You are on page 1of 110

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SILICON VALLEY PUBLIC TRUST COMMITTEE,
SUSAN BASSI AND PAMELA NUDELMAN
Petitioners

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE BAR

PETITION FOR EXPEDITED ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Of
California State Bar Antitrust Determination, #2018-003

Silicon Valley Trust Committee
Susan Bassi and Pamela
Nudelman, pro se

2170 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (831)320-6421
Email: gilroybassi@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS for REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF
STATE BAR ANTITRUST DETERMINATION
Page(s)

I. ISSUE PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1

II. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 2

III. BASIS FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 2

IV. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

VI. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 11

A. Failure to disclose required by California Rule of Court
2.831(d) Renders referee orders VOID for the Santa Clara
County Court to Permit Widespread violation of this rule sets up a
situation rife with opportunities for antitrust
activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Particularly in a Courthouse where all Photography is
Prohibited by a Local Standing Order Posting of the Required List of
Private Judges is important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

C. The California Supreme Court on September 26, 2017
Ordered that it is the "Final Decision Maker" in Antitrust
Activity Matters Involving Members of the State Bar . . . . . . . . 12

VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

VIII. Attachments:
A- State Bar Antitrust Determination Dated 9-25-2018
B- Clyde Berg- January 2018 Antitrust Compliant
C- Pamela Nudelman March 2018 Antitrust Compliant
D- List Prepared by Sharon Roper pursuant to CRC 2.834
E- State Bar Letters Re: Nat Hales Discipline
F- Judge Lucas Standing Order dated 9/29/2018
G- Silicon Valley Public Trust Appeal and Victim Statement
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Statues

Code of Civil Procedure

Section 638 . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . ...... ... . . ..... ....... . . . .... . . . . 4,5,6,11,13,15
Section 639. . ..... .. .... ........... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5,6,11,13,15

California Rules of Court
2.831.......... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . .. . . .... . ... . . 14
2.83 l(d)... .. .. . . .. .... ... .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . .. ....... 1
2.834 .. . . . . . . . .. . ... ........ .... . ...... . .. . ....... . ... .
· · · · · · · · · · 4

In Hayward v. Superior Court ofNapa County
(2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 10, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 102 . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 13

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SILICON VALLEY PUBLIC TRUST COMMITTEE
SUSAN BASSI AND PAMELA NUDELMAN,

Petitioners,
State Bar Antitrust
Case No. 2018-0003
vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE BAR,

Respondent.

REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF
STATE BAR ANTITRUST DETERMINATION

I. ISSUE PRESENTED

Did the State Bar err in failing to investigate complaints of potential

antitrust activity involving Silicon Valley divorce lawyers, and should the

Court appoint an independent investigator to investigate the allegations of this

Petition, and in addition appoint counsel for Petitioners who allege antitrust

activity that includes collusion between private and governmental attorneys?

3
II. INTRODUCTION

The State Bar erred when on Sep. 25, 2018, it issued an Antitrust

Determination (Attachment A) in response to Petitioner's "Mother's Day

Antitrust Complaint" that requested an independent investigation.

The State Bar violated the California Supreme Court's Administrative

Order, filed on Sep. 26, 2017, when it failed to investigate and to report to the

Supreme Court complaints, alleging potential antitrust activity related to

Silicon Valley divorce lawyers acting in high asset divorce cases. (Attachment

B and Attachment C)

III. BASIS FOR RELIEF

A five-year media investigation, including by the Silicon Valley Public

Trust Committee, in association with Bassi Productions, shows an appearance

of antitrust activity in Silicon Valley's high asset divorce cases where court

appointments pursuant to CCP 638 and CCP 639 include privately

compensated lawyers who act as temporary judges, referees and special

masters. That investigation shows vast irregularities in prices, competition,

transparency and quality of legal services available to families involved in

divorce and custody cases in Santa Clara County. As Silicon Valley

experienced unprecedented wealth and success, the potential for antitrust

activity collided with reality as a core group of family law attorneys took

windfall profits as they engaged in criminal activity that was enabled by a

culture of underfunded courts, incompetent family law judges, and government

4
lawyers. When unsophisticated legal consumers complained to the State Bar,

the District Attorney, the county's presiding judge, and the local Bar

Association, they were summarily dismissed, disregarded and labeled

"disgruntled." A letter partially explaining this investigation is attached, and

the exhibits in support of that letter were delivered to the Clerk's Office on

Monday, November 26, 2018. (See Attachment D)

Victims of domestic violence and divorce litigants are especially

vulnerable to predatory business practices of licensed attorneys willing

to misuse their profession and abuse the legal process in our state's

family courts.

In 2004 California's Judicial Council issued a Report to the State

Legislature1 related to the cost and use of lawyers appointed by the

courts pursuant to CCP §638 and CCP§ 639, where these lawyers act as

privately compensated temporary judges in high asset divorce cases, a

practice ripe for antitrust activity. After this report, the State Legislature

and the Courts ceased tracking and reporting use and fees paid to

lawyers acting as temporary judges, referees and special masters,

inviting antitrust activity in Silicon Valley's high asset divorce cases

where overworked judges and underfunded courts began to shift the

public burden to families who had accumulated home equity and/or

business assets during Silicon Valley's financial boom.

1 http://www. courts. ca. govIdocuments/refrept. pdf

5
In 2015 the State Auditor revealed vast deficiencies at the State

Bar had resulted in consistent failures in public protection2. By 2018 the

State Legislature and the Judicial Council had implemented sweeping

reforms to better protect the public from misconduct of licensed

attorneys. However, despite structural changes, many of the employees

at the Bar, who were employed prior to these changes, remain, as does a

culture of entitlement where a small groups of lawyers continue to

engage in criminal antitrust activity with impunity.

A five-year media investigation of Santa Clara County family

courts, up to the current time, shows a number of irregularities in high

asset divorce cases where significantly higher costs and fees for 638 and

639 appointments than those costs that were being reported the State

Legislature in 2004. Additionally, while unsophisticated legal

consumers paid these costs, with the expectation those fees would

accelerate their divorces, most found that in cases where these

appointments were made, a small group of lawyers colluded to keep

those cases pending for 5-10 years, where the lawyers and referee made

windfall profits and acted in concert to keep other lawyers from these

cases.

Most alarming is the documentary evidence of these schemes as

recently discovered in a list prepared pursuant to California Rules of

2 https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/agency/8

6
Court 2.834(b)(3) and posted at the Santa Clara County Family

Courthouse in October 2018, by attorney Sharon Roper, employed as

the court's settlement officer. (Attachment E). Absent from the list are

lawyers known to be regularly engaged in cases where these

appointments are made are, which results in a denial of due process and

amounts to evidence of a scheme or plan designed to keep the identity

of those receiving these appointments, and fees, from being revealed.

Clyde Berg, a 79-year-old real estate investor, lodged a

complaint with the State Bar Association in January 2018 (Attachment

B). In his complaint, Mr. Berg alleged an appearance of collusion

between attorneys Bradford Baugh, Valerie Houghton and Sharon

Roper.

Mr. Berg is victim of elder financial abuse, and subject to

protections afforded by the Victim's Bill of Rights3 given that there is a

pending indictment of attorney Valerie Houghton, who reportedly

functioned as Berg's now ex-wife's consultant.

Mr. Berg is also a victim of antitrust activity in Silicon Valley's

high asset divorce cases, where he paid nearly $6,000,000 to defend

himself against false claims of domestic violence in Santa Clara County

criminal, civil and family law matters. During the adjudication of those

matters, Mr. Berg learned that his former wife had been consulting with

3 Marsy's Law, Cal. Const., A11. I§ 28.

7
divorce attorneys -- Sharon Roper and Bradford Baugh -- two years

before Ms. Berg made false claims and filed for divorce. Ultimately the

family law matter was settled after Mr. Berg retained an out of area

lawyer. The case was also assigned to a m privately compensated

referee4, when Mr. Baugh acted in the case, and the Berg case was not

posted on the list prepared by Sharon Roper, or any other prepared and

available for public view prior to Ms. Roper becoming employed by the

Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The State Bar never investigated or reported on the complaints of

attorney collusion arising from Mr. Berg's complaint.

Pamela Nudelman, a 69-year-old ex-wife of a fonner Santa Clara

County prosecutor, lodged a complaint about Bradford Baugh with the

State Bar in March 2018. Her complaint was based on ongoing harm she

continued to suffer after Bradford Baugh had represented her former

husband in a divorce case where James Cox was appointed as referee

and Nat Hales was appointed by James Cox as a special master.

By the time Ms. Nudelman complained to the Bar that Bradford

Baugh refused to release a lien he had improperly placed on her

property, the harm Ms. Nudelman had been caused based on nearly 20

years of antitrust activity was more than an appearance.

4 California's Code of Judicial Ethics Defines Referees, special masters and privately compensated
temporary judges as legally the same and typically involve lawyers or retired judges appointed under
either 638 (consensual)or 639 (non- consensual).

8
The State Bar's website lists antitrust determinations issued in

2018. Neither Mr. Berg's, nor Ms. Nudelman's complaints are listed or

reported on the State Bar website.

In May 2018, on behalf of herself and others, Susan Bassi lodged

an antitrust complaint with the State Bar, where she asked for the

appointment of an independent investigator, given inherent conflicts at

the State Bar, and specifically stating the complaint did not contain all

the information needed to conduct a proper investigation. No employee

from the Bar contacted Ms. Bassi, nor asked for additional information.

The Bar declined to appoint an independent investigator and issued a

determination. (Att. A.)

Litigants Bassi, Berg, Nudelman and undoubtedly others, would

not have agreed to privately compensate referees if they had known the

relationship the referees had to the attorneys in their cases. This

information was concealed from them, and the referees did not provide

required disclosures.

Concurrently Ms. Bassi and her lawyer, Robert J. Tennant,

exhausting all remedies, had lodged a complaint with the State Bar and

the Santa Clara County District Attorney (DA), alleging multiple crimes

committed by Attorney Bradford Baugh, in collusion with attorney Nat

Hales. The Santa Clara County DA declined to take any action.

9
From the time James Towery, former Chief Trial Counsel of the

State Bar, began presiding over the Marriage of Bassi, an appearance

that James Towery acted to protect favored lawyers was clear. On April

28, 2017, at a Santa Clara County Bar Association meeting, James

Towery said to a group of local family law attorneys that they would

earn more in fees if he liked them. This is currently the subject of a

complaint against James Towery pending at the Commission on Judicial

Performance, but an investigation over James Towery's role in antirust

activity through his association with the Santa Clara County Bar

Association is worthy of an independent investigation.

