
against Miller, and the Bar rejected it. In 2012 Barry filed for an injunction
13
against Kim in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Michele and the two children to
14
force her to accept Micheles complaint for investigation and prosecution. Kim,
15
without a doubt on the advice of Fox, refused to stipulate to do her job and
16
investigate the complaint.
17
18 770. The Bar counsel who responded in writing to Michele said the Bar
19 does not handle criminal complaints against attorneys. The Bar attorney misled
20 Michele. While the Bar may not process criminal complaints against attorneys, the
21 Bar is required to enforce Rule 5.200(B) which prohibits an attorney from
22 misleading a judge with a false representation, which Miller engaged in. She
23 knowingly suborned the perjury of La Farge, to change custody back to J. Fotinos.
24 She also engaged in other serious misconduct as alleged in this complaint.
25
3. Judith Lawrence, Contra Costa
26
27 771. In 2011 Shelly Allison (Allison) tried to file a Bar complaint against
28 Minors counsel Judith Lawrence who covered up the sexual abuse of her client, the
197
197
1 older of two daughters of Allison, and supported Bruce Adair, (Adair) the father
2 who sexually molested Lawrences client. Lawrence failed to obtain all the
3 records of all the professionals who concluded that Adair had abused his daughter
4 and provide them to the Court. She refused to call any witnesses at the custody
5 trial. She failed to argue that Adair should not have custody because he was still on
6 probation for conviction of child cruelty to his eldest daughter from a prior
7 relationship. The professionals who concluded that the child was sexually abused
8 are as follows:
9 * Jessica Reid Tsukahara, Allisons therapist, in Nov. or Dec. 2010.
10
Tsukahara made a mandated report to CPS. Based on disclosures of
11
A.A., the child, Tsukahara concluded Adair had molested A.A.
12
13 * Debbie McCann, Childrens Interview Center, Martinez, Dec.15, 2010
14
. McCann informed Shelley that Allison did say a lot and was very
15
brave. When A.A. would not go back into the room for an additional
16
interview, McCann said it was not necessary to conduct more
17
interviewing, that she had sufficient information which Allison took to
18
mean that A.A. had disclosed sexual abuse. Lawrence failed to obtain
19
the tape of the interview and have MCCann testify at trial. To this day,
20
Allison has not been able to obtain a copy of the interview of A.A.
21
22 * Dr. Johnson, A.A.s pediatrician.
23 On or about January 25, 2011. He provided a letter and testified at
24 trial as to A.A.s disclosures of sexual abuse. It was Allison who had
25 him testify, not Lawrence. Lawrence minimized his testimony and
26 defended the alleged child molester, Adair.
27
* Dr. Connell, ER doctor at Sutter Health Hospital and E.R. nurse
28
198
198
1 (unnamed), on or about February 7, 2011. Dr. Connell put in her

2 report, I strongly advised the mother to not let the children be under
3 his care at all. She tried to contact Shabazz by telephone to report her
4 findings and he was unavailable. Allison was present when Connell
5 placed the call to Shabazz. Connell noted in her report she tried to
6 reach him. At trial Shabazz testified he never spoke with Dr. Connell.
7 Dr. Connells Physical findings: small mucosal tear and erythema
8 (redness) in the vagina . Yet, Lawrence did not subpoena Connell to
9 trial in July/August 2011. Allison presented her medical record, and
10 Lawrence minimized it and continued to defend Adair.
11
* SART Nurse Kathryn Stidwell, on or about Feb 8 and Feb. 11,, 2011.
12
13 The records of Stidwells SART interview on February 8, 2011,
14 confirmed that A.A. disclosed sexual abuse by Adair. In the second
15 exam Stidwell found redness in the vaginal region consistent with
16 Adair digitally penetrating her. Lawrence refused to obtain her records
17 and have her testify at trial. Allison was in pro per and did not know
18 how to subpoena her and asked for a continuance. J. Cram called her a
19 liar and denied the request. Lawrence stood by, grinning. It was her
20 job, per Fam.C. Sec.3151 to obtain all records concerning the child
21 and present them to the Court and to subpoena relevant witnesses.
22
* James Carpenter, M.D., Contra Costa County Health Services, on or
23
about February 14, 2011:
24
25 The child denied inappropriate sexual touching, but spontaneously
26 stated to Dr. Carpenter that her butt hurt but could not tell the doctor
27 why. He concluded that the bruises on both buttocks of the child are
28 ...most consistent with inflicted injury. The child did not give him an
199
199
1 explanation as to where these bruises came from, but Dr. Carpenter

2 stated in part:
3 ....it is unlikely to sustain the bruises like this on the fleshier part of
4
the buttocks accidentally. The most likely thing that happened was
these were inflicted injuries and the rectangular configuration on
5
the right buttock brings up the possibility of an object used in
striking this child..... I would say in view of the uncertainty of what
6
has happened in this child that if visitation continues with the father, it
should be supervised to ensure that the child is not at risk for
7
subsequent physical injury or sexual contact.. ...emphasis added.
Allison was in pro per and did not know how to subpoena him and
8
asked for a continuance. J. Cram called her a liar and denied the
9
request. Lawrence stood by, grinning. It was her job, per Fam.C.
10
Sec.3151 to obtain all records concerning the child and present them
11
to the Court and to subpoena relevant witnesses.
12
13 * Katelyn Brooks, CPS Marin County, February 16, 2011,
14
Brooks interviewed A.A. at her home outside the presence of any
15
family member, including Allison. A.A. confirmed once more that her
16
father is touching her peepee. Lawrence failed to subpoena her report
17
and Brooks for the custody trial.
18
19 * Detective Xavier Shabazz.
20 Initially he lied and told Allison that A.A. had not disclosed sexual
21 abuse to McCann. He did not know that McCann had told Allison that
22 A.A. had provided sufficient information which Allison believed
23 meant that A.A. had disclosed sexual abuse. Shabazz lied, because he
24 threatened Allison saying the D.A. was thinking of prosecuting her for
25 making false allegations of sexual abuse against Adair. Allison called
26 his bluff and told him to try it, that she was ready because the
27 allegations were not false. In court he testified that A.A. disclosed
28 Adairs sexual abuse. He and Lawrence minimized A.A.s disclosure
200
200
1 and supported Adair.

2 772. Besides molesting his two younger daughters and physically injuring
3 his oldest daughter, resulting in a criminal conviction,
4
* Adair did not pay child support when Allison had custody and Allison
5
had to go on welfare for a time until she could find employment. In
6
violation of the law, Contra Costa Child Support Enforcement
7
(CSE) did not take his drivers license and passport. The taxpayers
8
picked up the tab and supported the two children when Adair had the
9
ability to support them.
10
11 * When Allison was forced to pay him child support, Adair committed
12 perjury in San Francisco Superior Court, telling the judge Allison was
13 not paying him support when CSE was garnishing around $1,100 a
14 month from Allisons salary. Based on his perjury, the judge ordered a
15 reduced amount of child support for his oldest daughter. The mother
16 of the child receives partial welfare benefits. Adair has arrearages. In
17 violation of the law, CSE in San Francisco did not take Adairs
18 drivers license and passport. The government continues to provide
19 partial support for his oldest daughter while Adair vacations in Bali,
20 buys new equipment for his company, and lives in a large home.
21
* Because CSE is not enforcing the law against this parent, rather than
22
pay his child support arrearages, Adair took a vacation in Bali with his
23
current girl friend probably spending we believe around $10,000.00.
24
25 * Adair has had a tree trimming business for years. He has no
26 contractors license. He does not pay employee taxes. We believe he
27 has been committing fraud on his income tax returns for years because
28 he is often paid in cash. He paid $68,000 to Merritt Weisinger,
201
201
1 Attorney, who called Barry and Allison names like nut, crazy,
2 liar in the custody hearing to regain custody of her children. He is
3 living in the family home and recently bought an expensive piece of
4 equipment for his business. Weisinger wanted Allison to pay increased
5 child support to pay for the equipment. Allison lives at the poverty
6 level and CSE is taking half of her salary leaving her $600 net to live
7 on to pay this man child support. When Allison was unemployed
8 and her unemployment benefits ran out, Contra Costa CSE took her
9 passport. Neither Contra Costa nor San Francisco CSEs took Adairs
10 passport when he failed to support Allisons children and continues to
11 be behind in paying even the reduced amount of support for his oldest
12 daughter he obtained through his perjury. The federal and state
13 governments are subsidizing and enriching a man who should be in
14 jail for child abuse and for nonpayment of child support, of employee
15 taxes, of income taxes and for not having a contractors license.
16 773. This is the man Lawrence also paid by taxpayer dollars vouched
17 for repeatedly while she was supposed to be representing two little girls who had
18 no voice. She should have been prosecuted by the Bar and suspended or disbarred.
19
774. Besides LaFlamme, Miller, Lawrence, and Acevedo, there are
20
numerous minors counsel throughout California who abandon their clients and
21
repeatedly support the batterer or pedophile father. To name just a few other
22
minors counsel who have engaged in this practice, they are Steven Dragna (Kirsten
23
Cook case); Molly Nealson (Jennifer Hebert case); Dwanna Willis (Yolanda Cuesta
24
case); Lucila Chairez (Chan Park case). To have excluded this group of market
25
participants from investigation and discipline is not only a violation of the State
26
Bar Act and the anti trust laws. The Bars exclusion of these attorneys from
27
investigation and prosecution has caused and continues to cause ongoing danger to
28
the children of California and extreme emotional harm to them and their mothers.
202
202
1 M. The Bar Fought Against Progressive Legislation to Protect

Mothers Alleging Abuse of Their Children in Court and Even
2 Lied about the Purpose of the Bill, SB 612.
3
775. The Bar has an ideological agenda which is misogynistic and violates
4
the rights of mothers alleging abuse of their children. According to the website,
5
http://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/familylawchildrenandrelatedmatters, AB 612
6
sponsored by Assemblyperson Beall
7 ....would have provided that the rules of evidence applicable in

criminal proceedings shall apply whenever the court considers an
8 allegation of physical or sexual abuse against a child in a custody
proceeding, and would have required that allegations of physical or
9 sexual abuse against a child be investigated using specified methods
of data collection and analysis. In addition, this bill would have
10 provided that unproven, nonscientific theories (including, but not
limited to, parental alienation theories) are not consistent with
11 generally accepted clinical, forensic, scientific, diagnostic, or medical
standards. This bill would have prohibited a court from relying upon
12 an unproven, unscientific theory and from accepting into evidence any
finding provided by an expert witness or court-appointed professional
13 who has relied on an unproven, nonscientific theory that is a basis for
that finding.
14
776. Sounds reasonable. Its Status: Dead, Sen. Jud. thanks to the Bar
15
and other reactionary forces who still want to use the unscientific and repugnant
16
Parental Alienation Syndrome an unrecognized mental disorder attributable
17
only to women alleging abuse of their children by the father, especially sexual
18
abuse. PAS is a salute to incest invented by Richard Gardner and has caused
19
untold harm to children. Gardner has argued that adult/child sexual contact has
20
been going on for centuries, so what is the big deal? The big deal is that trauma
21
resulting from childhood sexual abuse has been going on for centuries resulting in
22
many maladjusted adults.
23
24 777. Alanna Krause was one of the victims of PAS although her father did
25 not sexually abuse her. His brand of abuse was emotional and physical. To
26 explain away Alannas repeated reports of abuse and requests to live with her
27 mother, the Marin Commissioner (Shapiro-Pritchard), Krause, Clark, Acevedo,
28 unethical psychologists, and the institution Krause imprisoned Alanna in, used PAS
203
203
1 to deprive Alanna of living with her mother, nothing else.

