You are on page 1of 12

Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 1 of 12

Court of Appeals Nos. 16-80180, 15-56604, 15-56690, 16-15289

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

in re: PATRICIA J. BARRY, Esquire,
Admitted to Practice before the Ninth Circuit:
June 10, 1985.

Respondent
_________________________________________/

RESPONDENT PATRICIA J. BARRY’S LIST OF HEARING
WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS

PATRICIA J. BARRY (State Bar No.59116)
634 S. Spring St., Ste 823
Los Angeles, Ca 90014
Tele. (213) 995-0734
Fax (213) 995-0735
joanbarrylegal@yahoo.com
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 2 of 12

LIST OF HEARING WITNESSES

By way of introduction, Barry thanks the commissioner for his willingness

to allow witnesses to testify. The witnesses collectively are the face of democracy.

They represent a true moral force. While this writer promises to focus on the facts

of her disbarment, still, we must never forget the law must have as its fundamental

tenets, fairness, justice, compassion, love, and good will for ourselves and all

others.

1. Ruth Hull, Attorney: Irreparable harm if Barry is disbarred. Hull

will testify that she is victim of domestic violence, that there is a dearth of

attorneys who provide zealous, competent, and ethical representation to domestic

violence victims and their children, and that if Barry is disbarred, her current as

well as many potential clients who are mothers and children will suffer irreparable

harm.

2. Kristin Hanson, client, 9th Circuit appeal on hold: She will testify to

the irrevocable harm she and her daughter will suffer if Barry is disbarred.

3. Elizabeth Chavira, client, 9th Circuit appeal dismissed: She will

testify to the irrevocable harm she and her daughters will suffer if Barry is

disbarred and Barry cannot attempt to reinstate her appeal.

4. Shelley Allison, client, 9th Circuit appeal dismissed: She will testify

1
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 3 of 12

to the irrevocable harm she and her daughters will suffer if Barry is disbarred and

Barry cannot attempt to reinstate her appeal. She will also testify to the name

calling and insults that the judges allowed opposing counsel to use against her and

Barry, and they did nothing to stop it.

5. Jamie Baddour, client, 9th Circuit appeal on hold: She will testify to

the irrevocable harm she will suffer if Barry is disbarred.

6. Francine McDermott, client, Central District lawsuit on hold: She

will testify to the irrevocable harm she and her disabled students (minors) will

suffer if Barry is disbarred, the long attorney client relationship she and Barry

have had.

7. Connie Valentine: founding CEO of Protective Parents Association.

Valentine has known Barry for probably 13 years, She has testified before the

Legislature and was instrumental in getting the Legislature to enact laws to protect

mothers and children. She can provide statistics as to the number of mothers and

children who have no attorneys to represent them, and that the family courts are in

crisis, often turning children over to their abusers which Barry tries to remedy.

8. Joe Sweeney: He was instrumental along with Kathleen Russell,

Center for Judicial Excellence, in persuading Assembly members to order the state

auditor to audit the Commission on Judicial Performance to learn why there are

2
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 4 of 12

few judges being disciplined; that within days of the Assembly ordering the audit

of the CJP, Judge Mills, Contra Costa Superior Court, found Sweeney in contempt

and sentenced him to 25 days in jail which he actually served; that he filed

complaints with the Bar against Opposing Attorneys and his ex wife who is an

attorney for, inter alia, presenting forged and false documents in Court, and the

Bar refused to discipline the attorneys. This goes to the issue of fundamental lack

of fairness inherent in the structure based on protection of bar Insiders and

hounding, harassment, and unfair discipline of Bar outsiders, disparate treatment

of attorneys by the Bar, and uneven discipline.

9. Craig Martin – disbarred, we say (Barry and Martin) based on

concocted evidence designed to protect corrupt and unethical white male attorney

Michael Keck. When Martin, who is black, filed a complaint against bar judge

Lucy Armendariz with the CJP, he received two uninvited phone calls in both of

which he was called a nigger. Martin traced the calls to a private communication

company, ILD, which acknowledged in court papers it provided communications

service to the Bar. When Martin sued the Bar based on being called the “N”

word, Bar Attorney Danielle Lee filed an anti-SLAPP motion claiming that as long

as the racial epithet was uttered during an official proceeding, the government

could call him the epithet and be protected by the First Amendment. She

3
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 5 of 12

demanded attorney fees because Martin sued the bar for being called a nigger. Lee

also claimed in a demurrer Martin’s claim based on the racial epithets should be

dismissed because “...this country has long tolerated racist comments or

sentiments because they are protected by the First Amendment.[citation

omitted]”.