The California Supreme Court has the inherent authority to regulate the

practice of law of this state. On September 26, 2017 the Court filed an

Administrative Order #2017-09-20 where at Page 6, (C) (2) Mandatory

Reporting and (D) Potential Antitrust Violations Reported by Members of the

Public states:

"Any member of the public may report a potential antitrust
violation to the State Bar. The State Bar's determinations on
reports of potential antitrust violations brought by members of
the public are subject to review by the California Supreme Court
in accordance with the Supreme Court's procedures. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 9.13(d), (e).)"

10
IV. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

Appeal to a Court of Appeal is not an adequate remedy at law since

what Petitioner seeks is an order appointing a special master to initiate and

conduct an investigation into antitrust activity involved in appointments in

Santa Clara County under CCP sections 638 and 639 of all attorneys and clerks

involved in such appointments, including tasks such as posting a public list of

appointments. The September 26, 2017 order of the Supreme Court regarding

antitrust activity, envisions action by the State Bar Association, of which the

Supreme Court is the "final decider."

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS5

Robert and Susan Bassi were married in 1989 and separated in 2012. They had

three children, all now adults. Judges Towery, Grilli and Takaichi were the

main judges who handled the dissolution.

In April 2014 Judge MaryAnn Grilli appointed Nat Hales as a referee,

and in June 2015 Judge James Towery re-appointed him. No disclosures were

made by referee Hales, and Susan Bassi was unaware that Mr. Hales had

received a series of lucrative appointments from attorney Baugh but never

received any appointments from Susan Bassi's attorney, Robert J. Tennant.

Attorney Hales acted so improperly in favor of attorney Baugh's client that he

5 Since Appellant's Declaration was not submitted into evidence, these facts are taken
directly from Marilyn's Declaration. (AA, Tab 4.) As is customary, henceforth the
parties will be referred to by their first names.

11
was privately disciplined by the State Bar in Sept. 2016 due to a complaint by

Ms. Bassi (Att. F.)

At the time of both appointments of Mr. Hales, no list required by Rule

2.834(b)(3) was posted in the courthouse, and Susan Bassi was unaware of this

requirement. She once saw a list in the Sunnyvale courthouse, but the court

moved in 2016, and after that, no list was posted until the Roper list in Oct.

2018. But that list was very incomplete and included NO Hales cases at all.

Based on what is believed to be an unconstitutional "standing order" by Judge

Patricia Lucas, nobody could photograph the list (Att. F), but a copy of it was

obtained directly from the court's settlement officer, Sharon Roper.

In May 2018, Susan Bassi complained to the State Bar about the facts

stated herein. On Sept. 25, 2018, the State Bar rejected the complaint on the

stated basis that the alleged activities did not affect commerce (Att. A). The

out-crowd attorneys and public would beg to differ.

In the recent past, Susan Bassi has investigated court files in which

Bradford Baugh is an attorney and has found many stipulations or orders

appointing different private judges. (Copies of these orders are not attached as

they are too voluminous.) The public list recently compiled by Sharon Roper

(Att. D) shows none of these appointments in Bradford Baugh cases. At the

time of the State Bar complaint referred to above, Susan Bassi had some of the

information, but requested the State Bar to do an investigation, knowing any

serious investigation would immediately uncover these facts. The State Bar

12
refused to do an investigation. It is believed these antitrust activities are

ongoing and continue to the present.

V.I ARGUMENT

A. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE REQUIRED BY RULE 2.83 l (d)
RENDERS REFEREE ORDERS VOID; FOR THE SANTA CLARA
COUNTY COURT TO PERMIT WIDESPREAD VIOLATION OF THIS
RULE SETS UP A SITUATION RIFE WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ANTITRUST ACTIVITY.

In Hayward v. Superior Court ofNapa County (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th

I 0, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d I 02 (emphasis added), reciprocal private judging

relationships pursuant to CCP 638 (consensual) or CCP 639 (nonconsensual)

demonstrated the harm they can cause innocent spouses. The Court of Appeal

held:

HOLDINGS: [ l ]-A temporary judge who did not respond to a
statement of disqualification was deemed disqualified under Code Civ.
Proc., § 170.3, subd. (c)(4), for the stated reasons of failure to disclose a
relationship with a party's counsel under Cal. Rules of Court, rule
2.83l (d), and Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 6D(5)(a), appearance of
partiality under Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii), and actual
bias; [2]-Disqualification occurred at the time of failure to disclose, and
the judge's orders thereafter were void; [3]-There was no written waiver
of disqualification under§ 170.3, subd. (b)(l), and orally disclosing
disqualifying conduct did not result in implied waiver; [4]-A settlement
agreement was unenforceable under Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, because
void rulings tainted it; [5]-A later-assigned judge was presumed
under Evid. Code, § 664, to have maintained impartiality.

These relationships provide a steady stream of income to lawyers who

willfully engage in antitrust activity. These lawyers have an incentive not to

disclose conflicts and relationships that would reveal a pattern of favorable

court rulings for members in what clearly has become a monopoly for attorney

13
fee awards and court appointments in Silicon Valley's high asset divorce cases

where money is run through unregulated attorney trust accounts.

While the Hayward case did not mention the antitrust issue, the case

properly addressed Rule 2.831 which was designed to obviate or reduce the

antitrust issues.

B. PARTICULARLY IN A COURTHOUSE WHERE ALL PHOTOGRAPHY
IS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL "STANDING ORDER," POSTING OF
THE REQUIRED LIST OF PRIVATE JUDGES IS IMPORTANT.

Judge Patricia Lucas issued a "standing order" (presumably to avoid the

requirements for a local rule) that no photography may occur in the courthouse.

A litigant should at least be able to look at the list and take notes, but no list until

the Roper List of Oct. 2018 has appeared since 2016. At the time of both of

referee Hales' appointments, no list of referee appointments were posted. Worse,

the current list omits appointments involving either Nat Hales or Bradford

Baugh. This favorable treatment of in-crowd attorneys is an invitation to antitrust

activity. It limits competition for these appointments. The facts have been

concealed from other lawyers and from the public. This is clearly prohibited.

C. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ON SEP. 26, 2017, ORDERED
THAT IT IS THE "FINAL DECISION MAKER" IN ANTITRUST
MATTERS INVOLVING MEMBERS OF THE STATE BAR.

On page 4 the Supreme Court described itself as the "final decision

maker" in antitrust activities involving members of the State Bar Association.

On page 6, the Supreme Court indicated that the State Bar must report potential

14
antitrust violations "immediately." Unfortunately, such antitrust violations are

not being reported.

VI.I RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner seeks an order appointing a special master to initiate and

conduct an investigation into antitrust activity involved in appointments in

Santa Clara County under CCP sections 638 and 639 of all attorneys and clerks

involved in such appointments, including tasks such as posting a public list of

appointments. She asks that this Court grant review and either hear the case or

direct the Court of Appeal to do so.

Dated: November 29, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

cS��

15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Susan J. Bassi, certify that, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14( c)( 1 ),

this brief contains approximately 2,929 words, including footnotes, as

computed by the Microsoft Word98 word com � �J�
SUSAN J. BASSI

16
ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT A
THE STATE BAR OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

OF CALIFORNIA
180 HOWARD STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1639 TELEPHONE: (415) 538-2000

http://www.calbar.ca.gov
FAX: (415) 538-2220

September 25, 2018

ANTITRUST DETERMINATION 2018-0003

A. Authority

This detennination is made pursuant to California Supreme Court Administrative Order 2017-09-20
("State Bar Antitrust Policy"), which mandates that the State Bar Office of General Counsel provide a
determination on issues submitted to it for resolution of potential antitrust concerns.

B. Issues Presented

On May 11, 2018, the State Bar received a letter entitled "Mother's Day Antitrust Complaint - Santa
Clara County" from Susan Bassi ("Requestor"). Requestor's submission is attached hereto as Appendix
I . Requestor raises her concerns about the conduct of attorneys and judges in Santa Clara County, and
1
appears to assert in this context alleges that the State Bar is in violation of antitrust laws.

Requestor alleges that the State Bar's policies, procedures, and training of its employees regarding the
investigation and prosecution of attorney misconduct, and the conduct of specific State Bar employees
violates the antitrust laws; however, Requestor does not identify which specific policies or procedures
allegedly violate antitrust laws, except the purported "policy and practice of the State Bar for
disciplining attorneys without consideration for Marsy's Law2 and other victims' rights . . .. "

Requestor's allegations about the conduct of specific State Bar employees are similarly vague, stating
only that individuals "engaged in conduct" without describing the alleged acts. Requestor's allegations
of "conduct" by State Bar employees relate to two areas of responsibility for State Bar employees:
3
attorney discipline, and responses to requests under the California Public Records Act.

C. Analysis

1. State Bar Actions Must Potentially Impact Commerce to Raise Antitrust Concerns.

In order to raise antitrust concerns, the actions or policies at issue must have some impact on the market
for legal services. "If the action or proposed action does not affect competition or has only a de minimis
impact, the antitrust laws are not implicated. Courts have held that individualized decisions on
admissions or discipline do not impact overall competition in the market to sufficiently raise antitrust
concerns." (State Bar Antitrust Policy, p. 4.) An action may raise antitrust concerns when, for example,

1 Requester named State Bar General Counsel Vanessa Holton and State Bar Assistant General Counsel Suzanne Grandt,

State Bar Assistant General Counsel, among the State Bar employees she accused of antitrust violations. Neither Ms. Holton
nor Ms. Grandt had any role in the consideration of the response to Requester or drafting of this Antitrust Determination.
2 (Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (Proposition 9) [amending Cal. Const., art. I, § 28).)

3 (Gov. Code,§ 6250 et seq.)
Antitrust Determination 2018-0002
September 25, 2018
Page 2

that action raises prices, reduces output, diminishes quality, limited choices, or creates, maintains, or
enhances market power.

Requestor's allegations of antitrust violations stemming from the State Bar's responses to requests under
the California Public Records Act fail to raise antitrust concerns because there is no discernable impact
to the market for legal services. Requestor claims that a State Bar attorney attempted to use harassment
and threats in order to intimidate Requestor to force her to sign an untrue affidavit. Even if Requestor' s
allegations were true (which issue is beyond the scope of this Antitrust Determination), there is no
plausible connection between such actions and competition in the market for legal services.

Similarly, to the extent Requestor alleges antitrust violations arising out of the actions taken by State Bar
employees in specific discipline matters, such allegations fail to raise antitrust concerns because these
would be based on individualized decisions which do not impact competition in the legal services
market. 4

Finally, Requestor's generic references to the State Bar's "training, " "policies, " "practices, " and
"procedures " do not include any allegations that the State Bar's actions impact competition in the
market for legal services. In any event, as discussed below, the Stat Bar's attorney discipline functions
fall under the state action doctrine, and therefore are not prohibited by antitrust laws.