2 778. According to all these individuals, Alanna alleged her father was
3 abusing her not because he was abusing her, but because Mom coached Alanna to
4 make the allegations. Because Alannas mother suffered from PAS. Because she
5 is crazy. But not Gardner the misogynist who made up PAS out of whole cloth
6 because he thinks all mothers lie about incest and pedophilia.
7
779. Those involved in the multi-billion dollar international sex trade
8
breathed a collective sigh of relief that Gardner had their back so that moms could
9
not derail the steady supply of victims to the sex trade.
10
11 780. Leslie Packer, the unethical custody evaluator Michele and her
12 children had foisted on them in San Mateo, used PAS in another case against the
13 mother Karen Anderson who alleged that her daughter was being sexually abused
14 by the father. The daughter was forced to live with the sex molesting father
15 because of Packers unethical application of PAS. When the daughter turned 18
16 she went to the police and described the history of sexual abuse her father
17 subjected her to. He was convicted and sentenced to many years in prison.
18
781. To kill the bill the Bar joined forces with CA Alliance for Children
19
and Families and to hide their misogynistic agenda they lied to defeat the bill. As
20
the summary above shows, the bill sought only to insure evidentiary protections to
21
parents in family court guaranteed to defendants in criminal proceedings and only
22
the admission of proven scientific theories, while excluding only those theories
23
based on junk science.
24
25 782. The newsletter August 10, 2009 of California Alliance for Families
26 and Children states in part: it is found at
27 http://www.cafcusa.org/news/2009/08/update-california-parental-alienation.html
28 We want to apologize for this late update on AB 612, the California
bill that was carried by Assemblyman Beall that would have
204
204
1 prevented a court from considering evidence that a parent had

deliberately engaged in tactics and behavior that intentionally
2 estranges a Childs bond with their other parent. Emphasis added
3
783. A straight up lie.
4 784. The newsletter goes on to thank The Family Law Executive

5 Committee of the California State Bar (FLEXCOM) and The California
6 Psychologist Association (CPA) for their help in defeating the Bill.
7
785. This is a blatant denial of the First Amendment right of market
8
participants like Barry, Barbara Kaufman, Robin Yeamans, Kim Robinson, and
9
many other attorneys resisting misogynistic unproven theories against mothers in
10
courts. Attorneys who are against sex discrimination and use of false scientific
11
theories in the courtroom should not have to pay dues to an organization which
12
actively worked to defeat a common sense bill to protect all parents from losing
13
custody based on unproven, unscientific theories and which would have
14
guaranteed the due process rights applied to criminal defendants to parents in
15
family court.
16
17 O. An Unnamed Unknown Bar Employee Continues to Defame
Barry on Barrys Bar Profile.
18
786. The Bar employee who wrote the summary of the Elwood discipline
19
omitted sections of the stipulation which would have provided a balanced account
20
of what occurred in the Elwood matter. For example, the profile states:
21
22
Granting a request by the other side for attorneys fees after Barrys
petitions were denied, one court called her actions groundless and
23
vexatious and said the case was unreasonable, frivolous, meritless.
787. On a prior occasion, that same judge had ruled the opposite when it
24
withdrew its OSC re: sanctions against Barry, and it must be included in the
25
profile since it is part of the stipulation:
26
27 47. ....The Court discharged the OSC and did not order sanctions
against Respondent. [Barry] The Court stated, in part: "...the Court
28 declines to impose sanctions on Ms. Barry because the Court is
"mindful of the potential chilling effect on civil rights plaintiffs who
205
205
1 argue in good faith for the modification or extension of rights and

remedies under section 1983." Id ....
2 788. After the discharge of the OSC Barry did not amend to include
3 additional causes of action or additional defendants. The Court later contradicted
4 itself and found most of the causes of action were frivolous after discharging its
5 OSC and declining ...to impose sanctions....
6
789. This also should be added to the profile:
7
8 49. On November 8, 2002, Respondent filed an appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal challenging the orders of dismissal. On April
9 24, 2003, the Judicial Officers and the DOJ filed a motion for
summary affirmance. On May 9, 2003, Drescher filed a motion for
10 summary affirmance. On July 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit denied the
motions for summary affirmance (disposition) because "...the
11 arguments raised in appellants opening brief are not so
insubstantial as not to require further argument." Emphasis added
12
13 50. On January 2, 2004, the Court of Appeal affirmed the USDCs
order of dismissal [without a finding that any of the causes of action
14 were frivolous.]
15 790. The author also lied and misleads the reader:
16 Barry also filed a case against opposing counsel, a court
17
commissioner and three Los Angeles superior court judges, charging
among other things violation of her clients due process and equal
18
protection rights. The court ultimately said the claims were
groundless and without foundation. Emphasis added
19 791. That is decidedly not what the Ninth Circuit ultimately said in
20 Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) with respect to the fee awards to
21 the five jurists:
22 While not raised by the parties, we must sua sponte consider whether
the district court lacked jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees to the
23 state defendants. Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 293 n. 9 (9th Cir.
1995). [fn 2 omitted,] Where a claim is dismissed for lack of subject
24 matter jurisdiction, the defendant is not a prevailing party within the
meaning of 1988, and the district court accordingly lacks
25 jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees. Id. at 292-93; see also Miles v.
California, 320 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2003) (extending Branson to
26 deny Rule 54(d) costs when dismissal is based on lack of
jurisdiction)....
27
A dismissal based on Younger abstention signifies that the court
28 declined to exercise jurisdiction; it makes no comment on the merits
of the case, and does not "materially alter the legal relationship
206
206
1 between the parties." Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111, 113 S.Ct.
566, 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992). Therefore, neither Commissioner
2 Zakon nor Judge Farrell prevailed within the meaning of 1988, and
they are not entitled to attorneys' fees.
3 792. In addition, Barry overturned the fee award to Drescher which the
4 profile does not acknowledge. We conclude that the award of attorneys' fees to
5 Drescher must be vacated. Id., at 948. Barry persuaded the Court to overturn a 24
6 or 25 year precedent permitting attorney-defendants in Sec.1983 suits to obtain
7 attorney fees. This precedent helps civil rights plaintiffs and their attorneys.
8
793. Because of the lopsidedness of the Profile, opportunistic opposing
9
counsel use the Elwood discipline in cases in which Barry represents victims of
10
domestic violence trying to regain custody of their abused children, including
11
Drescher, LaFlamme, Morgan, Steven Dragna another minors counsel sued in
12
federal court, thus causing untold harm to Barry and to Barrys clients because of
13
the impact the false and misleading profile has on the judges. This has caused
14
undue emotional distress to Barry and her clients for which Barry seeks damages.
15
16 P. Repeated Misappropriation of Member Dues.
17
794. In the May 2016 State Audit of the Bar, the Auditor found many
18
troublesome accounting problems, lack of financial transparency,
19
misappropriation of dues, and bloated salaries. California State Auditor Report
20
Number: 2015047
21
22 State law requires the State Bar to provide its stakeholders with
various reports detailing its financial situation. However, in recent
23 years, the State Bars financial reports have contained errors and
lacked transparency, and these weaknesses have limited stakeholders
24 ability to understand the State Bars operations and the Legislatures
ability to ensure the appropriateness of the State Bars fees. P.1
25 795. The Bar also hid the fact in its budget report that it was short of
26 funds to pay clients who suffered losses due to dishonest attorneys.
27
it slowed its claims processing from about 18 months to about 36
28 months, potentially harming victims who needed these resources. It
has recently taken some steps toward a solution, such as transferring
207
207
1 $2 million from other funds to the Client Security Fund.

2
796. The Auditor found
that in the absence of oversight, the State Bar has made some
3 questionable or inappropriate financial decisions. For example, in
2013 the State Bar created a nonprofit foundation to purportedly
4 collect money from donors and to administer activities benefitting
two of its programs. Although state law allows the State Bar to create
5 nonprofit organizations for the purpose of generating revenue for its
operations, about $22,000 of the $33,000 in expenses the State Bar
6 recorded in the foundations fund from 2013 through 2015 were for
purposes unrelated to the two programs the foundation was
7 established to support. In fact, the State Bar incurred nearly $4,800 of
these expenses for a dinner and hotel stay it charged to the foundation
8 that took place two months before the foundation was even created.
Moreover, in December 2015, without the knowledge or approval of
9 its board of trustees, the State Bar transferred from its general fund
almost $14,800 to eliminate a deficit in the foundations fund.
10 Lacking proper oversight, the State Bar could create a similar
nonprofit in the future and use it for questionable purposes. P.2
11 emphasis added
12 797. The auditor found that the executives were the highest paid of state
13 executives, including the governor.
14
` In fact, the salary ranges for the State Bars 13 top executives exceed
15 the salary of the governor
16 ` 798.` The auditor s findings are only the tip of the iceberg.
17
799. Dunn was probably appointed to the Executive Director position
18
based on cronyism. That Dunn has become such a huge liability to the members
19
demonstrates why applicants should compete for Bar positions.
20 800. Dunn has misappropriated the members dues by 1) spending dues on

21 a meal in the amount of $5,600.00 at a restaurant owned by his attorney, Mark
22 Geragos, a wealthy market participant, to the detriment of all the other market
23 participants who were forced to subsidize the payment to Geragos. It could also
24 be embezzlement since it was money Dunn possibly paid to Geragos as attorney
25 fees, thus using the money for personal expenses. 2) Dunn caused cost overruns
26 insisting on creating a castle fortress on Figueroa st in Los Angeles for the Bars
27 headquarters. Dunns Folly, his idea of regal grandeur, was excessive and
28 unnecessary. 3) Because Dunn was probably hired just because he knew people,
208
208
1 he ended up losing his job allegedly for improprieties because cronies are not
2 accountable to anyone and so he engaged in misconduct.
3 801. The Bar decided to hire outside counsel on a no bid contract to defend
4 Dunns lawsuit, costing the members untold expenditures for attorney fees. The
5 Bar paid an exorbitant and excessive fee of $300,000 to Mungers, Tolles to
6 investigate Dunn when a judge offered to do the investigation pro bono. Munger,
7 Tolles and Krinsky the Bar trustee who recommended the firm, are sued to recover
8 the excessive fees charged by the firm .
9
802. Dunn then pointed the finger at Kim who has been forced to resign,
10
claiming she committed the crime of destruction of official bar complaints in
11
violation of Govt.C.Sec.6200. Hiring Dunn and Kim shows that the Bars hiring
12
procedures and vetting of applicants for executive positions are grossly negligent
13
and based on cronyism and the spoils system.
14
15 803. The Bar used members dues to pay an annual stipend of $30,000.00
16 to bar presidents which does not advance discipline or improve legal services in
17 California. It only fattens the bank account of the president. Most of them are
18 white males from corporate law firms and are already wealthy. Per capita annual
19 income in past 12 months (in 2015 dollars), in Los Angeles County was $28,337.
20 If Fox has been paid the stipend we seek reimbursement plus interest.
21
804. Fox paid a stipend to Alfred Giannini to train bar prosecutors using
22
member dues in violation of Barrys First Amendment rights. Barry does not want
23
her dues paid to a prosecutor who engaged in racial discrimination and other
24
prosecutorial misconduct. Further, Fox is guilty of favoritism and hired a friend
25
and an individual he supervised which is also an ethical violation. Finally, Fox
26
himself is guilty of failure to supervise and discipline Giannini and should never
27
have been permitted to hire Giannini for this reason as well. On behalf of the
28
members Barry seeks reimbursement of Gianninis stipend from Fox plus interest.
209
209
1 805. Barry also seeks reimbursement to the members for the money spent
2 on investigating a bar complaint against Fox. It was only a whitewash and a
3 coverup of the long history of his misconduct as a San Mateo District Attorney.
4 Fox also attacked the Northern California Innocence Project report because it
5 reflected badly on Giannini and on him indirectly because he failed to supervise
6 and discipline Giannini. Having a personal stake in attacking the report is further
7 proof of the Bars gross negligence in hiring Fox in the first place. As a result,
8 Foxs personal ax to grind infected and tainted how the Bar viewed the report and
9 thus harmed the public.
10 806. Barry seeks reimbursement to the members of dues spent on
11 processing and investigating complaints against Barry filed by violent men and
12 unethical attorneys all of whom were adversaries of Barry. Malice is expensive.
13 Investigating and then harassing the target member for these men Morin, J.
14 Fotinos, Drescher, Lauzon, and Zide is a waste of the members money. The Bar
15 knew that the conduct of Barry these men complained about were protected by the
16 First Amendment free speech Clause or were inherently frivolous.
17
807. Barry also seeks reimbursement to the members for the Bar seeking
18
discipline against Barry because she filed a report before its due date but had put a
19
2" in place of 3" for the year. Barry won on the issue but not until Farfan, her
20
supervisor, Joyce, J. Armendariz, and J. Purcell wasted their time on the issue.
21
Joyce even spent bar dues on making copies for trial of all the emails generated on
22
the issue between Barry and Farfan. Barry also seeks damages for interfering with
23
her law practice on this petty, insignificant issue.
24
25 V.
26 DECLARATORY RELIEF
27 808. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that all the defendants contend
28 they have the right and power to do the things of which Plaintiffs complain in this
210
210
1 complaint. Plaintiffs contend that all the acts of defendants of which they
2 complain violate their rights, at common law, statutory, and/or under the U. S.
3 Constitution and/or California Constitution.
4 809. A controversy has arisen and exists between the parties for which
5 judicial determination and declaration of their respective rights, obligations, duties
6 and requirements, as alleged herein must be made.
7
VI
8
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9
810. Plaintiffs continue to suffer irreparable harm and unless the Court
10
enters an injunction against the defendants as prayed for, the harm will continue.
11
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13
Applies to Barry, Michele, Rachel and to
Bar, Tady, Joyce, Saucedo, Fox, Wagstaffe, J. Foiles, J. Fotinos, Kimball,
14
Dunn, Krinsky, Munger, Tolles, & Olson, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15
15 U.S.C. Secs 1 & 2
16 811. Plaintiffs incorporate into this First Cause of Action paras 1 - 815 as
17 if fully incorporated herein.
18
A. The Failure of the Supreme Court to Supervise the Bar.
19 812. The purpose of the Sherman anti-trust Act is to insure that there is no
20 restraint of trade, to maintain competition in business and commerce, and to
21 prohibit monopolies. It was also enacted because the trusts and monopolies which
22 had sprung up at the time (and expanded so that today corporate power is greater
23 than it has ever been, with corporations claiming they hold religious beliefs of the
24 kind that deprive women and LGBT members their civil rights) ...fanned into
25 renewed flame a traditional U.S. fear and hatred of unchecked power, whether
26 political or economic, and particularly of monopolies that ended or threatened
27 equal opportunity for all businesses. Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Legal-
28 dictionary. thefreedictionary.com
211
211
1 813. The Bar engages in interstate commerce in that it has prosecuted