10. Susan Bassi: Bassi is engaged in family law litigation in Santa Clara

Superior Court. Bassi filed Bar complaint against Attorney Nathan Hales, jr. who

had failed to provide written disclosures of conflict of interest required by law

before he proceeded to serve as referee in her family law case. The Bar

acknowledged Hales failed to provide these written disclosures but only had him

enter into an agreement in lieu of discipline and take the Ethics School

Course. Despite this serious breach, Hales was given permission by the Court to

set his own fees and take those fees from Bassi’s accounts. He ended up awarding

himself $100,000 from Bassi’s account. The Bar refused to make Hales pay

restitution to Bassi. This goes to the issue of fundamental lack of fairness inherent

in the Bar structure based on protection of bar Insiders and hounding, harassment,

and unfair discipline of Bar outsiders, disparate treatment of attorneys in the Bar,

and uneven discipline.

4
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 6 of 12

LIST OF EXHIBITS

JUDGE VERNA ADAMS, CONTEMPT CONVICTION, BAR/BARRY
PRIVATE REPROVAL JUNE 2005

1. Bar/Barry Stipulation for Private Reproval, June 2005.

2. Letter from Barry to Bar Chief Trial Counsel Nisperos dated
November 13, 2002 re: appointment of Jerome Craig, Morrison &
Foerster, as Barry’s “special prosecutor”.

3. M&F website as of April 9, 2017.

4. Copy of press release of Cytodyn June 2004 found at
http://www.cytodyn.com/newsroom.html (No longer available.)

5. Portion of Los Angeles Superior Court Case Summary - Cytodyn v.
Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. BC290154.

6. Declaration of Peter Romanowsky, a court observer and supporter of
Mardeusz states (found at eocities. com/promanowsky/declaration.
html) re: Barry’s and Judge Adams’ respective demeanors in court.

7. “Odor in the Court” Originally published by SF Weekly October 18, 2000

8. Karen Winner, Attorney, “Karen's Investigations & Cases In The Press”
with emphasis on her report about Marin Superior Court corruption
and entitled ““Findings on Judge Michael Dufficy, Commissioner
Sylvia Shapiro, & Court appointees.”

BARRY/BAR STIPULATION FOR FILING FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS MARCH
2010

9. Bar/Barry Stipulation for 2 months suspension, etc. March 2010.

10. Barry’s review of 60 cases showing no attorney ordered to take both
Ethics School and 4 “live” units of ethics at the same time.

5
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 7 of 12

11. Emails or notes documenting Barry’s contacts with Bar prosecutor
Brandon Tady and Probation Officer Maricruz Fanfan re: 4 “live”
ethics.

12. Email or note from Farfan re: Trust Account School to satisfy 3 “live”
ethics units.

13. Documents re: absurd brouhaha over filing January 2013 report two
days ahead with date of 2012 rather than 2013.

14. In the Matter of Caroline Sue Sternberg, Decision Case No. 04-O-
11939–RAH, Filed November 26, 2007

15. In the Matter of Caroline Sue Sternberg, Decision Case No. 04-O-
11939–RAH, Filed October 17, 2008, Review Court opinion.

16. Order extending time to take MPRE, In the Matter of Caroline Sue
Sternberg, Decision Case No. 04-O-11939–RAH, Filed June 29,
2010.

17. Respondent Patricia J. Barry’s Motion to Extend Time to Take State
Bar School Ethics Class and MPRE and for Leave to Take Computer
Ethics Classes ; Declarations of Patricia J. Barry and Tonja Jarrett;
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Exhs. 1-8 Case NO.06-O-
12210-RAP, Case NO.07-H-12920.

18. Order Denying Barry’s motion to extend time.

19. Plaintiff’s Notice of Erratum in Legal Arguments Made in Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Defendants DOJ and Skeba, filed
on August 19, 2002, Elwood v. Drescher, et al., Case No. CV 02
4656 LGB (FMOx).

20. Order withdrawing OSC re Sanctions against Barry, Elwood v.
Drescher, supra.

21. Order, Ninth Circuit, Elwood v. Drescher, Case No. 04-55635,

6
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 8 of 12

denying Motions for Summary Affirmance finding merit in Elwood’s
briefs and allowing oral argument to go forward, filed November
2003

22. Order of Comm. Shaw discharging OSC re: reciprocal discipline, In
re Barry Discipline, 9th Cir., Case No. No. 11-80211, filed October 21,
2011.

23. Order of Judge Collins discharging OSC re: reciprocal discipline, In
re Barry Discipline Case NO. MC-11-397 ABC filed December 7,
2011.

COMPLETING ETHICS SCHOOL, 4 LIVE ETHICS UNITS LATE, FILING
QUARTERLY REPORTS LATE; NON PAYMENT OF DISCOVERY AND
JUDICIAL SANCTIONS; FAILURE TO REPORT JUDICIAL SANCTIONS TO
BAR.

24. Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Case No. 14-0-02579, filed April 24,
2015.