2. Attorney Discipline Is State Action Immune From Antitrust Prohibitions.

The U . S. Supreme Court has held that the antitrust laws do not apply to state legislative enactments,
regardless of anti-competitive intent or effect. (See, e.g., Parker v. Brown (1943) 3 17 U.S. 341, 350-51
["We find nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests that its purpose
was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature. "]; Hoover v.
Ronwin (1984) 466 U. S. 558, 568-69 ["When the conduct is that of the sovereign itself . . . the danger of
unauthorized restraint of trade does not arise. Where the conduct is that of the state legislature or
supreme court, we do not need to address the issues of clear articulation and active supervision. "].) This
immunity is known as the state action doctrine.

The State Bar is mandated by statute to investigate and recommend to the Supreme Court discipline of
attorneys. 5 The State Bar's role in the attorney discipline process is merely precatory; the Supreme
Court retains its inherent authority to regulate the practice of law and attorney discipline can only be

4 (See, e.g., California Attorney General Opinion No. 15-402 at 9 ["suspending the license of an individual license-holder for

violating the standards of the profession is a reasonable restraint and has virtually no effect on a large market, and therefore
would not violate antitrust laws." (citing Okansen v. Page Memorial Hospital (4th Cir. 1999) 945 F.2d 696)].) Courts have
continued to affirm this principle after the North Carolina Dental decision. (See, e.g., Petri v. Va. Bd. ofMed. (E.D. Va. Dec.
1, 2014) 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166228 at 7-8, aff'd, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8931 [Virginia Medical Board's discipline of
an individual chiropractor did not impact overall competition]; Robb v. Conn. Bd. of Veterinary Med. (D. Conn. 2016) 157 F.
Supp. 3d 130 [dismissing veterinarian's Sherman Act section 1 antitrust claim against the Connecticut Board of Veterinary
Medicine].)

5(Bus & Prof. Code, § 6078 ["After a hearing for any of the causes set forth in the laws of the State of California warranting
disbarment, suspension, or other discipline, the board has the power to recommend to the Supreme Court the disbarment or
suspension from practice of members or to discipline them by reproval, public or private, without such recommendation."].)
Antitrust Determination 2018-0002
September 25, 2018
Page 3

effectuated by order of the Court. 6 The California Supreme Court has held explicitly that the discipline
of California attorneys by the Court, acting on recommendation of the State Bar, is exempt from
antitrust laws. (Lebbos v. The State Bar of California (1991) 5 3 Cal. 3d 37, 47 ["Our enforcement of
disciplinary rules by suspending or disbarring an attorney is state action and, as such, is immune from
Sherman Antitrust Act liability."].)

D. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, there is no antitrust violation related to the State Bar's response to a
request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act, or related to the State Bar's investigation
and prosecution of attorney misconduct. To the extent Requestor makes allegations regarding
individualized conduct by State Bar employees, such actions do not impact the market for legal services,
and therefore do not raise antitrust concerns. To the extent Requestor raises generalized issues regarding
the investigation and prosecution of attorney misconduct, the State Bar's attorney discipline system falls
within the immunity of the state action doctrine.

E. Reviewability

The State Bar Office of General Counsel's determinations on reports of potential antitrust violations
may be reviewed de novo by the California Supreme Court. Requestor is hereby advised of the right to
request review by filing a petition with the Court, pursuant to rule 9.13, subsection (d) through (f),
California Rules of Court, within 60 days of the date of this determination.

6 (Jn re Rose (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 430, 436 [93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 298, 302, 993 P.2d 956, 960] ["The State Bar Court exercises no

judicial power, but rather makes recommendations to [the Supreme Court], which then undertakes an independent
determination of the law and the facts, exercises its inherent jurisdiction over attorney discipline, and enters the first and only
disciplinary order."]; Brotsky v. State Bar of Cal. (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 287, 301 [19 Cal. Rptr. 153, 160, 368 P.2d 697, 704]
[holding "in matters of discipline and disbarment, the State Bar is but an arm of [the Supreme Court], and that this court
retains its power to control any such disciplinary proceeding at any step."]; Bus & Prof. Code, § 6100 ["For any of the causes
provided in this article, arising after an attorney's admission to practice, he or she may be disbarred or suspended by the
Supreme Court. Nothing in this article limits the inherent power of the Supreme Court to discipline, including to summarily
disbar, any attorney."]; State Bar of California Rules of Procedure, rule 5.120 ["Unless the Court orders otherwise, the State
Bar court's final recommendation to suspend or disbar a member and the accompanying record will be sent to the Supreme
Court after all applicable cost certificates have been filed, or an additional 30 days has expired, whichever is earlier."].)
Rule 9.13. Review of State Bar Court decisions
(a) Review of recommendation of disbarment or suspension
A petition to the Supreme Court by a member to review a decision of the State Bar Court
recommending his or her disbarment or suspension from practice must be filed within 60 days after a
certified copy of the decision complained of is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The State
Bar may serve and file an answer to the petition within 15 days of service of the petition. Within 5
days after service of the answer, the petitioner may serve and file a reply. If review is ordered by the
Supreme Court, the State Bar must serve and file a supplemental brief within 45 days after the ord er
is filed. Within 15 days of service of the supplemental brief, the petitioner may serve and file a reply
brief.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously relettered and amended effective October 1, 1973;
previously amended effective July 1, 1968, and December 1, 1990.)
(b) Review of State Bar recommendation to set aside s tay of suspension or modify probation
A petition to the Supreme Court by a member to review a recommendation of the State Bar Court that
a stay of an order of suspension be set aside or that the duration or conditions of probation be
modified on account of a violation of probation must be filed within 15 days after a certified copy of
the recommendation complained of is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Within 15 da ys after
service of the petition, the State Bar may serve and file an answer. Within 5 days after service of the
answer, the petitioner may serve and file a reply.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective October 1, 1973; previously amended effective
December 1, 1990.)
(c) Review of interim decisions
A petition to the Supreme Court by a member to review a decision of the State Bar Court regarding interim
suspension, the exercise of powers delegated by rule 9 .1 O(b )-(e), or another interlocutory matter must be
filed within 15 days after written notice of the adverse decision of the State Bar Court is mailed by the
State Bar to the petitioner and to his or her counsel of record, if any, at their respective addresses under
section 6002.1. Within 15 days after service of the petition, the State Bar may serve and file an answer.
Within 5 days after service of the answer, the petitioner may serve and file a reply.
(Subd (c) amended effective .January 1, 2007; adopted effective December 1, 1990.)
(d) Review of other decisions
A petition to the Supreme Court to review any other decision of the State Bar Court or action of the Board
of Governors of the State Bar, or of any board or committee appointed by it and authorized to make a
determination under the provisions of the State Bar Act, or of the chief executive officer of the State Bar or
the designee of the chief executive officer authorized to make a determination under article 10 of the State
Bar Act or these rules of court, must be filed within 60 days after written notice of the action complained of
is mailed to the petitioner and to his or her counsel of record, if any, at their respective addresses under
section 6002.1. Within 15 days after service of the petition, the State Bar may serve and file an answer and
brief. Within 5 days after service of the answer and brief, the petitioner may serve and file a reply. If
review is ordered by the Supreme Court, the State Bar, within 45 days after filing of the order, may serve
and file a supplemental brief. Within 15 days after service of the supplemental brief, the petitioner may file
a reply brief,
(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007, previously amended effective July 1, 1968, May 1,
1986, and April 2, 1987; previously relettered and amended effective October 1, 1973, and December
1, 1990.)
( e) Contents of petition
(1) A petition to the Supreme Court filed under (a) and (b) of this rule must be verified, must
specify the grounds relied upon, must show that review within the State Bar Co urt has been exhausted,
must address why review is appropriate under one or more of the grounds specified in rule 9.16, and must
have attached a copy of the State Bar Court decision from which relief is sought .
(2) When review is sought under (c) and (d) of this rule, the petition must also be accompanied
by a record adequate to permit review of the ruling, including:
(A) Legible copies of all documents and exhibits submitted to the State Bar Court
supporting and opposing petitioner's position;
(B) Legible copies of all other documents submitted to the State Bar Court that are
necessary for a complete understanding of the case and the ruling; and
(C) A transcript of the proceedings in the State Bar Court leading to the decision or, if a
transcript is unavailable, a declaration by counsel explaining why a transcript is unavailable and fairly
summarizing the proceedings, including arguments by counsel and the basis of the State Bar Court's
decision, if stated; or a declaration by counsel stating that the transcript has been ordered, the date it was
ordered, and the date it is expected to be filed, which must be a date before any action is requested from the
Supreme Court other than issuance of a stay supported by other parts of the record .
(3) A petitioner who requests an immediate stay must explain in the petition the reasons for the
urgency and set forth all relevant time constraints.
( 4) If a petitioner does not submit the required record, the court may summarily deny the stay
request, the petition, or both.
(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously repealed and adopted by the Supreme
Court effective December 1, 1990, and February 1, 1991; previously repealed and adopted effective
March 15, 1991.)

(f) Service
All petitions, briefs, reply briefs, and other pleadings filed by a petitioner under this rule must be
accompanied by proof of service of three copies on the General Counsel of the State Bar at the San
Francisco office of the State Bar, and of one copy on the Clerk of the State Bar Court at the Los Angeles
office of the State Bar Court. The State Bar must serve the member at his or her address under Business and
Professions Code section 6002.1, and his or her counsel of record, if any.
{Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted by the Supreme Court effective December 1,
1990; previously amended by the Supreme Court effective February 1, 1991; previously amended
effective March 15, 1991.)
Rule 9. 13 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 59 by the Supr eme
Court effective April 20, 1943, and by the Judicial Council effective July 1, 1943; previously
amended and renumbered as rule 952 effective October 1, 1973; previously amended effective July
1, 1976, May 1, 1986, April 2, 1987, December 1, 1990, February 1, 1991, and March 15, 1991.
The address to file your petition with the California Supreme Court is:

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
CLERK'S OFFICE
350 McALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 102
May 11, 2018
By Email and US Mail

Complaint: Mother's Day Antitrust Compliant - Santa Clara Countv

Dear State Bar Board of Trustees,

As I am sure you are aware, on September 28, 2017, the California
Supreme Court issued an order that requires the State Bar to investigate
and report any complaint brought by a member of the public claiming
Antitrust activity involving members of the State Bar.