2 attorneys based on their ethical violations committed in other states. The Bar
3 refuses to prosecute Robert Singer who practices law without a license which also
4 affects interstate commerce and competition in several states because he has
5 offices in Nevada and Arizona in addition to California.
6 814. The Bar has become an unrestrained monopoly with no supervision or
7 accountability. There is no question that its mission protection of the public from
8 dishonest and unethical attorneys is a legitimate mission. There is no question
9 that it exists as a Government corporation exercising a state monopoly over
10 attorney discipline.
11
815. However, the Bar has morphed into an out-of-control Tammany Hall
12
protecting Bar Insiders no matter how unethical or dishonest they are, and
13
prosecuting ethical and honest attorneys. The Bar routinely enters into agreements
14
with attorneys like Miller, Kinney, Kimball, Montalvo, Drescher, Zide, and
15
Lauzon and judges like J. Anello and J. Foiles to harass and/or prosecute those
16
attorneys opposing counsel to eliminate the opposing counsel from competition.
17
The Bar routinely supports misconduct which the State has declared to be illegal,
18
including racism, sexism, pedophilia, and other child abuse.
19
20 816. The California Supreme Court is supposed to control both admissions
21 and attorney discipline (including suspension and disbarment).Saleeby v. State Bar
22 (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 557-58 The Courts control over these issues is supposed to
23 be absolute. (Ibid.)The State Bar of California is supposed to act as the Courts
24 administrative arm for purposes of admission, discipline, and regulation of
25 attorneys. [Citations]. The State Bar Court does not actually impose any
26 discipline. [Citations.] Its recommendations are subject to review by this Court,
27 which makes the actual and final disciplinary decision. (Id. at pp. 443-45.) Bars
28 Opening Brief, Barry v. State Bar of California, Case No.S214058, pp.4-5.
212
212
1 817. The Court has repeatedly failed to intervene and stop the illegal
2 practices of the Bar, including anti-competitive practices. The Bars illegal
3 practices have repeatedly resulted in harm to the public. There is no government
4 agency supervising the attorneys running the bar including those who are not
5 employees like Girardi, Falk, and Brosnahan to name a few.
6 B. General Anti Competition Activities Including Investigating and
7
Prosecuting Attorneys on Behalf of Other Attorneys, Thus Using
Member Dues to Reduce Competition.
8 818. The Bars officials and employees have repeatedly endangered the
9 public by engaging in an anti-competitive practice of favoring certain market
10 participants.
11
819. The Bar harms competition among market participants and has caused
12
grave harm to the public by excluding the class of minors counsel from
13
investigation and discipline, excusing them from having to follow the rules of
14
professional responsibility and obeying the State Bar Act while forcing other
15
market participants not all to submit to discipline and to obey rules of ethics
16
and the State Bar Act.
17
18 820. By specifically refusing to discipline Miller, LaFlamme, Lawrence,
19 and Acevedo the Bar caused severe harm to the children these attorneys were
20 representing. Other minors counsel who have caused harm to mothers and
21 children are Steven Dragna (Kirsten Cook case); Molly Nealson (Jennifer Hebert
22 case); Dwanna Willis (Yolanda Cuesta case); Lucila Chairez (Chan Park case).
23
821. The Bar engages in anti competition by favoring unethical attorneys
24
to the detriment of ethical members including LaFlamme, Lawrence, Miller, and
25
Acevedo, Girardi, Lack, Sternberg (nominal discipline), Krause, Henning
26
(nominal discipline), Drescher, Lauzon, Zide, Keck (eventually disbarred but only
27
years later after his misconduct) who are all a danger to the public. The Bar
28
prosecutes attorneys like Fine, Kay, Barry, Martin, Lustman, and others who are
213
213
1 ethical, and who further the public interest, not endanger it.
2 822. By allowing Singer to practice law without a license the Bar is
3 engaging in a prohibited anti competition practice, is ratifying Singers repeated
4 violation of the UPL statute and is thus acting against the public interest, resulting
5 in harm to attorneys and to the public in California, Nevada, and Arizona.
6
823. The Bar refuses to apply the statutory law regarding judgments such
7
as Code of Civ Proced Secs 1904 (definition of judicial record); 1908 (effect of a
8
judgment); 1908.5 (conclusive judgment can be alleged in pleading or as
9
evidence); 1911 (only what appears in judgment deemed to have been adjudged);
10
1916 (impeaching a record); 1917 (need jurisdiction over cause, parties, and the
11
thing); doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and real case law to
12
benefit Bar Insiders like Girardi, Lack, Krause, Acevedo, Henning, and Drescher
13
and to harm Bar Outsiders like Martin, Kay, Barry, Fine, and others.
14
15 824. The Bar has harmed the public, in particular parents and children, by
16 maintaining the secrecy of the JNE Commission, controlling the appointments of
17 those who rate attorneys, and recommending attorneys not because they are
18 exceptionally well qualified but because they are Bar Insiders, for example,
19 Towery, Fujie, Dufficy, Adams, Persky, Karesh, Cunningham. These seven
20 attorneys went on as judges to cause grave harm to mothers, sometimes fathers,
21 and children.
22
JUDGE POLITICAL CONNECTIONS
23
JAMES TOWERY White male, corporate attorney - Hoge,
24 Fenton, Appel, (e.g., defends
employers against workers.); Bar
25 president; Bar Counsel
26 HOLLY FUJIE Asian female, corporate attorney -
Buchalter/ Nemer, (e.g., defends
27 employers against workers.); Bar
president
28
214
214
1 MICHAEL DUFFICY White male, comes from extremely

wealthy family, practiced many years
2 in Marin and active in Marin bar
associations, worked two years as a
3 Marin prosecutor; bought his
appointment to the bench by making
4 large donations to Deukmejian
campaign after he tried twice to be
5 elected to the bench and failed.
6 VERNA ADAMS White female, close friend of Dufficy,
notorious reputation as corrupt family
7 law attorney in Marin who always won
her cases before her good friend
8 Dufficy in part because she hired
Dufficys wife to work in her law
9 office which neither Dufficy nor
Adams disclosed to opposing attorney
10 and her client. On information and
belief, Adams was appointed to the
11 bench due to Dufficys influence with
the Commission.
12
JONATHAN KARESH White male, son of a superior court
13 judge, corporate attorney (brief
period), prosecutor (most of his
14 career). Fox, then San Mateo District
Attorney and Kareshs boss, made sure
15 to get himself appointed to a local
committee recommending attorneys for
16 appointment to the bench. Thus, it was
Fox who put Karesh on the bench.
17 DAVID CUNNINGHAM Black male. Came from a wealthy,
18
politically connected family. His father
had served as a Los Angeles City
19
Councilperson. Only appointee with
civil rights background as attorney
20
which he promptly forgot when he
took the bench.
21 AARON PERSKY White male. Could not get elected to
the bench. Prosecutor and also worked
22 as corporate attorney, Morrison &
Foerster, (Craig who prosecuted Barry
23 also a M&F partner. So, Persky called
in his M&F connections to the Bar and
24 the Bar put him on the bench where he
continues to inflict harm on female and
25 child victims of sexual and domestic
violence.
26
825. Two of the seven, or twenty-nine percent were Bar officials. Fifty-
27
six percent of these political appointees had worked as corporate attorneys; fifty-
28
six percent had been prosecutors; and fifty-six percent were white males. Eighty-
215
215
1 six percent had no legal experience in plaintiffs civil rights cases (Assumedly
2 J. Cunningham filed civil rights lawsuits as U.S. Attorney in U.S. DOJ civil
3 rights division). All seven of them have badly mistreated victims of domestic
4 violence and their abused children. J. Cunningham also refused to remedy the
5 virulent race/national origin discrimination Farraj experienced resulting in limited
6 supervised visitation for him and his children.
7 826. This sample proves that the JNE Commission favors a certain kind of
8 attorney for the bench, 56% of the time a white male corporate attorney or
9 prosecutor. This particular group appears to be the most dangerous to victims of
10 domestic violence and their abused children. The Commission is unconstitutional
11 because it is not serving the public but only Bar Insiders.
12
827. By choosing to prosecute Fine, Kay, Martin, and Barry, the Bar chose
13
to champion the interests of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges receiving
14
illegal payments from the County thus robbing the public fisc and endangering the
15
public in the Fine case; the interests of a judge and Ralphs corporate attorneys in
16
the Kay case, the interests of the corrupt white attorney Michael Keck in the
17
Martin case, and the interests of a corrupt judge, J. Adams, of violent men,
18
Magers, Morin, and J. Fotinos, of an illegally appointed public member on the
19
Board of Governors, Chick, and of two unethical attorneys Drescher and Montalvo
20
in Barrys case.
21
22 828. The Bar also illegally worked with the San Mateo cabal to disbar
23 Barry and prosecute Michele. To carry out this conspiracy, the Bar/Fox agreed not
24 to prosecute San Mateo attorneys, including Montalvo, Miller, Karlsten and her
25 law firm, Aaron Reichert, Wagstaffe, and McKowan, despite all of them engaging
26 in gross acts of unethical misconduct against Michele, her children, and Micheles
27 mother with the exclusion of McKowan who harmed children other than Rachel
28 and Austin in child sex abuse cases she was supposed to prosecute.
216
216
1 829. When Saucedo forced Barry to defend two frivolous complaints filed
2 by the violent felon, J. Fotinos, the first one based on the flier which resulted in
3 getting J. Fotinos arrested and his arsenal of weapons and fire power confiscated,
4 and the second, the illegal, void, and unconstitutional order of J. Karesh and J.
5 Freeman making Michele and Barry VLs the Bar caused severe harm to Barry,
6 Michele, Austin, Rachel, and Esther, Micheles mother. The Bar also endangers
7 the public because J. Fotinos is a violent felon who had hidden a huge number of
8 guns and ammo in his wifes storage locker and involved his children in hiding
9 them. J. Fotinos remains a threat to the safety of residents in the Bay Area given
10 his history of instability, his access to guns, and the support the Bar and the San
11 Mateo judiciary, District Attorney, and Sheriffs (both Munks and Bolanos) give to
12 him signaling to him he can continue to commit crime. For the Bar to spend
13 money on Saucedos and other Bar employees salaries to support J. Fotinos
14 creates a danger to the public and violates California public policy.
15 830. The Bar committed additional anti trust violations spending dues on
16 investigating the complaints of unethical attorneys Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon, all
17 white males, and who all pose a danger to the public, to taxpayers, to consumers
18 preyed on by a parasitic corporation, and to Arab muslims.
19
831. The Bar has engaged in a pattern of racism in the following ways:
20
21 A. 21 of 27 bar presidents in the last 27 years have all been white
22 males, many of them in corporate law firms.
23
B. Four of the seven Trial Counsel were white males including
24
Scott Drexel and Towery and the two men who preceded Judy
25
Johnson. Judy Johnson is either a black female or white.
26
Nisperos is assumedly a Latino male. Barry contends he was
27
put there by a wealthy white male bar Insider, Girardi and did
28
his bidding. Barry contends that Kim, an Asian female, was
217
217
1 heavily influenced by Fox, a white male. Fox survived the

2 purge (the uproar over Dunn termination) but Kim, the Asian
3 female, is gone.
4 C. The Board of Trustees is 81% white at this time since the right
5 of attorneys to vote for members has been significantly
6 reduced. Attorneys support diversity more than the Court, the
7 governor, and legislators do.
8
D. The Bar has been paying attorney fees in a no-bid contract to
9
Kerr/Wagstaffe law firm for many years, thus subsidizing an all
10
white, male-dominated law firm. The Kerr/Wagstaffe firm is
11
also thwarting the public will by filing a lawsuit to bar the State
12
Auditor from reviewing complaints against judges, another
13
reason why members should not be forced to pay fees to the
14
firm.
15
16 E. The Bar hired, and the Court appointed, Fox to positions giving
17 him control over Bar discipline. He supported two prosecutors,
18 Wagstaffe and Giannini who engaged in racial discrimination
19 against potential black jurors, and as a result, the jury verdicts
20 were reversed. Wagstaffe may have also discriminated against
21 a black criminal defendant by engaging in adverse pretrial
22 publicity while under Foxs supervision. Wagstaffe received a
23 private reproval for this misconduct. Giannini is considered by
24 the former director of Northern California Innocence Project as
25 the poster boy for prosecutorial misconduct. Fox rewarded
26 Giannini by using member dues to train Bar prosecutors.
27 Further, Fox is protecting San Mateo attorneys Kinney,
28 Miller, Montalvo, Wagstaffe, McKowan, Karlsten, and
218
218
1 Aaron Reichert from Bar prosecution and discipline.