25. Judgment entered in Fotinos v. Montalvo, Case No. CIV 512259,
filed May 19, 2014.

26. Barry email to Betsy Kimball, Attorney dated March 11, 2017, with
copy to Bar Prosecutor Erin Joyce re: transcript of hearing on
Montalvo’s Motion to Compel

27. Transcript of Michele Fotinos testimony at hearing before Judge
Armendariz, August 2015.

28. Transcript of Rachel Fotinos testimony at hearing before Judge
Armendariz, August 2015.

29. Transcript of portion of Kimball testimony at hearing before Judge
Armendariz, August 2015.

30. Emails between Kimball and Barry re: December 20, 2013 hearing on

7
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 9 of 12

discovery sanctions.

31. Order setting hearing on discovery sanctions, Fotinos v. Montalvo,
supra.

32. Order setting hearing on discovery sanctions, Fotinos v. Montalvo,
supra, for December 20, 2013.

33. Decision of Bar Judge Lucy Armendariz dated – 2015.

34. Decision of Bar Judge Catherine Purcell dated October 31, 2016.

35. Docket, In re Barry Discipline, Case No. S238855, California
Supreme Court

36. Bar rejection of Joe Sweeney’s Complaint against opposing counsel
and his ex wife, an Attorney, dated September 11, 2014.

37. “Contra Costa: Judge Jails Judicial Reform Advocate [Joe Sweeney]
Who Discussed Divorce Online” by Nate Gartrell |
ngartrell@bayareanewsgroup.com and Thomas Peele |
tpeele@bayareanewsgroup.com |Updated: October 17, 2016 at 4:09
am

38. “Report slams the quiet way California judges are disciplined”, By
Bob Egelko Updated 10:51 am, Tuesday, March 29, 2016 (report
written by Joe Sweeney as founder of Court Reform LLC).

39. Court Reform LLC Report authored by Sweeney, “Why a Spotlight
Must Be Put on the Commission on Judicial Performance,

40. Letter dated September 2, 2016, from Bar to Susan Bassi re:
agreement in lieu of discipline and take ethics school issued to
Attorney Nathan Hales, Jr.

41. Letter dated March 24, 2017, from Presiding Santa Clara Superior
Court Judge Patricia Lucas to Bassi re: Hales status before the CJP.

8
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 10 of 12

42. Declaration of Jeff Belmont

43. Declaration of Sandra McCrary

44. Declaration of Margaret England

45. Declaration of Dr. Kathie Mathis

46. Declaration of Cyndy Williams

47. Declaration of Deanna Weekly

48. Declaration of Tom Lillard

49. Declaration of C.J. Park

50. Declaration of Shirley Moore

51. Declaration of Shirley Hay

52. Declaration of Ann Bellis

53. Kristin Hanson Change.org petition from her Facebook re: Bar to stop
harassment of Barry, 1508 signatures.

54. Idelle Clark to Bar re: Barry.

REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

Pursuant to Evid Rule 201, Respondent Barry requests that the Court take

judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Exh. 3, complaint filed in Central District of CA but dismissed for
failure to pay filing fee, Barry v. State Bar of CA, attached to Barry’s
Motion to Vacate Default Disbarment filed in this Court on March 13,
2017.

9
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 11 of 12

Why Jerome Craig should never have been appointed by the Bar as Barry’s

“Special Prosecutor.” and why his appointment was a denial of due process to

Barry.

2. Opinion, Vinson v. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1985) sub nomine
in Supreme court, Meritor, supra: Briefed and argued for Vinson.
Held: Reversed trial court. Evidence of harassment of other
employees by the perpetrator admissible to prove plaintiff's claim of
sexual harassment. Judge Bork writing for himself, and Judges Scalia
and Starr dissented to denial of Petition for Rehearing en banc at 760
F.2d 1330 (D.C.Cir. 1985).

3. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 U.S. (1986). Argued for
Respondent Vinson. Held: (by Justice Rehnquist for an unanimous
court) sexual harassment, including both quid pro quo and
environmental harassment, is sexual discrimination under Title VII.

4. Opinion, Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214
Cal.App.3d 590: Briefed and argued for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Held:
Employee stated claim for sexual harassment if witnessed other
women undergo harassment although not direct victim herself.

Why Barry did not file frivolous lawsuits and it was an abuse of discretion and an

ethical violation on the part of Bar Prosecutor Brandon Tady to pursue the Elwood

matter because he admitted Barry would probably prevail on the issue of whether

she knew that she was filing some frivolous causes of action when she filed the

Elwood federal lawsuits in 2002 and 2003.

5. Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006).

6. Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2009)

10
Case: 16-80180, 04/04/2017, ID: 10383816, DktEntry: 8, Page 12 of 12

rev’d on issue of attorney fees awarded against County in 562 U. S.
_(2010) No. 09–350. (Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement
applies in §1983 cases irrespective of whether the relief sought is
monetary or prospective.)

Why the interim orders of discovery and judicial sanctions did not merge into

Judge Buchwald’s judgment of dismissal for failure of plaintiff to prosecute.

7. Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12)

8. Vernon v. Great Western Bank, Case No B091406 (2d Appell DCA,
12/18/96), certified for publication

9. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1984)

DATED: April 4, 2017 s/_________________________
PATRICIA J. BARRY

11