Further, I understand that when a complaint includes attorneys employed
by the State Bar, that an outside independent investigation is required, as
was performed by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP beginning on August 26,
2014 in response to a July 31, 2014 Report of Improper Activity from the
Bar's then Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim based on concerns related to the
actions by Executive Director Joseph Dunn, Chief Financial Officer Peggy
Van Horn {CFO) and General Counsel Thomas Miller {GC) that
demonstrated a disturbing pattern and practice at the highest levels of the
State Bar organization.

Since 2014 the family law litigants of Santa Clara County have conducted
their own independent investigation and have found similar disturbing
patterns, with the additional finding of Antitrust activity that includes private
and governmental attorneys who have acted in a manner to deprive family
law litigants Honest Services in divorce and custody matters and that
served to act as "Victim Looting" by converting state and federal grants
intended to assist victims, as well as community property, as fees for
lawyers and lawyer supported organizations in the Santa Clara County
community.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANTITRUST COMPLAINT

I. Antitrust Activity pervasive in Santa Clara County based
on the following:

1) Santa Clara County Local Rules: Adoption and Enforcement.
2) Santa Clara County's policies and practices related to Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault.
3) Santa Clara County's operation and management of Victim -Witness
Services out of the offices of the District Attorney, Jeff Rosen.
4) Santa Clara County's operation of the I DO for family law litigants
charged with criminal complaints or domestic violence.
5) Complicity and Indifference of the Santa Clara County's judiciary with
regard to attorney discipline under Canon 3D2.
6) Prosecutorial Misconduct of Santa Clara County's District Attorney
where Busienss and Professions Code 6 1 01 , 6 1 06 and 61 28 are
concerned.
7) State Bar's policies and procedures related to the handling and
prosecuting of complaints brought from non- attorneys.
8) Santa Clara County's policies and practices of placing judicial officers
and attorneys on governmental panels, councils, and committees.
9) The training, policies and practices of State Bar employees during the
investigation of attorney complaints ( Ben Churny and Mr. Munoz).
1 0) The policy and practice of the State Bar for disciplining attorneys
without consideration for Marsy's Law and other victims' rights
where people have been harmed by private and governmental
stories licensed by the State Bar.

Santa Clara County Antitrust Complaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 2
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANTI TRUST COMPLAINT

11) The policies, practices, and management of the Santa Clara County
Bar Association, "SCCBA".
12) The personal, professional and social conduct of James Towery,
Former Chief Trial Counsel and Past President of the State Bar.
13) The conduct of State Bar employees: Suzanne Grandt, Sherrie
Mcletchie, Vanessa Holton, Leah Wilson and Steven Moawad, Ben
Chamy and investigator Munoz. The State Bar's management of
public records under California's Public Records f.ct.
14) The conduct of former Chief Trial Counsel Gregory Dresser, and who
currently serves as the Director for the Commission on Judicial
Performance.
15) The conduct of former CJP Director Victoria Henley, who is still listed
on the State Bar Website as employed by the CJP.
16) The practice of appointing private lawyers as m inor's cou nsel,
referees, Special Masters and private judges in divorce cases, that
serves as a form of advertising in a manner harmful to the public.
17) Consistent failures of Santa Clara County private lawyers to comply
with State Bar Rules governing disclosure and conflicts to their
clients.

Santa Clara County Antitrust Complaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 3
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANTITRUST COMPLAI N T

II. Government and Private Attorneys Engaged i n Antitrust Activity
that Deprives Santa Clara County Residents of Honest
Services in Divorce and Custody Matters:

A. Governmental attorneys:

1 . James Williams, Santa Clara County General Counsel
2. Michael Rossi, Santa Clara County Deputy General Counsel,
3. Jeffery Francis Rosen, Santa Clara County District Attorney
4. John Chase, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
5. Admir Alem, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
6. Jim Demertzs, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
7. James Gibbons- Shapiro, Santa Clara County Victim/Witness
Services
8. Allison Filo, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
9 . David Cortese, Santa Clara County Supervisor
10. Lisa Herrick, Superior Court General Counsel
1 1 . Sherrie Mcletchie, State Bar
12. Gregory Dresser, Commission on J udicial Performance
13. Alan Nudelman, former DAO and current criminal lawyer.

Conduct of these individuals constitutes improper governmental activity
where government lawyers have acted in a manner outside their official
duties to collude with private lawyers and create a culture harmful to the
public in Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara County Antitrust Complaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 4
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANTITRUST COMPLA I N T

B. Private Divorce Lawyers:

Bradford Baugh
Valerie Houghton
Heather Allan
Elise Mitchell
Jessica Huey
Richard Roggia
James McManis
Richard Roggia
Marilyn Moreno
Nat Hales
Sharon Roper
Hector Moreno
Lynne Yates Carter
Rebekah Frye
Lynn Yates Carter
Marilyn Moreno

Santa Clara County Antitrust Cornplaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 5
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANT ITRUST COMPLAINT

Ill. Attorney Conduct Exhibiting A ntitrust Activity:

1. Regularly fail to disclose social and professional conflicts to divorce
clients.
2. Regu larly engage in predatory business practices.
3. Communicate in violation of Antitrust laws, including the Cartwright
and Sherman Antitrust acts on issues of staff salaries and office
services.
4. Work to deter media coverage in a manner that harms the public's
right to know.
5. Regularly engage in secret pricing deals with court appointed CPAs,
minors counsel, private judges and other experts.
6. Regularly appear before the same judicial officers and court staff
where out-of-area lawyers, and pro se litigants, are left in the dark as
to the relationships judges and lawyers engage in that could deprive
litigants of fair hearings in divorce and custody matter where 9 0% of
litigants act pro per.
7. Regularly receive favorable pricing and services from court reporters
assigned to certain family cou rt judges.
8. Santa Clara County Bar Association {SCCBA} members regularly fail
to report and investigate claims of unfairness, sexual harassment and
gender bias as Local Administrative Rules require.
9 . Engage in predatory billing practices designed to harm vulnerable
clients.
10. SCCBA Bar members regularly engage in improper
governmental activity when acting in local government positions
where violations of the Brown Act, Open Government Act and
California's Public Records Act regularly occur.
11 . SCCBA members engage i n predatory advertising practices,
through court appointments, unlawful literature distribution, social
media or contacts through the court, and county agencies, funded
with state and federal grants.
12. SCCBA members work indirectly by word of mouth at
association meetings, local government and court hosted events, to
engage in conduct designed to discredit competitors and to disfavor
certain litigants before family law judges.

Santa Clara County Antitrust C omplaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 6
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANT I TRUST COMPLAINT

1 3. SCCBA members regularly engage in sexual harassment,
abuse and domestic violence in their personal and professional lives,
in a manner that is vastly underreported to the Bar, and that the DA
and to the courts (as required by Standing Orders) fail to investigate.
1 4. SCCBA members regularly benefit from local law enforcement
agencies, including the DAs office, governmental lawyers and the
judiciary in a manner that demonstrates prosecutorial immunity based
on Business and Professions Code 6 1 06, 6 1 28 and Penal Code 1 1 5,
1 1 7 and 1 32 .
1 5. Since July 201 7, the State Bar's Suzanne Grandt engaged in
conduct before a federal judge that constitutes misconduct subject to
discipline, engaged in conduct related to a public records request that
sought to harass and retaliate against a member of the press and the
public who made the request and where Grandt attempted to use
intimidation, harassment and threats to get a vulnerable litigant to
sign an affidavit Ms. Grandt knew to be untrue.
1 6. Governmental lawyer Jeff Rosen has used his power and
influence to conceal information that he knew could result in
unfavorable press coverage during his political campaigns and that
he knew served to fail to protect victims from sexual predators
working in religious organizations where Mr. Rosen and his family and
friends associate.
1 7. Gregory Dresser, and State Bar investigators and lawyers,
including Sherrie McCletchie, engaged in conduct that served to
violate privacy of victims lodging complaints with the Bar and acted in
a manner that appears to have allowed former Chief Trial Counsel
James Towery, to intervene with lawyers who regularly appear in
James Towery's family court, and where those lawyers are reportedly
in discussions with James Towery's former law firm Hoge Fenton.
1 8. SCCBA members have regularly engaged in unlawful activity
with the local judiciary, the Santa Clara County Sheriffs, the Los
Gatos police and state court employees in a manner that constitutes
conversion, emoluments.
1 9. SCCBA members contin ue to demonstrate a lack of training
and understanding on issues related to domestic violence and sexual
assault in a manner that provides for protracted abuse and tolerates
false claims, where SCCBA members benefit financially.

Santa Clara County Antitrust Complaint-
State Bar Board of T rustees 7
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANT I TRUST COMPLAIN T

20. Governmental lawyers in the county, city and DAO, regularly fail
to report local lawyers charged with crimes including: domestic
violence, DUI, shoplifting and white-collar crimes, as Busienss and
Professions Code 6 1 0 1 requires.
21 . Significant violations of California's Public Records Act has
worked to conceal Antitrust Activity in the legal community from the
press and the public.

Attachment #1 is a partial list of commucnaitons evidencing the basis
for this complaint.

Background and Information about Complainant

I have been a Santa Clara County resident for nearly 30 years. I am a
publisher, investigative reporter, producer, First Amendment Advocate and
Victim's Advocate. I am additionally, a court critic after a 7-year experience
in Santa Clara County's family courts.

Over the past 7 years I have had 1 60 hearings in my personal divorce case,
have attended and made media requests in over 200 other cases.

Based on my training, expertise and experience, my associates and I have
interviewed thousands of represented and pro se family law litigants and
family law attorneys. I have personally researched and reviewed thousands
of court files, decisions, and articles.

I have interviewed over 2000 people and have thousands of videos, voice
recordings and photos of those interviews. I and my associates are the
only media actively investigating global issues pertaining to California's
Family Law matters and we have a unique understanding of how to use
social media and the internet in order to bring this complaint in a manner
that should result in criminal prosecutions.

Based on protections afforded under California's Shield Laws, I have
obtained information not available to the State Bar and protected under my
Santa Clara C ounty Ant i t rust Comp laint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 8
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANT I TRUST COMPLAINT

ethical duty as a member of the press, and u nder my obligations as a
support person and advocate u nder Marsy's Law.

By way of example, please see the attached partial file on victim V. Doe.­
Attachment #2 This victim allegedly suffered as a result of a sexual
-

predator, Rabbi Kaplan, and his complicit Supervisor, Rabbi Aron, who
was charged to oversee an organization called Silicon Valley Faces, where
several members of the Santa Clara County legal community were highly
embroiled and had financial interests.