2 F. Danielle Lee, an attorney for the Bar has twice defended the
3 right of the Bar in court filings to use the racial epithet,
4 Nigger against Martin, a black attorney, claiming that since
5 the racial epithet was uttered during a disciplinary proceeding
6 (It was not, but even if it were, Lees position is racist), the Bar
7 is protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
8 Besides, Lee argued, the racist epithet has long been tolerated
9 in our society. Furthermore, Lee argued, Martin must pay
10 attorney fees to the Bar for suing the Bar for calling him the
11 N word, although the epithet is historically associated with
12 violence and torture against, and murder of, black people
13 including a child, Emmett Till.
14
G. The Bar and J. Armendariz disbarred Martin, the black attorney
15
who was trying to help Perez, the Latina client, rather than the
16
white attorney Michael Keck who had been stealing from Perez
17
and other clients.
18
19 H. The Bar through Saucedo engaged in anti-Muslim prejudice by
20 1) harassing Barry and making her defend a false complaint
21 filed by Lauzon, a white attorney, who alleged that Barrys
22 motion to strike reports of Harshman, a racist therapist, who
23 openly discriminated against Farraj, an Arab Palestinian
24 Muslim parent, was frivolous.
25
2) protecting and refusing to discipline Lauzon who harassed
26
and made a death threat against Farraj because he was an Arab
27
Palestinian Muslim.
28
219
219
1 832. The Bar has also taken the side of two violent attorneys, Henning
2 who had engaged in violence twice, the second time beating up a rabbi and his
3 friend, and Krause who engaged in child abuse. Remke suspended Henning on his
4 second conviction only 60 days, claimed he had not engaged in crimes of moral
5 turpitude, and did not order restitution to his victim. Krause was not disciplined at
6 all.
7 833. Tady engaged in anti competition by forcing Barry to take Ethics
8 School and 4 live units of ethics when no other disciplined attorney had to do both
9 based on a review of 60 cases before Barrys discipline and after it. Tady further
10 sabotaged Barry by not informing her that the class he taught, the trust account
11 class, could count for three live ethics units. Tady stated to Bar employees that
12 Barry has a history of filing frivolous complaints or lawsuits demonstrating his ill
13 will and malice towards Barry. Tady committed these malicious acts in order to
14 disbar Barry, thus ridding the market of a competitor on behalf of unethical
15 attorneys like Drescher, Lauzon, Zide, and corporate law firms like Morrison &
16 Foerster and other law firms which defend employers. Tady accomplished his
17 goal. J. Purcell claims Barry should be disbarred because she was late in
18 completing 4 live units of ethics.
19
834. Joyce violated anti-competition rules by selecting Barry to prosecute
20
on behalf of Montalvo, the attorney who had caused Barrys client so much harm,
21
rather than selecting Montalvo to prosecute on behalf of Michele and her children.
22
Joyce also used Barrys inability to pay sanctions because her clients are not able
23
to pay much in the way of attorney fees to disbar her for failure to pay sanctions.
24
25 835. Joyce forced all members to subsidize Barrys prosecution solely for
26 the benefit of just one market participant, Montalvo who caused harm to Michele
27 and her children, even engaging in fraud against Michele. Joyce sought six months
28 of suspension in order to reduce competition against malpracticing and dishonest
220
220
1 attorneys like Montalvo. Joyce endangered both Michele and the public.
2 836. Fox, J. Foiles and Wagstaffe made J. Fotinos a member of their
3 conspiracy to disbar Barry and prosecute Barry. Foxs intermediaries at the Bar
4 encouraged J. Fotinos to make as many complaints against Barry as possible.
5 Either someone at the Bar or in San Mateo informed J. Fotinos 8 months ahead
6 that Barry and Michele would be made VLs, two years ahead that Barry would be
7 disbarred and that Wagstaffe would be putting Michele in jail.
8
837. Saucedo forced Barry to respond to J. Fotinos two false complaints,
9
the flier and being made a VL. J. Foiles and J. Cretan supported J. Fotinos in
10
returning to his old ways, pre-J. Franchi, calling Michele names in emails,
11
threatening her, denying and interfering with her visitation with Austin, resuming
12
his practice of alienation, this time of only Austin, not paying the spousal
13
support/sanctions arrearages, not paying monthly spousal and child support of
14
$1,000 a month which have climbed to over $18,000 and $6,000 plus interest
15
respectively.
16
17 838. J. Fotinos sent an email to a Bar employee stating that he would call
18 every two hours until the Bitch is disbarred. The Bar no doubt will defend J.
19 Fotinos right to call Barry a bitch and Michele a bitch, fuck you Michele, a cunt,
20 because as Trump dramatically established, men have been getting away with
21 calling women names for centuries. The Bar and Lee will argue government
22 agencies like the Bar and people like J. Fotinos have a right to call black people
23 the N word [J. Fotinos also hates black people as he does women] and to call
24 women all kinds of names.
25
839. J. Foiles threatened Barry with contempt on January 6, 2012 and on
26
February 17, 2012 although she remained respectful, and apologized for
27
interrupting him. J. Foiles complained about Barrys lawyering, on January 6,
28
January 20, and February 17, 2012. On the other hand, J. Foiles will not allow her
221
221
1 to complete arguments, a violation of judicial ethics. On February 17, 2012, he

2 stated on the record how he is controlling himself although Barry was only making
3 oral argument On February 17, 2012, J. Foiles hinted he may go to the Bar on
4 Barry. Despite his obvious hatred for Barry, he did not recuse himself from
5 Michels family law case.
6 840. On information and belief, J. Foiles, Wagstaffe, Munks, and other San
7 Mateo operatives have been in contact with Fox about Barry and Michele. Barry
8 believes that with production of electronic discovery, telephone and fax records,
9 letters, internal memos, etc she will establish ongoing contact between the Bar and
10 San Mateo unless the Bar destroys the paper/electronic trail.
11
841. Kimball engaged in anti-competitive conduct with the Bar by
12
13 * First refusing to appear for the December 2013 hearing on the
14 sanctions,
15
* Next by failing to obtain a judgment on the order of summary
16
judgment technically an act of malpractice against her own
17
client and very unusual. She did not because she knew Barry
18
could then appeal the orders of sanctions. She acting in concert
19
with Bar/San Mateo wanted to harass Barry further. Eventually
20
it backfired on her.
21
22 * Scheduling hearings on the sanctions after Barry and Michele
23 had appeared twice for scheduled hearings for the sanctions
24 and they did not occur and when she knew Barry and Michele
25 had no money and J. Fotinos was on the loose with no
26 restraining order against him.
27 * After Barry left a message on J. Buchwalds courtroom phone,
28 saying he lacked the courage to stand up to the tyranny of J.
222
222
1 Foiles, J. Buchwald filed a judgment of dismissal for failure to

2 prosecute and did not incorporate the sanctions orders into the
3 judgment, awarding Montalvo only costs of suit. Kimball and
4 J. Buchwald ceased all enforcement action against Barry.
5 Kimball was the star witness for the prosecution at the Bar,
6 knowing the sanctions orders were no longer viable. Notably,
7 J. Armendariz stated on the record Kimball was no help to her.
8 842. The Bar has misappropriated dues to pay a stipend of $30,000 to Bar
9 Presidents without approval, justification, or accounting.
10
843. Krinsky breached her fiduciary duty by recommending and hiring the
11
Munger/Tolles firm to investigate Kims allegations of wrongdoing against Dunn
12
on information and belief without putting out a bid. Krinsky is good friends with
13
Munger/Tolles partner(s) according to Dunn complaint. Without discovery it is
14
not known whether she received a referral (i.e., kickback) fee. If the contract
15
was a no bid contact, Krinsky and the Bar violated the rights of all members to
16
compete for the contract.
17
18 844. The Bar paid Munger/Tolles $300,000.00 clearly excessive when a
19 judge would have done the investigation pro bono, when other members could not
20 compete for the contract, and when an investigation of wrongdoing is not worth
21 three attorneys each charging $800/hr. On information and belief, the $300,000
22 only netted the Bar and the members a finding that Dunn misused dues in the
23 amount of $5,600.00. The fees are clearly excessive.
24
845. Dunn misappropriated $5,600 of the members dues to pay his
25
personal attorney, Geragos, supposedly for a meal at his restaurant clearly
26
unrelated to improvement of legal services or discipline. This is a violation of
27
competition since other attorneys who own restaurants did not have an opportunity
28
to compete to serve the meal for less. Further, it violated the First Amendment
223
223
1 rights of all other members because the payment was based on Dunns personal
2 preference and for the sole purpose of keeping the attorney happy now prosecuting
3 his unjust termination case against the Bar. It may have served as payment
4 towards Dunns personal attorney fees owed Geragos for representing him in his
5 wrongful termination action against the Bar.
6 846. The Bat has committed repeated anti-trust violations by allowing
7 cronyism to permeate the Bar resulting in hiring unqualified judges like J.
8 Armendariz and J. Remke, and unethical individuals like Nisperos, Dunn, Kim,
9 and Fox.
10
847. The Bar allowed Fox to bring in Giannini who had engaged in racial
11
discrimination when he supervised him and paid him a stipend to train bar
12
prosecutors cutting off competition for the contract to other members and violating
13
the rights of members who do not want their dues to be used to pay a prosecutor
14
who engaged in racial prosecution and other misconduct.
15
16 848. The bar paid for Lees salary while she advocated that calling a black
17 attorney the N word is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because she claimed
18 it occurred during the black attorneys disciplinary procedure and is therefore
19 free speech and besides racist invective has long been tolerated by American
20 society. This violated the free speech rights of members who opposed their dues
21 being spent on such an odious racist defense.
22
849. The Bar violated rights of members by appointing white male
23
corporate attorneys as prosecutors to protect bar insiders and to punish bar
24
outsiders.
25
26 850. Bar prosecutors habitually prosecute members without probable
27 cause. Bar prosecutors habitually refuse to provide exculpatory evidence to the
28 attorney and the bar judge. Bar prosecutors file Notices of Disciplinary Action
224
224
1 ("NDC's") against litigation attorneys often falsifying what actually occurred in

2 the underlying litigation.
3 851. These anti-trust violations have resulted in causing emotional
4 distress, pain, and suffering to Barry, Michele, and Rachel for which they seek
5 damages, including compensatory, out of pocket, and treble damages or
6 alternatively, punitive damages.
7
852. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment against the bar that the
8
above-described practices violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
9
10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -Conspiracy Based on Free Speech Retaliation; Denial of
Access to Court- Applies to Barry, Michele, Rachel and to Fox, Joyce,
12 Saucedo, J. Fotinos, J. Foiles, Wagstaffe, Kimball
13 853. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Second Cause of Action paras 1 - 855
14 as if fully incorporated herein
15 854. The actions of J. Fotinos, J. Foiles, and Wagstaffe constitute violation
16 of Micheles right to access to the Court under the First Amendment. The actions
17 of all the above-named defendants constitute free speech retaliation against the
18 three plaintiffs based on the following:
19
1. For persuading J. Franchi to remove Miller as minors counsel
20
and for Michele reporting Miller to the Bar.
21
22 2. For J. Franchis statements from the bench including that San
23 Mateo had done a lot of wrong things in the case, that the Santa
24 Cruz police officers should never have taken the children from
25 Michele in 2003, that J. Fotinos had been alienating the
26 children for a long time; that J. Fotinos had committed perjury,
27
3 For J. Franchi awarding Michele substantial spousal
28
support/sanctions as a remedy for J. Fotinos perjury, and for J.
225
225
1 Franchi referring J. Fotinos to the D.A. for possible

2 prosecution;
3 4. For Rachel blowing the whistle on J. Fotinos felony child
4 abuse which reflected on all the San Mateo judges who kept
5 custody with J. Fotinos for years, on Munks for refusing to
6 seek an Emergency Protective Order against J. Fotinos and
7 Grover for Rachel, Austin, and their mother, and on Munks and
8 Wagstaffe for letting a violent felon possess weapons for five
9 years;
10
5. For filing the federal lawsuit against San Mateo defendants and
11
seeking an injunction against Kim to make her do her job and
12
discipline Kinney and Miller;
13
14 6. For suing Montalvo.
15
7. For Michele and Barry picketing and passing out the flier
16
exposing the courts, the San Mateo judiciary, Wagstaffe, and
17
Munks in not arresting and prosecuting J. Fotinos, seizing his
18
guns, and for denying a restraining order to Michele and her
19
children.
20
21 8. For Barry reporting to the Ninth Circuit that Foxs good friend
22 Munks is a pedophile.
23 9. For complaining about Fox during oral argument before J.
24 Purcell on September 15, 2016.
25
855. The coordination between the Bar and San Mateo are as follows:
26
27
28
226
226
1 DATE EVENT
2 September 2010 BAR
3 On information and belief, Board of
Governors Operation Committee
4 discussed Barry and Kay cases.
Michele files Bar complaint against
5 Miller which Bar President Howard
Miller or Hebert and Bar Counsel
6 Towery refused to accept.
7
September 2010 SAN MATEO
8
On information and belief, Miller
9 complains to J. Foiles and J. Freeman
about J. Franchi removing her as
10 minors counsel in August 2010.
Discovery may uncover contact
11 between bar president and/or bar
counsel and J. Foiles or J. Freeman
12 about Michele's complaint against
Miller.
13
August 2011 BAR
14
Barry begins 60 day suspension in
15 connection with Elwood matter.
16 Kim becomes Bar Counsel and Fox is
her consultant to help her reduce
17 backlog of complaints against
attorneys.
18
19 October 2011 SAN MATEO
20 Kinney files unethical, insulting,
sanctionable document demanding that
21 J. Franchi recuse himself from Fotinos
case.
22
November 2011 SAN MATEO
23 J. Franchi cancels hearing on
24 Micheles motion to modify support
and custody and recuses himself
25
26
27
28
227
227
1 December 2011 - June 2012 SAN MATEO