At the time of these allegations, V Doe sought a sense of belonging
through the Shir Hadash congregation after V Doe suffered from parental
alienation and loss with V Doe's five children, following a family law matter
where Judge Arron Persky presided . The Shir Hadash congregation
appeared to. then act to privately settle sexual abuse claims, while Rabbi
Aron attempted to deter V Doe from perusing criminal complaints that
would be damaging to Shir Hadash and Rabbi Aron's career, which was
regularly assisted by DA Jeff Rosen, and now supervisor Mike Wasserman.
V Doe claims that as the sexual assault occurred, V Doe was pressured
into working through Shir Hadash on Mr. Rosen's and Mr. Wasserman's
political campaigns. One of the attorneys who represented V Doe in the
settlement was Robert Allard, a close friend of Mr. Rosen. Mr. Wasserman
is a reported member of the Shir Hadash congregation .

In a n d around this same the Santa Clara County Sheriffs began
investigating the suicide of Audrie Pott, a Saratoga High School student. On
information and belief, a group of four students were threatened by Jeff
Rosen's office for causing the death of Ms. Pott, based on a sexual bullying
experience at a Saratoga party. The Potts retained Robert Allard to go after
the boys in a civil settlement, where the Potts reportedly gained nearly 2
million dollars, and used the courts to deny Audrie's biological father
standing to deal with the case. Through abuse of process, Jeff Rosen used
the Potts and Audrie's tragic suicide to advance his political agenda related
to cyber bullying, and provided the Potts favorable kickbacks for the Audrie
Pott Foundation in return.

As Rosen advanced this false position publicly, he knew he and the local
community had ignored domestic violence that was well documented to
have occurred between Audrie's mother and step father during a long
protracted divorce.
Santa Clara County Antitrust Complaint-
State B a r Board of Trustees 9
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANT I TRUST COMPLAINT

Despite multiple police reports documenting domestic violence, Audrie was
never offered services when she was clearly a victim of child abuse and
domestic violence, which J udge Dolores Carr recognized but was
unsuccessful in addressing based on political pressure she faced from
James Towery and his wife, Karyn Sinunu Towery, a former prosecutor who
had unsuccessfully campaigned against Carr for the DA position prior to
Jeff Rosen being elected.

In aQd around this same time Ms. Elena Berg made claims of domestic
violence against her h usband, who was reportedly worth over
$200,000,000. Ms. Berg was represented in her d ivorce matter by private
attorney Bradford Baugh. Jeff Rosen's office, based on Ms. Berg's clai ms,
prosecuted Mr. Berg for domestic violence, where Mr. Berg ultimately
obtained a factual finding of innocence. Before Mr. Berg's divorce was
complete, he had incu rred over $6,000,000 in legal fees to defend the
criminal action, defend a civil domestic violence action, and pay Mr.
Baugh's fees and fees for a criminal lawyer for Ms. Berg, in a family law
matter. Mr. Berg additionally is reported to have paid the Mc Manis law firm
nearly $500,000 in less than a six-month period. The McManis Law firm
was previously investigated by the Bar for predatory billing practices, and it
is believed that while working at the Bar, James Towery acted in a manner
to protect lawyers such as Mc Manis and Bradford Baugh, and that the
protection continues today, as Jeff Rosen's office has ignored a criminal
complaint lodged against Mr. Baugh by a former Santa Clara County
prosecutor.

Mr. Berg was additionally a victim of attorney Valerie Houghton, where an
indictment is currently being pursued by Alem Admir in the DAO. It is
believed that Jeff Rosen's office has failed to report this indictment to the
State Bar, as BPC 6 1 0 1 requ ires. Add itionally, it is believed Mr. Rosen's
office has misused tax payer funds and denied Mr. Berg, a 79-year-old man
undergoing cancer treatments, services of the DAO's victim witness
program, including allowing Mr. Berg to designate a support person of his
choice.

Santa Clara County Antitrust Complaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 10
SANTA CLARA COUNTY- ANT I TRUST COMPLAINT

The culture created by Jeff Rosen in the Santa Clara County District
Attorney's office is toxic and harmful to the public.

Under Mr. Rosen's supervision, the DAO attempts discredit, or persecute
individuals who potentially seek to expose improper governmental activity,
while protecting private and governmental lawyers whom Mr. Rosen favors
and associates.

Through my work I have amassed hundreds of files and victims who will
come forward only to an independent investigator, the FBI, the Attorney
General or the DOJ.

I am asking the Board of Trustees to refer this complaint and allow that
information to come forward with an eye to the prosecution of private and
governmental lawyers in Santa Clara County who have acted to harm the
public and deny divorcing litigants Honest Legal Services, as the State Bar
acted as a toothless watchdog and acted in a manner to protect unethical
lawyers over protecting the public as the State Bar is obligated to do.

I look forward to your response.

Susan Bassi
Publisher- Investigative Reporter- Victim Advocate- Mom
P .0. Box 2220
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Cell (83 1 )320-642 1

Attachments:

#1 - Emails from the State Bar and Santa Clara County District Attorney
#2 - Partial Redacted File on Shir Hadash- Jeff Rosen

Sant a Clara Count y Antitrust Complaint-
State Bar Board of Trustees 11
ATTAC H M E NT B

ATTAC H M E NT B
.-�"

. I
Clyde Berg

The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake Department
845. South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles� CA 9001 7-25 1 5

January 10, 20 18

Dear State B.ar Investigators,

This is a complaint alleging misconduct by attorney Bradford Oliver Baugh, SBN 68661
(hereafter "Baugh"), of the firm Baugh & Amini, 1 550 The Alameda, Suite 1 55, San Jose 95 1 26.
In addition to multiple violations of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar

/
)
Act (Business and Professions Code § § 6000 et seq.), the complaint also alleges uncharged
violations of state and federal criminal law statutes. (
This complaint also alleges improper collusion between Baugh and attorney Valerie Runyan
Houghton, SBN 144148 (hereafter "Houghton"), 1 190 S. Bascom Ave., Suite 138, San Jose
95128. I allege that the collusion between Baugh and Houghton meets the required criminal ·

elements of federal racketeering and anti-trust law, and violates provisions of the California
Unfair Business Practices Act (Business and Professions Code § 1 7200 through 17209) .

.Houghton currently is facing criminal charges in Santa Clara County. On March 8, 2016
Houghton a criminal complaint wa.S filed against Houghton, charging her with larceny (Penal
Code 484-487), and violationof corporate securities law (Corporations Code § 25541). The
Houghton charging documents are attached as See Exhibit A- Houghton Indictment.

Notice of Interested Entities or Persons - Conflict of Interest Issues

Please be advised that both Baugh and Houghton are veteran family law attorneys who for over
. 20 years have maintained personal and professional relationships with Santa Clara: County
judges, including Judge James Towery. Towery previously served as State Bar Chief Trial
Counsel from 201 0-201 1 , and State Bar President from 1 995-96. See Exhibit B- Houghton
CV- Reference Naming Towery and Towery Form 700. NOTE: By 2011 Ms. Houghton

·-.-/"
) .
l l P age
,, · �
claims under CONTINUING EDUCATION: "Current on Law and Ethics and Domestic
..---.,, Violence Mandatory Update Training 2011 ". ( I
i }
On information and belief, Towery has used his influence at the State Bar to impede or terminate
investigations of Santa Clara County Bar Association members, including Baugh and Houghton.

On information and belief, because of their long time personal and professional relationships
with Santa Clara County judges, and other factors, Baugh and Houghton have evaded
accountability for serial misconduct and criminal conduct for over 20 years.

Legal Authority

This complaint is based on the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), State Bar Act, decisional
law catalogued in the California Compendium on Professional Responsibility Index, and the
treatise California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility published by The Rutter Group.

In particular, this complaint alleges multiple acts of moral turpitude in violation of Business and
Professions Code § 6 1 06, and deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or any party in
violation of § 6128. Alleged acts of moral turpitude by Baugh include false or misleading
statements and half-truths, withholding or concealing material and adverse facts, dishonesty,
encouraging litigation for a corrupt motive, fraud, misleading the court, and practicing deceit.

Under rule 2. 1 1 of the State Bar Rules of Procedure, this complaint alleges multiple acts (
constituting moral turpitude, dishonesty, fraud, corruption, intentional or grossly negligent
misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts. The alleged violations constitute serious
offenses, as defined by rule 5.126(B) of the Rules of Procedure. The acts of moral turpitude,
dishonesty or corruption have resulted in significant harm to the administration ofjustice.

For the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession, the maintenance of the
highest professional standards, and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession,
I respectfully request a thorough investigation and appropriate discipline (Rules of Procedure
rule 1 . 1). As set forth in this complaint, Baugh's misconduct involves aggravating circumstances
under rule 1 .5, and has caused significant harm to the public and the administration ofjustice
(rule 1 .50)).

Administrative Notice

Iask that the Bar take admisntrative notice of an active investigation of attorney Bradford
Baugh, Investigation #1 7-0-05843 and to further consider this as an additional complaint against
Mr. Bradford Baugh.

..../
)
2 1Page
This complaint also alleges unethical or criminal collaboration between Baugh and attorney
··� Valerie Houghton that includes violations of Antitrust laws- See Exhibit C - September 26,
I j
2017 Order of California's State Supreme Court.

FACTS and INFORMATION

1. On information and belief, in and around 20 1 0, I understand my former wife, Ellena Berg,

consulted with attorney Bradford Baugh prior to making false police reports and filing for

divorce in 20 12. It was ultimately determined on the advice of Baugh , Ellena Berg was sent

to attorney Ms. Roper, who knew nothing about the criminal acts, and where Ms. Berg

engaged Ms. Roper to have her prepare a document that was ultimately forged with my

signature, as proved in court and supported by court and deposition testimony of Ms. Berg.

See Exhibit D - Partial Transcript from Criminal Proceeding.
(
) 2. While I had a prenuptial agreement, I believe Mr. B augh attempted to alter that agreement

by instructing my former wife to seek artificial insemination to bear a child, and to set me up

for a domestic violence charge.

3. Criminal charges aga:inst me based on Ms; Berg's claims, were eventually dropped, based on

her failure to cooperate, and admitted forgeries, that discredited her claims. I was found

factually innocent by the Santa Clara County District Attorney' s Office. Nonetheless, I was

ordered to pay Mr. Baugh' s fees and fees to a criminal lawyer, Nolan, who was retained by

Mr. Baugh, for my wife, who claimed to be a victim.

4. The Santa Clara County Sheriff recommended prosecution of Ms. B erg, but the District
Attorney failed to act.

5 . After Ms. Berg made a false police report, resulting :in my arrest, her first call the follow:ing
morn:ing was to Bradford Baugh, which came out in the evidence during my criminal

proceed:ings.

6. During my criminal proceed:ings, my lawyer asked Ms. Berg who had sent her to Ms. Roper

where the document that was ultimately forged had been created. At first, Ms. Berg refused

I ...
· )
3 I Page
to answer, and then when forced to answer by the court, Ms. Berg revealed it was Bradford

Baugh who sent her to Ms. Roper to have the document drafted. Mr. Baugh is a highly

experienced lawyer, he could have drafted that document himself. There is a ponderance of
·
evidence that proves Mr. Baugh referred Ms. Berg to Ms. Roper to conceal his collusion and

unlawful conduct.

7. Mr. Baugh' s intent to profit from his conduct could be seen in extortion letters sent to my

family law attorney during my divorce proceeding, where by October 19, 20 1 2 Mr. Baugh

demanded $2,000,000 based on a demand that relied on a fraudulent Artificial Insemination

Agreement, "donor agreement". See Exhibit E - Demand letter of Bradford Baugh.

8. I believe Mr. Baugh and my former wife colluded to have me arrested and to convert my

estate to Mr. Baugh' s fees and monies for my former wife in a manner that was fraudulent.

9. The prosecuting DA, Alison Filo, had a duty, as a matter of public protection, to pursue the

truth, and never investigated the Baugh matter further.

10. In 2009 and again in 20 1 1 I invested a total of $3,000,000 in a partnership, Metaview. See
Houghton indictment, Exhibit A.
1 1 . Metaview was formed by attorney Valerie Houghton and her husband Terry, where by Mr.

) Baugh's partner, Liz Goodley, was an initial investor and remains and investor as far as I
(
understand. It is more than likely that during my ownership ofthat investment that Ms.

Goodley and Mr. Baugh exchanged information about me, and used that information during

representation of Ms. Berg in a manner to engage in unlawful conduct related to a scheme to

defraud me. It is also possible that money that was diverted from Metaview was comingled in

the trust account of the law firm operated by Ms. Goodley and Mr. Baugh.

12. Terry Houghton told me at one point that he and Ms. Valerie Houghton socialized frequently

with Mr. Bradford Baugh. I am informed that Mr. Baugh's wife has, or had, a real estate or

broker' s license in the state of California.

1 3 . I understand that Ms. Houghton has a long history of performing professional services that

are used by Mr. Baugh and his partners, Liz Goodley and Leah Amini, in divorce and

custody cases.

14. The Santa Clara County DA has indicted Ms. Valerie Houghton, an attorney, who I claim has

engaged in a scheme to defraud me out of millions of dollars.

1 __ _)
4 1 Page
1 5 . When Ms. Berg initially :filed for divorce, I was falsely accused of Domestic Violence, where ,.,.--.
-� { .I
{ } I was ultimately found factually innocent. Based on Ms. Berg's claims, I was forced from my

home, after which, Elena Berg called my longtime friends and asked them to come and get

my beloved dog, as Elena was due to give birth.

16. To cause me further emotional distress, Mr. Baugh and Ms. Berg then filed emergency court
demands and threatened me with jail if I didn't return the dog. The friends who had the dog,

had taken him out of state to their other home to care for the dog while I was involved in the

criminal proceedings. Those friends were former clients of Mr. B augh's. I believe Mr.

Baugh used information about my friends to extort and harass me, and my friends,. where my

dog was concerned. I believe Mr. Baugh did this to incite conflict in the divorce proceedings

where he could earn more in fees. See Family Code Section 2100.
1 7. In all communications to my lawyers, and in the public court file, Mr. Baugh consistently
failed to show the most basic civility and I believe Mr. Baugh withheld material facts and

conspired with my former spouse, in violation of the law, to incarcerate me, take money, and

cause me emotional distress, for his own personal gain.

1 8 . Mr. Baugh and his client's false claims and abuse of the legal process, caused me to have to
) post a $3 ,000,000 bond, to be subjected to house arrest and to be subjected to wearing an
c
ankle bracelet that cased me embarrassment and humiliation with my partners, family

members and :friends.

1 9. Mr. Baugh's conduct, and management of his client during a divorce proceeding,

additionally caused me to :incur unconscionable legal fees and expenses, upward of another

$3,000,000, to defend Mr. Baugh and Ms. Berg's false claims in criminal and family court.

20. Mr. Baugh represented Ms. Roper at a deposition in the family law matter, after Ms. Berg

had testified in the criminal matter that it was Mr. Baugh who sent Ms. Berg to Ms. Roper,

where the document for the Artificial Insemination Agreement was created, and ultimately

forged with my signature.

2 1 . Ms . Berg ultimately filed a civil suit, which she lost, and which was based on the same false

claims, and where she was ordered to repay me $50,000 for fees and costs in that matter.

I )
.._../

S j Page
I am asking the State Bar to investigate Mr. Baugh's conduct with an eye toward Antitrust and
r- -
.--.... { I
) RlCO activity, where he worked directly and indirectly with other lawyers, including Ms.

Goodley, Ms. Roper, Ms. Houghton and prosecutor Allison Filo, and where I suffered staggering

losses in legal fees as a result of false claims and constructive fraud.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Criminal Indictment - Valerie Houghton

B . Houghton CV- General Reference For James Towery- James Towery From 700
C. CA Supreme Court - Antitrust Order

D. Partial Transcript from Elena Berg Testimony During Criminal Proceeding

E. Demand Letter of Bradford Baugh

Thank you for your consideration.

Clyde Berg
(
)

6 I Page
. -·�
i _)

EXH I B IT A

I
-
)
_,
( i

EXH I B IT A
I )
___ _,,,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

HALL OF WSTICE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,
[,/ (o!Jd.534
FELONY COMPLAINT
CASE SUMMARY

DA NO: 1 60305574
vs. . CEN
TNH WARR
TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON (05/23/1954), VRH WARR
1232 NORVAL WAY SAN JOSE CA 95125
VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGBTON (06/05/1955),
1232 NORVAL WAY SAN JOSE CA 95125

Defendant(s).

CAS E S U MMARY

Count Charge Charge Range Defendant Allegation Alleg. Effect
(
·

1 CC25541 2-3 -5 Terry Norman PC12022.6(a)(3) 3 YEARS
Houghton
Valerie Runyan PC12022.6(a)(3) 3 YEARS
Houghton

2 PC484-487(a) 1 6-2-3 Terry Nonnan PC12022. 6(a)(3) 3 YEARS
Houghton
Valerie Runyan PC12022.6(a)(3) 3 YEARS
Houghton

3 PC484-487(b)(3) 16-2-3 Terry Norman PC12022.6(a)(3) 3 YEARS
Houghton
Valerie Runyan PC12022.6(a)(3) 3 YEARS
Houghton

4 PC484-487(a) 1 6-2-3 Teny Norman
Houghton
Valerie Runyan
Houghton

i )
___
P1ior/Alleg: Terry Nonnan
Houghton .
Valerie Runyan PC1 86. l l(a)(l)/(2-3-5
Houghton a)(2)

(

j I
' _) '\...._, .
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ,,,,.- ,,
HALL OF JUSTICE ( !
COMPLAINT FOR ARREST WARRANT(S)
VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON EDX453
TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON EDX452

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

DA NO: 160305574
vs. CEN
TNH WARR
TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON (05/23/1954), VRH WARR
1232 NORVAL WAY SAN JOSE CA 95125
VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON (0610511955),
1232 NORVAL WAY SAN JOSE CA 95125
FI LED
Defendant(s).

The undersigned is informed and believes that:
/ ..

COUNT l {
..
.. ) On or about and between March 8, 201 1 and December 31, 2013 , in the County of Santa Clara, State of
'· .

California, the crime of USE OF DEVICE, SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD IN THE
OFFER, PURCHASE AND SALE OF A SECURITY, in violation of CORPORATIONS CODE
SECTION 25541, a Felony, was committed by TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON AND VALERTE
RUNYAN HOUGHTON who did willfully employ, directly and indirectly, a device, scheme, and
artifice to defraud and did willfully engage, directly and indirectly, in an act, practice, and course of
business which would operate and did operate as a :fraud and deceit upon a person :in connection with the

offer, purchase, and sale of a St'.Curity, Limited Partnership futerest.

(�JIC-NOPR) It alleged that in the commission and attempted commission of the offense{s) charged
above, the defendant TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON, with the intent to do so, took, damaged and
destroyed property of a value exceeding one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1)300,000), within
the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6(a)(3).

j It is further alleged that where the amount of the theft or taking exceeds one hundred thousand dollars
l_,
- · ($100,000), probation shall not be granted except in an unusual case where the interests ofjustice would
best be served, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.045.
(CJIC-NOPR) It alleged that in the commission and attempted commission of the offense(s) charged
,.-----.
1 • - ' ) above, the defendant VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON, with the intent to do so, took, damaged and
{
destroyed property of a value exceeding one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000), within
the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6(a)(3).

It is further alleged that where the amount of the theft or talcing exceeds one hundred thousand dollars

($1 0 0, 000), probation shall not b e granted except in an unusual case where the interests ofjustice would
best be served, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203 .045.

COUNT 2
On or about and between March 8, 201 1 and December 3 1 , 2013, in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California, the crime of GRAND THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY OF A VALUE OVER NINE

HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS,_:ip. violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 484-487(a), a Fe1ony,

was committed by TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON AND VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON who

did unlawfully take p ers onal property, $ 1,435,917.0 0, of a value exceeding nine hundred and fifty
dollars ($950.00), the property of Metaview Wholesale fuvestments, LP .
)

(CJIC-NOPR) It alleged that in the commission and attempted commission of the offense(s) charged
above, the defendant TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON, with the intent to do so, took, damaged and
destroyed property of a value exceeding one million three hundred thousand dollars ($ 1,300,000), within

the meaning ofPenal Code section 12022.6(a)(3).

It is further alleged that where the amount of the theft or taking exceeds one hundred thousand dollars

($ 1 00,000), probation shall not be granted except in an unusual case where the interests ofjustice would

best be served, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203.045.

(CITC-NOPR) It alleged that in the commission and attempted commission of the offense(s) charged
above, the defendant VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON, with the intent to do s o, took, damaged and

destroyed property of a value exceeding one million three hundred thous and dollars ($ 1 ,300,000), within

)
._./·
the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6(a)(3) .
It is fin.ther alieged that where the amount of the theft or talcing exceeds one hundred thousand dollars

r·1 ($1 00,000), probation shall not be granted except in an unusual case where the interests Ofjustice Would
r I
best be served, within the meaning of Penal Co de section 1203 .045.