2 Rachel flees J. Fotinos home unable
to endure his and Grovers abuse any
3 longer. Belmont police officer and
Munks deputies repeatedly refused to
4 seek emergency protective order for
Rachel and Michele. Barry and
5 Michele go to Munks and Wagstaffe
offices begging them to arrest J.
6 Fotinos. They do nothing.
7 January 2012 SAN MATEO
8 J. Foiles appoints himself to the
Fotinos case although he lacks the
9 required judicial education for a family
law case. J. Foiles threatened Barry
10 with contempt on January 6,
expressing irrational hostility towards
11 Barry and Michele neither of whom
had ever appeared before him. He
12 complained about Barrys
lawyering, on January 6, and
13 January 20, He denied DVPA
restraining order two or three times
14 between January and February. He
undoes everything J. Franchi has
15 accomplished. He ratifies and
encourages J. Fotinos conduct of
16 alienating Austin from his mother and
to return to his old ways pre-J. Franchi.
17 February 17, 2012 SAN MATEO
18 J. Foiles threatened Barry again with
contempt and will not allow her to
19 complete arguments. He stated he can
barely control himself but does not
20 recuse himself. He hinted he may go
to the Bar on Barry. On information
21 and belief, he did, and was in contact
with Fox and/others at the Bar.
22
February 24, 2012 SAN MATEO
23
Barry filed federal lawsuit against San
24 Mateo defendants.
25
26
27
28
228
228
1 March 2012 SAN MATEO AND BAR

2 1.Barry files amended federal lawsuit
and seeks injunction against Kim to
3 investigate Miller and Kinney.
4 2. Barry serves Montalvo with a legal
malpractice lawsuit.
5
3. The Bar appoints Kimball to its
6 malpractice insurance committee.
4. J. Fotinos sends email to Michele
7 stating that Barry and Michele will be
made VLs. At this point the only case
8 in which Michele was in pro per was
her mothers conservatorship case.
9 She had hardly filed any documents in
that case in March 2012.
10
June 28, 2012 SAN MATEO
11
J. Foiles reluctantly issues DVPA
12 restraining orders against J. Fotinos
and Grover, knowing criminal
13 prosecution will go on for more than a
year against J. Fotinos; will not award
14 custody of Rachel although restraining
order prohibits J. Fotinos and Grover
15 coming near her or her school; will not
award custody of Austin to Michele.
16 Will not award support.
17 April through August 2012 BAR
18 Probation requirements must be
completed by July 29, 2012. Barry
19 begins active searching for 4 live
ethics in April, contacts Farfan and
20 Tady for assistance and they are no
help. Later, Farfan lets her know that
21 she can take Attorney trust account
school for 3 units of live ethics.
22 August 1, 2012 later refiled in Review BAR
Court.
23 Barry filed motion to extend time to
complete Ethics School, 4 live units
24 of ethics, and pass MPRE,
documenting her efforts since April
25 2012 to do so. Provided evidence of
number of phone call contacts with
26 Michele because of fear they will be
killed by J. Fotinos. Motion denied.
27 Did complete all requirements.
28
229
229
1 July 2012 SAN MATEO

2 J. Swope evicts Michele and Rachel
from Esthers home making Esthers
3 daughter and granddaughter homeless.
4 July - November 2012 SAN MATEO
5 Sells and Karlsten rush to sell Esthers
home below market value. Michele
6 objects, and Karlsten goes after her to
shut her up, by making her a VL.
8 At hearing, J. Cretan criticizes Barry
and Michele for passing out flier
9 Claims Michele and Rachel have no
credibility. Repeatedly encourages J.
10 Fotinos to return to his pre-J.Franchi
ways: alienating Austin, threatening
11 and intimidating both Michele and
Rachel, calling Michele names,
12 depriving her of visitation, being
repeatedly late on paying support and
13 then quitting altogether. Support
woefully insufficient.
14
November 2012 SAN MATEO
15
As coconspirator J. Fotinos predicted
16 eight months before, J. Karesh and J.
Freeman make Barry and Michele
17 VLs.
18 February 2013 BAR
J. Fotinos files bar complaint against
19 Barry concerning flier she passed out
in San Francisco in June 2012 getting
20 him arrested and his guns and ammo
confiscated. Saucedo makes Barry
21 defend the flier.
22 March 2013 BAR
23 J. Fotinos files complaint against Barry
for filling frivolous filings in
24 conservatorship action (she had written
Motion for Change of Venue for
25 Michele to file in pro per) and for
being declared a VL. He also
26 complains that Barry did not pay $600
in sanctions to Kinney. The Bar does
27 not have jurisdiction of sanctions less
than $1,000.00 Saucedo makes her
28 defend the complaint.
230
230
1 May 2013 SAN MATEO

2 1. Kimball files motion to compel in
the Montalvo case re: rogs and RRDs
3 and setting date for Micheles
deposition.
4
BAR
5
2. May 6, J. Fotinos predicts Barry
6 will be disbarred.
June 2013 SAN MATEO
7
Barry serves objection to rogs and
8 responses to req for docs. Begins
producing thousands of pages of
9 discovery to Kimball. Barry contacts
courtroom of J. Buchwald on date of
10 hearing June 26 and J. Buchwald
agrees to continue hearing so Barry
11 can argue motions to compel (rogs,
RFD, deposition of Michele).
12
J. Cretan denies renewal of DVPA
13 restraining orders against J. Fotinos
and Grover.
14
July 10, 2013 BAR
15
J Fotinos sends email to Kinney with
16 copy to Michele stating that he
contacted the bar and ...they want me
17 to send in a complaint against Barry
they will add it to the other 32
18 complaints for vexatious litigant.
July 24, 2013 SAN MATEO
19
On information and belief, J. Foiles
20 steers hearing on motions to compel
from law and motion judge, J.
21 Buchwald, to J. Bergeron. He denies
oral argument and awards sanctions
22 against Barry.
23 September 2013 BAR
24 Barrys probation period ended.
Traveled to San Mateo for hearing on
26 sanctions. J. Buchwald wanted parties
to meet and discuss issues. and hearing
27 did not go forward. Which Barry,
Kimball, and Michele did discussed
28 issues -- for most of the day.
231
231
1 December 2013 SAN MATEO

2 Traveled for hearing on sanctions.
Kimball refuses to appear and notifies
3 Barry day before she is not appearing.
Hearing did not go forward.
4
February through May 2014 SAN MATEO
5 Hearings scheduled on Barrys failure
6 to pay sanctions. Barry does not
appear.
7 Sometime prior to Feb. 19, 2014 BAR
8 Kimball notified Bar Barry not paid
sanctions.
9
March 2014 SAN MATEO
10
Sentencing hearing - J. Fotinos.
11 Collusive deal worked out where J.
Fotinos is held not accountable for his
12 crimes.
13 J. Cretan awards custody of Austin to
Grover, which J. Cretan had promised
14 Michele a year prior he would never
do, and claims Michele a detriment to
15 Austin. Barry on phone in Los
Angeles and Michele out of
16 courtroom. No hearing, a la San
Mateo style.
17 May 2014 SAN MATEO
18 Barry leaves message on court
telephone of J. Buchwald that he lacks
19 the courage to stand up to the tyranny
of J. Foiles, etc.
20
May 19, 2014 SAN MATEO
21
After phone call, J. Buchwald enters
22 judgment for failure to prosecute
omitting orders of discovery and
23 judicial sanctions. J. Buchwald and
Kimball cease all enforcement action
24 against Barry. Barry believed that was
the end of the harassment about the
25 sanctions.
26
27
28
232
232
1 August 2014 BAR

2 Bar notifies Barry it will disbar her for
being late filing reports and
3 completing terms of probation one
month after filing pleading in Ninth
4 Circuit that Foxs good friend Munks
is a probable pedophile. The Bar
5 failed to suspend or disbar Barry in
August 2012, two years prior, when
6 she was late completing the
requirements.
7
September 2014 BAR
8 J. Fotinos once more notifies
9 Michele by email that Barry will be
disbarred although the above Bar
10 notification not public knowledge.
April 2015 BAR
11
Knowing that trying to disbar Barry for
12 being late on reports and completing
probation requirements by itself would
13 not stick, Joyce files second charge,
resurrecting failure to pay sanctions to
14 Montalvo per order of August 2013
and sanctions to San Mateo per order
15 of April 2014 when Barry understood
that J. Buchwald had eliminated the
16 orders.
17 April 2015 SAN MATEO
18 Rachel sees J. Fotinos truck following
her on two occasions. Rachel and
19 Michele pack up and go into hiding.
20 September 15, 2016 BAR
For the first time since Joyce filed the
21 second Notice of Discipline, J. Purcell
brings up disbarment after Barry
22 complained about Fox at oral
argument.
23
December 2016 SAN MATEO
24
Wagstaffe wants Michele to surrender
25 based on false and malicious complaint
in a tit-for-tat prosecution for perjury
26 and grand theft.
27 856. Saucedo engaged in a continuing pattern of retaliation for free speech
28 by forcing Barry to defend Lauzons malicious complaint that Barrys Motion to
233
233
1 Strike Harshman Reports was frivolous.