COUNT 3
On or about and b etween March 8, 201 1 and December 3 1, 2013, in the County of Santa Clara, State of

California, the crime of GRAND THEFT BY EMPLOYEE, AGENT, OR SERVANT - VALUE

EXCEEDING $950, in violation ofPENAL CODE SECTION 484-487(b)(3), a Felony, was committed

by TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON AND VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON who did as a servant,
agent and employee ofMetaview \Vholesale Investments, LP unlawfully take from Metaview Wholesale

Investments, LP p ersonal property, $1,435,917.00, of a value exceeding nine hundred filty dollars
($950.00).

(CJIC-NOPR) It _alleged that in the commission and attempted commission of the offense(s) charged

above , the defendant TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON, with the intent to do so, took, damaged and

destroyed property of a value exceeding one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000), within

the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6(a)(3).
(

It is further alleged that where the amount ofthe theft or talcing exceeds one hundred thousand dollars
($ 1 00,000), probation shall not be granted except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would
best be served, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203 .045.

(CilC-NOPR) It alleged that :in the commission and attempted commission of the offense(s) charged

above, the defend ant VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON, with the intent to do so, to ok damaged and ,
destroyed property of a value exceeding one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1 ,300,000), within
th.e meaning ofPenal Code section 1 2022.6(a)(3).

It is further alleged that where the amount of the theft or taldng exceeds one hundred thousand dollars

($100,000), prob ation shall not be granted except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would

._ _)
/
best be served, within the meaning of Penal Code section 1 203.045 .
COUNT 4
On or about and between March 8, 201 1 and December 31, 201 3 , in :fue County of Santa Clara, S tate of

California, the crime of GRAND THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPER1Y OF A VALUE OVER NINE
·}
HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 484-487(a), a Felony,
was committed by TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON AND VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGHTON who

did unlawfully take personal property, $134,135.00, of a value exceeding nine hundred and fifty dollars
· ($950.00), the property.of Sully and Adrienne McGrath.

AGGRAVATED WHITE COLLAR CRIME ENHANCEl\fENT
It is further alleged that the felony crimes charged in Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are related, that a material

element ofthe crimes is fraud and embezzlemen� that the crimes involve a p attem o frelated felony

conduct, and that tb.e pattern of related felony conduct by TERRY NORMAN HOUGHTON AND

VALERIE RUNYAN HOUGff!ON involves the taking of more than five hundred thousand dollars

($500,000), within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1 86.1 l(a)(l) and (a)(2).

Any defendant, including a juvenile, who is convicted of and pleads _guilty and no contest to any felony (
)
, including any attempt to commit the offense, charged in this complaint or information is
o ffense

reqcired to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints and a full palm print impression of each

hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required pursuant to the DNA and Forensic

Identification Database and Data Banlc Act of 1998 and Penal Code section 296, et seq.

Further, attached and incorporated by reference are official reports and documents of a law enforcement

agency which the complainant believes establish probable cause for the arrest of defendant TERRY
NORMAN HOUGHTON, for the above-listed crimes. Wherefore, A W.ARRANT OF ARREST IS

REQUESTED.

Further, attached and incorporated by reference are official reports and documents of a law enforcement

agency which the complainant believes establish probable cause for the arrest of defendant VALERIE

RUNYAN HOUGHTON, for the above-listed crimes. Wherefore, A WARRANT OF ARREST IS

1 REQUESTED .
• . _/
J .
Complainant therefore requests that the defendant(s) be dealt with according to law.

i.. -) I certify under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

Executed on March 7, 20 1 6, in SANTA CLARA County, California.

. . �
J1 . T. ��\-ov\
' Richard Fong 4K71

Ca::h
·

o,.- &J�'� . Lf.rir:' -d
o, l 00
( Richard Fong 4K71)
ODA and DABOI BI140507858

M_ "11 HUANG/ D492/ FELONY/ CC

b. \) .
·. \\o�X!/t:,.
Cash or B9-ndl$ \ 14-B5 /\ \b' o<l


Date: 0/<"6 { Ca

W by:

on · .

) (

I J
_,/
, --- -...
!. J

EXH I B IT B

I _) (""· . . .

EXH I B IT B
L. -
I )
_./'
. . . . . . . .. ,,-- ..
... . . .
-! " . _, :
. .;
.
!':
V�lerie .R. Houghfbil, RN,- MFT, JD
•.

,VVi;:ico�e About :ry.te
· dinical Practice Core Forensic Practice Core . Poiicies, :tools & F6rrns
BJqg�, Map & TWitler Fe_ed Links, Resources and (NEW!),:Educational Videos
Fhldiilg ()ur Iilner Smile Curriculum Vitae

EDUCATION

Harvard Law School /Negotiation Insight Initiative Institute
Master Mediation: Advanced Negotiation and Advanced Mediation Certificate; Five
Day Training Intensive/ 1 8 CEU's, 2007
Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative Autumn Institute Training Program

S anta Clara University School of Law
) Juris Doctor, 1 988
Public Interest Law Certificate from
The Public Interest Law Consortium, with Boalt Hall and UC Davis
Admitted to The State Bar of California, 1 989

San Jose State University
B achelor of Science Degree Candidate, Biochemistry, 1 987
Dean's List

University of Santa Clara
Master of Arts Degree, 1 980
Marriage, Family and Child Counseling
Graduated with High Honors

University of Texas at Austin
B achelor of Science Degree in Nursing, 1 977
)
· . ...../ Graduated with Honors
-� ,,,. -· '

i j {
· valerie R. Houghton, RN, l\1FT, JD
Welcome About Me Clinical Practice Core - Forensic Practice Core Policies, Tools & Forms

Blogs, Map & Twitter Feed Litiks, Resources and (NEW!) Educational Videos

Firiding Our Itiner Smile Curriculum Vitae

EDUCATION

Harvard Law School /Negotiation Insight Initiative Institute
Master Mediation: Advanced Negotiation and Advanced Mediation Certificate; Five
· Day Training Intensive/ 1 8 CEU' s, 2007
Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative Autumn Institute Training Program

Santa Clara University School of Law
Juris Doctor, 1 988
(
Public Interest Law C ertificate from
The Public Interest Law Consortium, with Boalt Hall and UC Davis
Admitted to The State Bar of California, 1 989

San Jose State University
B achelor of Science D egree Candidate, Biochemistry, 1 987
Dean's List

University of Santa Clara
Master of Arts Degree, 1 980
Marriage, Family and Child Counseling
Graduated with High Honors

University of Texas at Austin
Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing, 1 977

· ... )
_./
Graduated with Honors ('--..-·
EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT D
1 IN THE S U PE R I OR C OU R T OF THE S TA T E OF CAL I FORN I A

2 I N AN D FOR THE CO U N T Y OF S AN T A CLARA

3 B E FORE THE H O N ORABLE RON DE L P O Z ZO , JU DGE

)
4

5
THE P E O PLE O F THE S T ATE OF

)� �
! ��
6 C A L I FORN I A ,

7 P L A I·N T I F F I
CAS Cl2 4 D618
8

9

10 C L Y DE JAME S
-v s -

B ER G ,
: � I M I N ARY
_ .M\M l NAT I O N
� <b


11 DE FEN DAN T .

e
12

13

14
REPORTER ' S t_
?:;
�CRIPT OF P R O CE E D I NG S

.�ST
·

15 •
22, 2013
16
� E RNOON S E S S I ON
';:f;:-
17

«'o :: : �
LU M
18
P G S 4 149
19

i'-�-�
20

21 A P P E A N C E S :

22

23
FOR o�� Pf.O P L E : ALISON
DE P U T Y
F I LO
D I S T R I CT A T T O RN E Y

24

25
F � HE DE F E N DAN T : A L L E N R U B Y / KURT S E I BE R T
A T T O R NE Y S A T LAW

26
O FF I C I AL COURT R E POR T E R : G A Y L E ALCON E S
27 c . s . R . NO . 1 0 4 0 5

28
145

1 A THAT WAS POST M Y F I RS T IOI . I DO NOT REMEMBER THE

2 EXACT DA TE S . I KNOW THAT I FELT V E RY I N S E C UR E B E CA U S E

3 MY GOAL WA S FOR US TO CREATE THIS DOCUMENT , AN D S I GN

4 IT, AND F I NAL I Z E THE P R O CE S S SO I CAN HAND A COPY OF

5 � WE

TH I S DOCUMENT TO MY DOCTOR , DR . TROBOUGH .

i\ HAD

6 WEREN ' T ABLE TO F I NAL I Z E THE D O C UM E N T BEF TO

7 S H OW UP TO DR . TR O B O U GH ' S OFFICE AN D � O THE IUI .

8 �

AN D A F T E R T HAT , MY H U S BAN D WAS OF ARGU I N G

9

� <S"�
W I TH ME AND S OR T OF GO I N G BACK AND H W H E T H E R WE

10 WERE G O I NG TO S I GN THE A G R E E ME N T HAT HE WAS GO I N G

11 TO ADD OR NOT ADD . AN D I J S E CK E D OUT OF THE

12 P RO CE S S , B E CAU S E I FELT LIK � E WAS NO LEVEL AB I LI T Y



13 FOR ME TO CONTROL THE PRO E ANYMORE . IT WAS VERY

14 S T RE S S F U L FOR ME B E CAU �"' AD, FOR ONCE , BEEN ABLE TO

15 �

RETAIN AN ATT ORN E Y , PER , TO PAR T I C I PAT E IN THE

16 P R O CE S S . AN D NOW M OPER -- I F I R E D MS . ROPER,

17 B E CAU S E SHE �
STOPP E S PON D I N G TO ME .

18 I HAD ��� PA T E D IN THE ME D I CAL P R O C E DURE

19 W I THOUT HAV I N${, T HE A D E Q UA T E PA P E RW O R K F I NAL I Z E D T H A T I


��
20 S HOULD HAV D AN D IT GOT SO S CARY . I T WAS THIS THING

21 WHERE I � y H U SBAND HAD T O R M EN T E D ME , AN D I

22 C OMMI � S OME TYPE OF C R I ME , AN D I D I DN ' T KNOW WHAT TO

23 (:>�
Q<:J
DO . �

24 HOW DID YOU F I ND MS . ROPER?

25 A I FOUND MS . ROPER BE CAU S E I HAD AN A T T O RNEY THAT I

26 KNEW T H AT GAV E ME A R E F E R E NC E .

27 Q WHO WAS T HAT ?

28 A DO I NEED T O AN S W E R THAT ?
146

1 THE COURT : YES .

2 THE W I TN E S S : OKAY . THAT WAS AN ATTORN E Y ,

3 HIS NAME IS MR . B RAD F O R D BAU G H .


4 BY MR . RUBY :

5 Q B RA D FOR D B A U GH . YOUR MAR I TAL D I S S OLU


6 A T T O RN E Y ?

: :: � �
7 S

TO
8 HE T I ME TH I S WAS BE I NG WOR , YOU WERE

9 P LANN I N G TO TRY D I S S OLVE YOUR � GE FROM MR .
10 BERG , R I GH T ?
�-
'C;j
11 A NO .

12 Q YOU HAD AN ATTORNEY F
_(J -n�T P U R P OS E , D I DN ' T YOU ?

FOR
13 A NO .
�,
��
PRIVI� INFORMATION.
14 MS . F I LO : T IO N . THAT CALL S

co��
15 A T T O RN E Y / C L I E N T

16 THE WE ' LL END ON THAT NOTE TODAY .

17 THE �W� SS : I WOULD L I KE TO

��
q
18 THE RT : WE CAN TALK ABO U T IT T OMORROW .