2 857. Tady is sued for damages first, for imposing four live units on Barry
3 when no other attorney in 60 cases Barry reviewed ever had to attend ethics school
4 and take 4 live units of ethics. He is also sued for damages by not informing her
5 when she asked him for help in locating 4 live ethics units that she could obtain 3
6 units by taking his trust account class. J. Purcell recommended disbarment in part
7 based on being late in taking these units.
8
858. Because J. Purcell resurrected the Elwood discipline as a basis to
9
disbar Barry, Barry seeks a declaratory judgment that Tady violated his ethical
10
duty when he failed to seek dismissal of the Elwood prosecution when he knew he
11
lacked probable cause and so admitted to Barry.
12
13 859. Barry, Michele, and Rachel seek a declaratory judgment against J.
14 Foiles that the acts he committed against them constitute a violation of free speech
15 and denial of access to the court.
16
860. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, out of pocket, and punitive damages
17
against the defendants except as stated above.
18
19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20
42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 - Violation of Free Speech per Keller v. State Bar of
California - Applies to Barry and to Bar
21 861. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Third Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as
23
862. The acts alleged in this complaint violate Barrys right to free speech
24
and often violate state law. Barry cannot possibly be required to continue paying
25
dues to a government corporation which lobbied against a bill which would have
26
protected parents, primarily mothers, and children by barring unscientific theories
27
like PAS in family/juvenile court, which puts an individual like Fox in charge of
28
it, given his shameful career of institutionalizing racism and protecting pedophiles,
234
234
1 whose attorney argues that a government corporation has the right to call a black
2 attorney the N word in the course of disciplining him, for encouraging and
3 ratifying J. Fotinos who calls Barry a female civil rights attorney a bitch, for
4 spending bar dues championing violent, racist, homophobic, child batterers, like J.
5 Fotinos and Morin, for refusing to prosecute minors counsel many of whom harm
6 their clients who are children, like LaFlamme, Miller, Lawrence, and Acevedo, for
7 protecting attorneys like Krause who abused his own child and Henning who beat
8 up people, which allows Kamansky, a man with a notorious history of raping
9 children to teach ethics classes to attorneys, and which champions unethical
10 attorneys like Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon the latter of whom discriminated against
11 an Arab Palestinian Muslim father in family court.
12 863. Barry seeks a declaratory judgment against the Bar as set out in the
13 Prayer for Relief.
14
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15
Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process - Applies to Barry, Michele, and
16 Rachel and to Henley
17 864. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Fourth Cause of Action paras 1 - 855
18 as if fully incorporated herein.
19
865. Barry, Michele, and Rachel seek a declaration that Henley in her
20
official capacity as Executive Director of the CJP has violated the rights of Barry
21
and Michele under the Due Process Clause to fair judges who do not commit
22
crimes against them, that Henley had a mandatory duty to refer J. Karesh and J.
23
Freeman (no longer under the jurisdiction of CJP) to prosecuting authorities in the
24
executive branch; and that she has no power or discretion to disregard the
25
evidence Barry and Michele submitted to it which establishes that J. Karesh and J.
26
Freeman committed obstruction of justice, California Penal Code Sec.96.5(a)
27
and/or Penal Code Sec.182(a)(5).
28
866. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that the allegations
235
235
1 concerning J. Foiles in this complaint also establish a prima facie case that J.
2 Foiles committed the crime of obstruction of justice in violation of Barry,
3 Micheles and Rachels right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and
4 state law.
5 867. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that based on the allegations in
6 this complaint concerning J. Foiles, Henley must refer J. Foiles to criminal
7 authorities along with J. Karesh.
8
868. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that it is a violation of the separation
9
of powers for Henley to exercise discretion not to refer judges to prosecuting
10
authorities when the complaints against the judges establish a prima facie case that
11
they have committed crimes.
12
13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 Article I, Section 7, California Constitution - Due Process -
15 Applies to Barry, Michele, and Rachel and to Henley
16
869. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Fifth Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as
17
if fully incorporated herein
18 870. Plaintiffs seek the same relief for declaratory judgment alleged in the
19 Fourth Cause of Action pursuant to the Due Process Clause found in Article 1,
20 Section 7 of the California Constitution against Henley in her official capacity.
21
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process - Denial of Right to
23
Practice Law and Denial of Right to Attorney - Applies to
24 Barry, Michele, and Rachel and to Fox, Wagstaffe, J. Foiles,
25 Joyce, Kimball
26 871. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Sixth Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as
28
872. Fox, Wagstaffe, J. Foiles, Joyce, and Kimball engaged in concerted
236
236
1 action to suspend and then disbar Barry and to prosecute Michele on false charges.
2 They knew that because so many of Barrys clients had suffered financial abuse in
3 family court they could not afford to pay Barry much in the way of attorney fees.
4 They knew that Barry was representing Michele in the malpractice suit against
5 Montalvo on a contingent fee basis because Montalvo had stolen more than
6 $45,000 from Michele and he left her with few or no assets, no kids, and spousal
7 support of $67 a month. Thus, they knew that Barry could not pay the sanctions
8 to Montalvo, one of their insiders. They knew that Montalvo and Roma had
9 committed fraud against Michele claiming she owed child support when there is
10 no record of an order against her. They also wanted to protect Montalvo and
11 Roma.
12 873. Defendants knew that it was a waste of taxpayer dollars and of
13 Barrys and Micheles time to keep setting repeated hearings on sanctions that
14 Barry could not pay. They knew that Michele and Barry were running out of
15 money for Barry to keep flying to San Mateo to appear for a hearing on the
16 sanctions just for Barry to say she did not have the money to pay the sanctions.
17 They knew that J. Fotinos was free to harm Barry and Michele because Munks and
18 then Bolanos, Wagstaffe, J. Cretan, and J. Foiles refused to re-issue a restraining
19 order in June 2013 against J. Fotinos and Grover to protect Michele and Rachel.
20 They knew Michele and Rachel were in hiding because of J. Fotinos threatening
21 Michele and stalking Rachel.
22
874. They knew that pursuant to the holding in the Koehler case, they
23
could not prove the most important element of the Bar case against Barry which
24
was whether she could pay the sanctions. Nonetheless, they proceeded with a Bar
25
prosecution against Barry for nonpayment of sanctions because they knew she
26
could not pay the sanctions. Wagstaffe then coordinated with the other defendants
27
to file a frivolous and vicious criminal complaint against Michele. Defendants
28
know that Michele has been reduced to poverty because J. Foiles and J. Cretan
237
237
1 made sure that J. Fotinos did not have to pay arrearages and support to Michele.
2 875. With Barry suspended or disbarred, Barry could not represent
3 Michele. Because she does not have the money to hire counsel, Michele would be
4 forced to retain a San Mateo public defender who would never offend Wagstaffe
5 because of his history of punishing those who criticize or oppose him and his
6 racist, anti-child policies, such as, Robin Sax. Deputy Lopez, Barry, and Michele.
7 The defendants wanted Barry disbarred and Michele in prison for all the reasons
8 set out in this complaint and more specifically in the First Cause of Action.
9 876. The actions of defendants violate the due process rights of Barry to
10 practice law under the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of Michele and
11 Rachel to hire the attorney of their choice.
12
877. As a proximate result of the violations of Plaintiffs rights Plaintiffs
13
have suffered mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and have been
14
injured in mind, body, and spirit. They have also suffered out of pocket damages
15
16 878. The acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and
17 oppressive, thus justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages against
18 them.
19
879. If J. Foiles is not liable for damages for his role in the above
20
concerted actions, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that his actions against
21
the plaintiffs violated their right of due process as set out in this Cause of Action.
22
23 880. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that the acts complained of
24 by Defendants are unethical and unconstitutional.
25 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process - Denial of Right to Bodily and
Emotional Integrity - Applies to Barry and to J. Armendariz
27
28
881. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Seventh Cause of Action paras 1 - 855
238
238

2 882. J. Armendariz violated Barrys right to bodily and emotional integrity
3 by first not setting a realistic trial date when she knew that Barry had civil rights
4 cases which demanded a lot of time, and was managing them on a shoestring
5 budget. Thus, J. Armendariz knew or should have known that if she set an early
6 trial date she would cause emotional and bodily harm to Barry because she knew
7 Barry was in her early 70's.
8
883. J. Armendariz knew that Barry was ill when she forced her into trial
9
because Barry had sought a continuance on the ground she was ill she believes
10
twice and J. Armendariz denied the continuance. J. Armendariz knew Barry was
11
ill at the trial because Barry was suffering from laryngitis as she tried to defend
12
herself.
13
14 884. Joyce violated her prosecutorial duty to obtain exculpatory evidence
15 which included the Bergeron transcript. The transcript would have proven that J.
16 Bergeron would not allow Barry to argue Kimballs Motion to Compel which was
17 the sole purpose for J. Buchwald continuing the hearing on sanctions. Joyce
18 also would not obtain a copy of Barrys voice mail left on J. Buchwalds
19 courtroom phone in May 2014. and the transcript J. Buchwald had made of
20 Barrys phone call. This evidence would have helped to explain why J. Buchwald
21 entered the judgment he did which did not incorporate the sanctions orders into it.
22
885. Barry was too busy trying to keep her cases in a holding position to
23
obtain the above documents. Because J. Armendariz forced Barry to go forward in
24
trial in August 2015, J. Guilford dismissed the civil rights case for Hanson
25
because Barry requested a two day extension to file an amended complaint. J.
26
Guilford was fed up with Barry always seeking extensions. She had to keep
27
seeking extensions in large part because of the Bar prosecution. Barry was worn
28
out having been in the Bar trial for two days when the amended complaint was
239
239
1 due.
2 886. When oral argument took place, Barry did not respond to Joyces
3 attack on Barry in her closing argument because she had to be present at a
4 mediation for a domestic violence victim she was representing in federal court,
5 that afternoon besides being so exhausted she could not properly respond.
6
887. Because Barry could not take a short vacation after the Bar trial
7
concluded but had to return immediately to her practice, she kept getting
8
infections and made repeated trips to the doctor in subsequent months. One of the
9
antibiotics prescribed for Barry was cipro. In bold print, the cipro information
10
leaflet warned that patients over 60 taking cipro are very susceptible to
11
developing tendonitis, sometimes even two months after taking cipro.
12
13 888. In December 2015 Barry developed tendonitis two months after
14 completing a round of cipro. The tendonitis was unrelated to any accident or
15 injury. In March 2016, the posterior tibial tendon of the left leg ruptured. Surgery
16 is out of the question. Barry is suffering enormous problems related to the rupture.
17
889. As a proximate result of J. Armendarizs violations of Barrys right to
18
bodily and emotional integrity, Barry has suffered mental anguish, and emotional
19
and physical distress. J. Armendarizs rush to convict Barry because she did not
20
pays sanctions to Montalvo who should have been the attorney on trial resulted in
21
Barry suffering extreme exhaustion leading to illness leading to infections leading
22
to taking cipro leading to tendonitis for which she holds J. Armendariz
23
responsible. Barry has also suffered out of pocket damages
24
25 890. The acts of J. Armendariz was willful, wanton, malicious, and
26 oppressive, thus justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages against
27 her.
28 891. Barry is unaware that there was any common law in the 1870's which
240
240
1 immunized a judge from damages when she knew she was forcing a litigant to
2 show up for trial when she was ill and it resulted in foreseeable permanent
3 disability to the litigant. If by some stretch J. Armendariz is protected by judicial
4 immunity from damages, Barry seeks a declaratory judgment that J. Armendarizs
5 actions violated Barrys right of due process as set out in this Cause of Action.
6 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process - Stigma Plus - - Applies to Barry
and to Unnamed Unknown Member of California Judicial Council, and to
8 Unnamed Unknown State Bar Employee
9 892. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Eighth Cause of Action paras 1 - 855
11
893. Unnamed Unknown Bar Employee who wrote Barrys profile
12
concerning the Elwood discipline defamed Barry by not including portions of the
13
stipulation in the profile which tend to prove the innocence of Barry as a direct
14
result of which Barry has repeatedly suffered stigma plus. Defense counsel
15
repeatedly submit the Elwood discipline to judges to gain an unfair litigation
16
advantage. To take time out to defend herself to the judge takes time away from
17
the real issues at hand: namely the harm that the defendants caused Barrys clients
18
and their children. J. Cunningham referred to the Bar Profile in order to humiliate
19
and degrade Barry in front of a full courtroom filled with attorneys and litigants.
20
21 894. Barry seeks compensatory, out of pocket and punitive damages
22 against the employee and a declaratory judgment that the Bar Profile is inaccurate
23 because of omitting facts in the stipulation which tend to prove Barrys innocence.
24 If Barry does not obtain a declaratory judgment that the Elwood matter should be
25 purged from Barrys Bar file Barry also seeks an order compelling the Bar
26 employee to meet and confer with Barry to prepare a Bar profile which reflects the
27 truth.
28 895. Unnamed Unknown Employee of California Judicial Council has
241
241
1 disseminated false and untrue information about Barry and Michele which is that
2 both are VLs when in fact and law it is impossible for them to be VLs. This is a
3 reckless disregard for the truth. As a direct result of the dissemination of
4 defamation by the Council employee, Barry and Michele suffered stigma plus in
5 that Kimball used the printout of the Council to justify humiliating and
6 embarrassing Barry in demanding that Michele answer 4 questions about Barry
7 and Michele being VLs and in that J. Fotinos may have been provided a copy of
8 the Councils printout which he then used at the Bar to harass and embarrass Barry
9 by making a false claim that Barry was a VL. According to J. Fotinos, the Bar has
10 32 complaints against Barry for being a VL. These complaints may also be based
11 on the falsified Judicial Council list.
12 896. Barry and Michele seek compensatory, out of pocket, and punitive
13 damages against the unknown Council employee and a declaratory judgment that
14 the printout with their names listed as VLs is defamatory as a matter of law.
15
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
Violation of Article 1, Sec.28(b) & ( c), Crime Victims Bill of Rights,
17 California Constitution - Applies to Michele and Rachel and to J. Fotinos
18 897. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Ninth Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as
20
898. The citizens of the State of California adopted the Victims Bill of
21
Rights Act of 2008 as part of the California State Constitution. This Act and its
22
accompanying statutory provisions are collectively referred to as Marsys Law.
23
24
899. Marsy's Law incorporated into the California State Constitution due
25
process rights for victims as well as the right of victims to be made whole through
26
restitution.
27 900. Marsys Law specifically enumerates a number of rights related to

28 restitution for the victims, and it provides in pertinent part that [i]t is the
242
242
1 unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who
2 suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure
3 restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer .
4 . . . [r]estitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case,
5 regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed in which a victim suffers a loss .
6 . . . [a]ll monetary payments monies and property collected from any person who s
7 been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts ordered
8 as restitution. (emphasis added).
9 901. Pursuant to Marsy's Law, California Statutory law, and California
10 Penal Code section 1202.4, inter alia, Plaintiffs seek restitution in full from J.
11 Fotinos as shall be determined according to proof for all damages and costs and
12 expenses incurred by Plaintiffs for which reparation may be sought under these
13 laws.
14
902. Specifically they seek the reimbursement for medical care, mental
15
health counseling expenses, other losses as permitted under the law, such as loss
16
of spousal and child support, restitution for the perjury committed by J. Fotinos
17
against Michele, a judgment for the spousal support/sanctions arrearages in the
18
approximate amount of $25,000, a wage garnishment for the $6,000 plus interest
19
for Rachels child support and $18,000 and climbing plus interest for Micheles
20
spousal support, and attorney fees in seeking the restitution, as shall be shown
21
according to proof.
22
23 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Applies to Michele and to Kimball, Montalvo, and Roma and to Rachel and to J.
Fotinos, Miller - Constructive Fraud and Fraud
25
903. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Tenth Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as
26
if fully incorporated herein.
27
28
A. Kimball, Montalvo, and Roma Fraud against Michele
243
243
1 904. Montalvo owed a fiduciary duty to Michele. Part of that duty is not
2 to commit fraud and to convince Michele she owed child support when she did
3 not. He owed a duty to Michele not to engage in a conspiracy with Roma claiming
4 there was an order of child support against Michele when there is no record
5 anywhere of the order, the amount, the date, the judge, the chambers conference,
6 nothing but just Montalvo and Roma saying there was an order. This constitutes
7 constructive fraud in addition to fraud. Montalvo and Roma caused Michele to
8 suffer a loss of $10,098.00 besides pain and suffering.
9 905. To compound their misconduct, Kimball then escalated their fraud to
10 perjury by having Montalvo and Roma sign declarations in support of Montalvos
11 MSJ in Micheles malpractice case claiming there was an order of child support
12 against Michele when there was none. Kimball took Montalvos malpractice and
13 his and Romas perjury up another notch, tainting the Bar proceeding with their
14 misconduct. Kimball testified at Barrys Bar hearing that Montalvo had not
15 engaged in malpractice, a jaw dropping statement if there ever was one.
16
906. The Bar and Joyce openly embraced Kimballs misconduct. Kimball
17
refused to provide the transcript of J. Bergerons hearing unless ordered by J.
18
Armendariz to do so. Joyce failed to obtain the transcript and J. Armendariz never
19
ordered it. The three of them suppressed this transcript because it would have
20
proved that J. Bergeron denied Barry oral argument on the sanctions.
21
22 907. The Bar, Fox, and Joyce wanted Barry suspended or disbarred
23 because of the illegal and improper relationship between San Mateo and the Bar.
24 Fox or his intermediaries made it clear that Wagstaffe, McKowan, Montalvo,
25 Roma, Kimball, Karlsten, Aaron/Reichert, Kinney, and Miller will never be
26 prosecuted by the Bar no matter how extreme their misconduct, including perjury
27 and subornation of perjury. They also wanted Barry disbarred so she cannot
28 represent Michele in the malicious prosecution of Wagstaffe. They want Barry
244
244
1 disbarred as an example to all attorneys who would dare to cross Fox, Wagstaffe,
2 Munks, J. Foiles, and any other San Mateo attorney Fox wants protected like
3 Miller, Kinney, Karlsten, Aaron/Reichert, McKowan.
4 908. The actions of these defendants have resulted in causing Michele
5 emotional distress, pain, and suffering for which Michele seeks damages,
6 including compensatory, out of pocket, and punitive damages.
7
909. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment against Kimball,
8
Montalvo, and Roma that their misconduct constitute a violation of ethical rules of
9
conduct.
10
11 B. J. Fotinos and Miller Fraud against Rachel.
12
910. Miller owed Rachel a fiduciary duty. Part of that duty included not
13
making false representations to the Court in 2007 so that Rachel would be forced
14
back into the custody of J. Fotinos where she continued to suffer ongoing abuse
15
and neglect by J. Fotinos for the next four years. Miller suborned the perjury of
16
La Farge in order to take custody from Rachels mother who had just been
17
awarded custody six days before. J. Fotinos abuse was extreme.
18
19 911. Miller had entered into a conspiracy with J. Fotinos to deprive Rachel
20 of her right to a family relationship with her mother in 2007. In 2010 through
21 2011 Miller exerted undue influence over the children in a conspiracy with J.
22 Fotinos to lie about their mother and to insure they did not disclose the abuse, the
23 neglect, and the alienation of J. Fotinos and Grover. Miller and J. Fotinos
24 encouraged and coerced the children into committing fraud on the court by stating
25 to J. Franchi they did not want to visit their mother and to make other negative
26 statements against their mother when they were false. Miller violated the very
27 essence of what the attorney client relationship is. She knew or should have
28 known how terrified the children were of J. Fotinos. As Rachel testified at the bar
245
245
1 hearing of Barry before J. Armendariz the appointment of Miller as her attorney

2 was one of the worst days of her life.
3 912. Miller never spoke to or interviewed Rachel and Austin except after
4 she was disqualified as their attorney in August 2010. At that point, she worked
5 with J. Fotinos to make sure that Rachel and Austin would not disclose the abuse
6 they were experiencing in the custody of J. Fotinos when they were interviewed by
7 J Franchi. Miller encouraged J. Fotinos alienation of the children from their
8 mother.
9
913. As a direct result of Millers fraud and conspiracy with J. Fotinos,
10
Rachel suffered horrible abuse perpetrated on her by J. Fotinos and Grover
11
including assault, battery, pulling telephone cord out of socket so she could not
12
call police, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, having
13
to listen to verbal attacks against her mother. Rachel continues to suffer extreme
14
PTSD.
15
16 914. Rachel seeks compensatory, punitive, and out of pocket damages
17 from Miller and J. Fotinos. She seeks a declaratory judgment that Millers
18 constitute unethical misconduct.
19
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
Applies to Rachel and to J Fotinos - Child abuse (assault and battery,
21 intentional infliction of emotional distress, stalking, harassment,
22 Alienation from Mother)
23 764. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Eleventh Cause of Action paras 1 -855
25
915. The acts of J. Fotinos against Rachel constituted child abuse which
26
extended into her adulthood as stalking which caused Rachel to suffer deep fear
27
and causing even more PTSD. As a result of stalking, Rachel and her mother went
28
into hiding.
246
246
1 916. As a direct result of J. Fotinos abuse Rachel has suffered emotional

2 distress, extreme anxiety, and illness. She often cannot attend school or work.
3 917. Rachel seeks compensatory, punitive, and out of pocket damages.
4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5
6 Wherefore Barry, Michele, and Rachel pray for relief as follows:
7
1. Compensatory, punitive, and out of pocket damages for each cause of
8
action where indicated;
9
10 2. Declaratory judgments as follows:
11 A. That Busi & Prof C. Sec.6079.1 is unconstitutional for three
12 reasons: it denies the right of the public to have input into the
13 selection of bar judges; it legalizes a spoils system for selection
14 of bar judges; and it allows unqualified attorneys to be
15 appointed as judges because it requires being licensed as an
16 attorney for only five years.
17
B. That Govt. C. Sec.12011.5 is unconstitutional because it
18
permits the JNE Commission which rates attorneys who seek a
19
bench appointment to do the rating secretly, thus enabling the
20
raters to skew the ratings, raters are selected without regard to
21
inclusion of true members of the public, and the process
22
appears to be skewed towards selection of white male corporate
23
attorneys and/or prosecutors for bench appointments.
24
25 C. The Bars hiring of outside counsel on no bid contracts is anti-
26 competitive in that it denies all market participants an
27 opportunity to compete for the contract and the long time
28 retention of the all white, male dominated Kerr/Wagstaffe is a
247
247
1 violation of the Bars duty to seek out law firms which practice
2 diversity in hiring. Paying bar dues to the Kerr/Wagstaffe firm
3 violates the free speech rights of members who want the state
4 auditor to investigate CJPs failure to prosecute corrupt judges.
5 Kerr/Wagstaffe is frustrating the will of the people in
6 prosecuting a lawsuit on behalf of CJP to deny the auditor
7 access to the complaints against the judges.
8 D. That Kimball, Roma, and Montalvo engaged in fraudulent
9 misconduct which tainted the Bar proceedings against Barry in
10 violation of State Bar Act and the Fourteenth Amendment Due
11 Process Clause;
12
E. That Tady violated his duty as a prosecutor when he failed to
13
seek dismissal of the Elwood matter when he knew he lacked
14
probable cause;
15
16 F. That Tady violated Barrys right to equal protection and due
17 process and committed fraud when he imposed on Barry
18 sanctions Ethics School and 4 live ethics units no other
19 attorney was subjected to, based on Barrys review of 60 cases
20 before she was sanctioned and after. That Tady further
21 violated Barrys rights by not informing her when she sought
22 his help in locating 4 live ethics units that she could attend
23 attorney trust account school he was teaching as a direct result
24 of which J. Purcell recommended Barrys disbarment in part
25 because she was late in completing the 4 live ethics units.
26 There also was no rational basis for demanding that the
27 additional ethics be live (rather than computer classes). The
28 live (brick and mortar) requirement was added only to make
248
248
1 it as difficult as possible for Barry to fulfill the requirement.

2 G. That the Bars appointment of market participants like Falk and
3 Craig to serve as special prosecutors is unconstitutional and
4 a violation of the State Bar Act.
5
H. That appointment of any elected official to the Board of
6
Trustees as a public member is a violation of the spirit and
7
intent of the statute requiring public members on the Board.
8
9 I. That the three disciplinary proceedings against Barry are
10 unconstitutional as a matter of law for the following reasons:
11
1. The Mardeusz Matter.
12
13 a. Appointment of Craig, a fellow market participant
14 and a peer of Barry, as the prosecutor of Barry,
15 another market participant, is unconstitutional
16 because of the desire on the part of Craig to
17 eliminate competition by suspending or disbarring
18 his peer. Craigs appointment was inherently
19 unconstitutional because Barry is a plaintiff civil
20 rights/employment attorney and Craigs law firm,
21 M&F, specializes in employer defense.
22 b. Craig engaged in unethical misconduct by not
23 disclosing that his firm had been retained by
24 Cytodyn which Barry had represented and the
25 defense had won a summary judgment in that case.
26 The Bar and Craig also failed to disclose to Barry
27 that he had a conversation covered by the attorney-
28 client privilege with Irene Jensen, whom Barry
249
249
1 had briefly represented. Craig unethically

2 threatened Barry solely because she had
3 represented Jensen, a fac Craig had probably
4 learned from the privileged conversation with
5 Jensen giving him what he clearly believed was a
6 litigation advantage over Barry which was that
7 Barry had provided some legal representation to
8 Jensen. The fact that Craig believed he could
9 threaten an attorney with discipline solely because
10 she engaged in the very activity lawyers engage in,
11 provide representation to litigants is inherently
12 unconstitutional. It is more evidence of the Bars
13 and Craigs bad motive to threaten, intimidate, and
14 disbar attorneys who represent protective parents
15 trying to regain custody from the sex abusing
16 parent.
17 2. The Elwood matter.
18
a. Tady repeatedly informed Barry she would
19
probably prevail several times. Tady violated his
20
ethical duty as a prosecutor to dismiss because he
21
knew he could not prove that at the time Barry
22
filed the Elwood lawsuits she knew some of the
23
causes of action were frivolous.
24
25 b. Tady and the Bar disregarded the fact that ten
26 federal judges who reviewed Barrys pleadings
27 declined to discipline her. Tady and the Bar
28 disregarded the reported decision of the Ninth
250
250
1 Circuit reversing three of the fee awards based on

2 frivolous findings. Even after the Bar imposed
3 discipline on Barry, both the Ninth Circuit and the
4 Central District of California where the cases were
5 litigated declined to impose reciprocal discipline
6 on Barry.
7 c. The Bar illegally appointed Chick as a public
8 member although she was an elected official to the
9 Board of Governors based solely on cronyism.
10 She had a personal interest in making sure that
11 Barry was disciplined because Barry had filed
12 lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles (DWP)
13 alleging in part that Chick refused to audit the
14 Empire janitorial supplies contract. Barry won a
15 reported decision in the Ninth Circuit which was
16 indirectly a reproach of Chicks negligence as City
17 Controller in not auditing the contract one month
18 before Barry signed the stipulation for discipline.
19 Chick and her good friend, corporate attorney/Bar
20 President Sloan who got her appointed to the
21 Board had financial conflicts of interest with Fine
22 when he was prosecuted and disbarred by the Bar.
23
3. The Montalvo matter.
24
25 a. Joyce pursued the prosecution of Barry for failure
26 to pay discovery sanctions to Montalvo when she
27 knew Barry lacked the ability to pay the sanctions
28 purposely ignoring case law which requires proof
251
251
1 of Barrys ability to pay the sanctions.

2 b. Joyce ignored the judgment entered by J.
3 Buchwald based on Micheles failure to prosecute
4 which did not include the orders of discovery and
5 judicial sanctions. She knew that both J.
6 Buchwald and Kimball ceased all enforcement
7 action against Barry once the judgment was
8 entered.
9
c. Joyce ignored the case law, both California and
10
federal, that judgments based on failure to
11
prosecute do not merge interim sanctions orders
12
into the judgment.
13
14 d. Joyce failed to obtain exculpatory evidence,
15 namely, the Bergeron transcript and the recording
16 of Barrys voice mail to J. Buchwald and its
17 transcript although she had an affirmative
18 obligation to present all exculpatory evidence to
19 the court and to the attorney.
20
e. Joyce declined to prosecute Montalvo although
21
she knew Montalvo had not only committed gross
22
acts of malpractice against Michele but had
23
committed fraud against her.
24
25 f. Both Joyce and J. Armendariz recommended
26 suspension. Only after Barry complained about
27 Fox during oral argument on September 15, 2016,
28 did J. Purcell for the first time in two years of
252
252
1 prosecution suggest disbarment.

2 J. That the acts of J. Foiles are a violation of Micheles and
3 Rachels right to due process and equal protection.
4
K. That J. Armendarizs denial of a later trial date and of the
5
continuance of trial based on Barrys law practice demands,
6
exhaustion, and illness violated Barrys due process right to
7
bodily and emotional integrity in that Barry ended up with
8
tendonitis eventually leading to rupture of the posterior tibial
9
tendon of the left leg.
10
11 L. That making the Bar a part of the judicial branch is a violation
12 of separation of powers, since it is an enforcement agency, and
13 it has led to extreme injustices and endangers the public
14 because judges exert undue influence on the Bar to protect
15 unethical attorneys like Miller, LaFlamme, Lawrence,
16 Acevedo, Hales. One of the Bars own, former bar
17 president/trial counsel Towery now a judge refused to refer
18 Hales to the Bar and may have intervened to insure he would
19 not be disciplined when he was reported to the bar and found
20 guilty of ethical violations.
21
M. That the failure of Bar prosecutors and Bar judges to apply
22
statutes on judgments, the doctrines of res judicata and
23
collateral estoppel, and relevant case law in prosecutions
24
against attorneys is unconstitutional and has resulted in grave
25
miscarriages of justice as in the Kay and Martin cases.
26
27 N. That the Defendants engaged in free speech retaliation against
28 the plaintiffs.
253
253
1 O. That the CJP is routinely violating separation of powers

2 because it will not refer judges who commit crimes to law
3 enforcement agencies although required by law and CJP rule to
4 do so. The reason why it does not make these referrals is
5 because it, like the Bar, is controlled by judges.
6 P. That the CJP violated Micheles and Barrys rights when it
7 refused to refer J. Karesh and J. Freeman to law enforcement
8 agencies for possible prosecution because Michele and Barry
9 had proven a prima facie case of obstruction of justice in their
10 complaint against them to the CJP in November 2012.
11
Q. That the Bar violated the First Amendment rights of all market
12
participants when the Bar ordered Lee to argue that Bar
13
officials and employees can call black attorneys the N word
14
when they use the racial epithet during disciplinary
15
proceedings.
16
17 R. That the Bar and J. Armendariz violated the due process rights
18 of Martin and engaged in racial discrimination against him
19 when they made him the scapegoat for the misconduct of Keck,
20 a white attorney, who had caused the harm to Maria Perez, a
21 Latina client.
22
S. That the Bar violated the Sherman Anti Trust Act by refusing
23
to take enforcement action against Singer resulting in violation
24
of the rights of the public, of Arch Cunningham, and of the
25
class of all litigants harmed by the UPL practices of Singer and
26
of the rights of all attorneys in California, Arizona, and
27
Nevada.
28
254
254
1 T. That when the Bar hired Fox as consultant to Kim, and then
2 when the Court appointed him to the Board of Trustees the Bar
3 and the Court endangered the public because of Foxs history
4 of institutionalizing racism and anti-child bias as a 28 year San
5 Mateo prosecutor. That when Fox, as a Bar official, made an
6 unethical challenge to the report of the Northern California
7 Innocence Project, and then hired his former deputy Giannini to
8 train bar prosecutors knowing Giannini had engaged in racial
9 discrimination and other acts of prosecutorial misconduct, he
10 further endangered the public.
11 U. That the Court and the Bar endangered the public by allowing
12 Kamansky to teach ethics as a MCLE provider when they knew
13 of his notorious reputation for sexually abusing children and
14 using his position as a judge to gain access to them.
15
V. That the Bars expenditure of dues on investigating complaints
16
of violent, racist, child batterers, homophobic men like J.
17
Fotinos and Morin and of unethical attorneys like Drescher,
18
Zide, and Lauzon is a violation of the Bars mission which is to
19
protect the public as its paramount duty. These men and these
20
attorneys are a danger to the public.
21
22 W. That the Bars protection of Miller, Lawrence, LaFlamme,
23 Acevedo, Krause, Henning, and Hales, and all minors counsel
24 is a violation of the Bars mission because these attorneys also
25 pose an ongoing danger to the public.
26
X. That Saucedos demand that Barry respond to the complaints of
27
J. Fotinos and Lauzon is a violation of Barrys free speech
28
rights.
255
255
1 Y. That Wagstaffes errors, omissions, and intentional disregard

2 for the rights of Michele, Rachel, and Austin were a violation
3 of their rights as crime victims of J. Fotinos;
4 Z. That Wagstaffes criminal prosecution against Michele is
5 retaliatory and malicious.
6
AA. That the California Supreme Court ruling in the Barry case is a
7
danger to the public because it confers free speech rights on a
8
government agency which violates the free speech rights of the
9
individual suing the agency and because it enables the agency
10
to silence opposition to government agencies, thus chilling free
11
speech rights of the people by also imposing attorney fees on
12
the individuals seeking redress of grievances against the
13
government. Free speech rights were designed to protect the
14
people against the tyranny of the government, not the tyranny
15
of the People against the government.
16
17 BB. That Krinsky violated her fiduciary duty to the members when
18 she recommended a crony law firm to investigate Dunn when
19 she knew that a judge was willing to conduct the investigation
20 without fees. That she further violated her fiduciary duty to the
21 members by not advertising the contract and instead insured
22 her good friends at Munger, Tolles received the contract
23 charging exorbitant and excessive fees. It is unknown whether
24 she received a referral fee from Munger/ Tolles.
25
CC. That Dunn violated his fiduciary duty to the members by using
26
$5600 of dues to pay his attorney Geragos for a meal at his
27
restaurant.
28
256
256
1 3. For the following prospective injunctive relief as follows:

2 A. Ordering the Bar and the Court to do a reach out and appoint
3 genuine members of the public to the Board of Trustees and the
4 JNE Commission, and insure that attorneys like Cunningham,
5 Barry, Yeamans, Kaufman, Robinson, Salarno-Ashford and
6 members of the public, like Bassi, Sweeny, Lillard, Farraj,
7 Michele, Hanson, Cook, Park, Chavira, Baddour, Allison, and
8 others like them, Catherine Russell, Connie Valentine, Cindy
9 Dumas, and others involved with issues of domestic violence,
10 protection of abused children, or corrupt judges in family and
11 juvenile court serve as public members on the Board and on
12 committees.
13
B. Ordering J. Fotinos to pay all reparations and restitution to
14
Michele and Rachel as permitted under Article 28, California
15
Constitution, Marsys Law, and supporting Penal Code
16
statutes.
17
18 C. Ordering a wage garnishment for unpaid arrearages and unpaid
19 spousal and child support with interest on J. Fotinos PERS
20 retirement benefits.
21
D. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for the attorney fees
22
spent on pursuing the Barry case in the court of appeals and
23
then in Supreme Court, for paying attorney fees to an all white,
24
male dominated law firm, Kerr/Wagstaffe which also had a
25
personal prejudice against Barry and for spending money on
26
useless appendices containing court documents of all the cases
27
the Bar could locate of lawsuits against the Bar.
28
257
257
1 E. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for the salaries of

2 Farfan, Goldade, Joyce, J. Armendariz, and J Purcell to pursue
3 the claim that Barry should be disbarred because she filed a
4 report two days ahead of its due date with the year 2012"
5 rather than 2013" and losing on the issue and damages to
6 Barry for the time she had to spend on the issue.
7 F. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for spending dues on a
8 sham investigation to protect Fox plus interest.
9
G. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for $14,600 to pay for
10
expenses of a foundation as documented in the State Auditors
11
Report of May 2016 plus interest.
12
13 H. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for paying the stipend
14 of $30,000 to bar presidents from the date this practice began
15 to the date hopefully it has ended plus interest.
16
I. Ordering the Bar to immediately reduce all salaries designated
17
by the state auditor as bloated in her Report of May 2016 plus
18
interest.
19
20 J. Ordering Fox to reimburse members for the stipend paid to
21 Giannini with interest.
22 K. Ordering Dunn to reimburse members for the $5600 he spent at
23 Geragos restaurant with interest.
24
L. Ordering Munger, Tolles to reimburse the members for the
25
excessive fees the firm charged the Bar to investigate Dunn
26
plus interest.
27
28 M. Ordering Krinsky to reimburse the members $300,000.00 plus
258
258
1 interest for recommending the hiring of Munger/Tolles set off

2 by whatever the court orders Munger/Tolles to reimburse the
3 members.
4 N. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for pursuing
5 complaints of J. Fotinos, Morin, Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon.
6
O. Ordering the Bar to advertise all contracts for outside counsel
7
on a competitive basis.
8
9 P. Ordering the Bar to advertise all positions at the Bar on a
10 competitive basis, and prohibiting Bar from considering
11 recommendations of legislators and judges.
12
4. Such other relief as appropriate.
13
14 5. If Barry gets her bar card back, attorney fees.
15 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
16 PATRICIA J BARRY PRO SE
17 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
18 RACHEL FOTINOS PRO SE
19 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
20 MICHELE FOTINOS PRO SE
JURY DEMAND
21
22 Barry, Michele, and Rachel request a jury trial.
23
DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
24
PATRICIA J BARRY PRO SE
25
DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
26 RACHEL FOTINOS PRO SE
27 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
28 MICHELE FOTINOS PRO SE
259
259

03.06.17.FILED - True SHERMAN ANTI TRUST COMPLT (1) - Susan Bassi and Joe Sweeney Named in Support of Federal Filing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

03.06.17.FILED - True SHERMAN ANTI TRUST COMPLT (1) - Susan Bassi and Joe Sweeney Named in Support of Federal Filing

Original Title:

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-01787 Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 267 Page ID #:1

1 PATRICIA J. BARRY, MICHELE FOTINOS, RACHEL FOTINOS

13 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

1 2. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -

1 (ii) Bars Free Speech Retaliation Against Barry

1 1. Foxs Continuing Support of Corrupt Prosecutors Wagstaffe

1 a. Prosecution of Mardeusz Eye of the Storm

1 a. Filing Late Reports.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

1 d. Kimballs bad Faith Motions to Compel Answers to

1 (I). J. Purcells Disregard of the Bars Finding that

1 M. The Bar Fought Against Progressive Legislation to Protect Mothers

1 PLAINTIFFS PATRICIA J. BARRY (Barry), MICHELE FOTINOS

1 expose the governments wrongdoing kill the messenger.

1 cases Barry filed on behalf of Elwood. As already alleged, Morin is a violent

1 money to his ex wife, Kirsten Cook.

1 for all Americans that environmental sexual harassment is

1 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

1 92. On information and belief, Fox is suppressing the investigations of

1 against Morin, as well as the police report on Morins crime against

1 114. Around October 2012, J. Fotinos announced in J. Cretan's courtroom

1 Redwood City, California, Drescher had Barry served with a document

1 Cunningham harbored great hostility towards Barry. Lauzon demanded that J.

1 referred to her federal complaint filed on behalf of Farraj as "trash" in as loud a

1 1982)] been undertaken in Schroeder, a different conclusion

1 the people is inimical to the rights of the people as dramatically demonstrated in

1 San Mateo County needs a judge who is willing to dedicate himself to

1 Santa Cruz Police Department Sheriff's Office should

1 employment. The court finds that this was a clear

1 least one (measly) weapon.

1 and my face was swollen.

1 found multiple weapons including 14 guns, 2 assault weapons, 20 high capacity

1 * SAN MATEO RESIDENT JOHN FOTINOS IS A FELON WITH GUNS

1 . WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1 F. San Mateo Retaliation

1 stepfather adopt them.

1 resulting in stigma plus.

1 legal malpractice insurance committee in 2012. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory

1 S.F. County 2010).

1 insuring institutionalized racism but as will be shown infra, also institutionalized

1 further was heard from OCTC on the claims of the Innocence

1 3. Foxs Support for Convicted Pedophile William Ayres, and

1 deadlocked 8 to 4, with the majority deciding that Ayres' deteriorating mental

1 Greg and Carlos: Just a quick word of support from me as

1 ...When I contacted Mckowan on behalf of my clients to state that she

1 it inside for an entire week which was extraordinarily difficult.

1 Judge Karesh and Judge Freeman's ethical violations are as follows:

1 individual or entity, such information shall be brought to the

1 Mardeusz. Haleigh is now probably 26 or 27 years old.

1 not testify to the jury about his extreme domestic violence] is

1 statement of Judge Adams you quoted in your article: Judge Verna

1 THE COURT: You are admonished not to converse amongst

1 in her conduct. ..... In my professional opinion as a Minister and

1 stipulated to a private reproval with the Bar on J. Adams contempt convictions,

1 Open Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger concerning Corruption at the State Bar

1 announce it has retained Morrison & Foerster, one of the largest of

1 actually threatened to prosecute Barry because he believed Barry was Jensens

1 irreversible brain damage because of hospital negligence); Daniel Dydzak, Case

1 * A Ninth Circuit attorney nominated the Boyle appeal for

1 cleared of child abuse but a (malicious) social worker placed