HAVE


19 R E ME M B E R , MS I LO W I LL AN O P P O R T UN I T Y TO ASK YOU


20 QUE S T I O N S E D I RE C T , SO YOU CAN ADVI S E HER W H AT Y OU


21 WOULD Lt O C LA R I F Y , AN D I ' M S URE SHE W I LL BE GLAD TO

22 CAN Y AT QU E S T I O N . IF YOU JU S T S TAY S E AT E D FOR A

�" .t

� A NOT
23 MOM

IT ' S

TO
24 20 UNT I L 5 : 00 AN D I H VE , AS U S UAL ,

25 PLAN N E D FOR THIS CA S E COMING ME . IT CAME TO ME

I LET I

O' CLOCK
26 W H I LE JU S T THE JURY OUT AND HAVE O T H ER MAT T E R S

27 AT 9 : 00 THAT I NEED TO HAN D L E . AN D I WONDER IF

28 THE PART I E S WO U L D BE AVA I LABLE AT 1 0 : 00 O ' CLOCK?
1 4 8 -1 4 9

1 RE PO R T E R ' S C E RT I FI CA T E

2

3 S TA T E OF CAL I FOR N I A
SS .
4 C O UN T Y O F SANTA C LARA

� \.
5
""""'"


6 I, GAYLE ALCON E S , HEREBY CE RT I F Y : HE

7 FOREGOING IS A FULL , TRUE AN D CORRECT T R I PT OF THE

8 P R O CE E D I N G S HAD IN THE A B O VE - ENT I T L E �i
I ON HELD ON



9 THE 2 2 N D DAY OF AUGUST , 2 01 3 ;

10 T HAT I RE P O R TE D T HE S AM E I N O T Y PE TO THE BES T

11 O F M Y AB I L I T Y BE I N G THE �� A N D A C T I N G O FF I C I AL
Q UAL I

12 COURT R E P O RT E R OF THE S U P ER�� O R T O F THE S TA T E O F
� �
cou��'(;�
13 C A L I F O RN I A , I N AN D FOR T NTY OF SANTA C LARA ,

14 AP P O I N T E D TO SAID T HE R E A F T E R HA D TH E SAM E



15 TRAN S C R I B E D INTO TYP NG A S HERE I N A P P EARS .

16 I FURT H E R CE� T HAT I HAVE COM P L I E D W I TH CCP

17 2 37 ( A ) ( 2 ) IN T HAT �� P E R S ONAL JUROR I DENT I FY I N G

18 I N FO RMAT I O N �� HAS � R E DA C T E D , I F A P P L I CABLE .

19 Q' �

20 DAT E � IS 5 TH DA Y OF S E P T E MB E R , 2 01 3 .

21
��
22
�·
23

24
r o
l
O
j
� GAYLE ALCONE S
C. S . R . 10405

'1"lfR NMENT
G0 CODE S E C T I ON 6 9 95 4 ( D } STATE S :
25
" AN Y COU R T , P A R T Y , O R P E R S ON W H O HAS P U R C HA S E D A
26 T R AN S C RI PT MAY , W I T H O U T P AY I N G A FUR T H E R F E E T O T H E
R E P OR T E R , RE P R O D U C E A C O P Y O R P O R T I ON T H E RE O F A S AN
27 EXH I B I T P U R S UA N T T O C O U R T O R DE R O R R U L E , OR F O R
I NT E RNAL U S E , B U T S HALL N O T O T H E RW I S E P ROV I DE O R S E L L
28 A C O P Y O R C O P I E S T O A N Y O T H E R PARTY OR P E R S O N . "

GAYLE ALCONES , c.s.R. --����--���---'
ATTACH M ENT · C

ATTACHMENT C
t' ___.;, ;
.._

Pamela Nudelman

March 1 4, 20 1 8

The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake Department
845 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 9001 7-25 1 5

Re: Complaint ....: Antitrust and other Allegations Pertaining to the Misconduct of Attorneys
Bradford Baugh, Nat Hales, James Cox, Rebekah Frye and Unknown Prosecutors
Employed in the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Qifice.
�I
Dear State Bar Investigators,

Please consider this my complaint to the State Bar relating to the conduct of Family Law
attorneys in Santa Clara County, whom I believe are engaging in activity that violate state and
federal Antitrust laws, mcluding California's Cartwright Act and other laws related to Unfair
Business Practices.

Santa Clara County family law attorneys named herein have engaged in conduct that constitutes
Racketeering and have created a criminal enterprise fueled by stealing Silicon Valley's crown
jewels; businesses, properties, retirement, savings and custody of children. This criminal
enterprise has acted with a corrupt motive to deprive dissolution litigants of honest services in
�..,, .-�
their divorce and custody matters.
.I'

My divorce formally ended in 2006, yet the harm is ongoing. I am aware the same group of ,,, '"""·!;<}
lawyers continue to harm others and this criminal enterprise, where attorney Bradford Baugh acts
as the lead mobster, deploys an army of unethical lawyers, complicit fiduciaries, toothless
watchdogs and judicial officers to assist them in converting community property in divorce
actions. Through court appointments and litigation tactics, Mr. Baugh and bis enterprise willfully
inflict harm with the intent to damage the financial and emotional well-being of women, children
and elderly citizens in Silicon Valley.

Mr. Baugh's criminal enterprise uses price fixing, secret discounts, attorney trust accounts� ud,
money laundering, case rigging and tax evasion during their participation in divorce cases.
Sexual favors, domestic violence fraud, backroom deals, kickbacks, bribes, and emolument are
·

routinely deployed in Baugh's criminal enterprise as well.

r) As a matter of public protection, this complaint seeks to bring this criminal enterprise to the
attention of the state agency charged with protecting the public from these lawyers.

1
BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION

1. My former husband, Alan Nudelman, was a prosecutor in the Santa Clara County District
Attorney' s Office from 1 972 who headed a special operations staff of 30 lawyers until his
arrest for burglary, attempting to buy stolen goods and possession of stolen property in
1 990. I am aware that during our 2002-2006 dissolution matter, Mr. Nudelman was the
subject of his private female criminal client's complaints, where sexual harassment and
attorney misconduct were alleged, and ignored by the Bar.

2. Mr. Nudelman is a criminal defense lawyer who received approximately 90% of our
community property after our 24-year marriage, based entirely on the litigation tactics of
his family law attorney, Bradford Baugh, who continually represented Mr. Nudelman,
who was also co-counsel, where I was denied statutory discovery, legal parity and was
discredited by Mr. Baugh and lawyers acting with judicial immunity in my divorce case.

3. I complained to the Bar about Mr . Baugh and was repeatedly informed the Bar's practices
and policies provided that claims against opposing counsel in family law cases were not
be investigated, so complaining was futile.

4. During our 4 �-year divorce proceedings, Mr. Nudelman would have been familiar with
the reputation Mr. Baugh enjoyed in the Santa Clara Family Law Community, where it
was widely known that Mr. Baugh, and his agents, were willing to inflict harm on women,
children and the elderly to obtain legal outcomes in dissolution actions th£1.t were not
consistent with courts of equity. It was clear that when Mr. Baugh was retained for a client
with access to wealth and power, opposing parties would be deprived of honest services in
their divorce cases if Mr. Baugh and his cronies were involved. Family Code Section 2 1 00
notwithstanding.

5. Mr. Nudelman and his divorce lawyer, Bradford Baugh, are part of a corrupt family law
enterprise and culture that has continued to thrive since my divorce in 2006 and that has
evolved to the point where high-value Silicon Valley's community property estates have
become their target.

6. Santa Clara County' s family law enterprise operates under the indirect and direct
management of attorney Bradford Baugh who, with the help of private judges, court­
appointed special masters, discovery masters, relaters, vocational examiners, receivers,
court-appointed experts and lawyers for children, work to convert community property for
profit disguised as attorney fees and sanctions. James Cox, Nat Hales, Rebekah Frye and
the other lawyers acted as ineffective counsel in my divorce case and are also part ofthis
criminal enterprise that seizes control of community property, takes child support hostage
and drives out other lawyers. They slaughter pro se litigants.

2
7. During my divorce, I lodged multiple complaints against lawyers acting in my case. These
complaints were ignored by the Bar and the Santa Clara County's Presiding Judge,
Catherine Gallagher, who is now an attorney being awarded private judge appointments as
requested by the criminal enterprise and in a manner that appears to constitute
emolument, or violations of Penal Code section 93 and 94.

8. I am aware Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Towery, fornier Chief Trial
Counsel and member of the Santa Clara County Bar Association, continues to appoint Ms.
Gallagher in cases where Mr. Baugh appears, and where Mr. Baugh appears to receive
favorable treatment, as was done in my case. There is an appearance that James Towery
used his employment at the State Bar to protect lawyers in Santa Clara County.

9. If called to testify, I will report on the numerous complaints that I, and others, made
related to Mr. Nudelman and Mr. Bradford Baugh, dating back to 2003 . In addition to
unethical and unlawful conduct, Mr. Nudelman and Mr. Baugh engage in conduct
especially abusive toward women and lawyers who represent women in Santa Clara
County divorce and civil matters.

10 . While my divorce case legally ended 1 2 years ago, both Alan Nudelman and Bradford
Baugh continue to harass me and attempt to take even more property as they continue their
quest for unj ust enrichment. It recently came to my attention that Mr. Baugh refused to
issue a Satisfaction of Judgement based on a fee award that placed a lien on my property.
Mr. Baugh has refused to meet and confer in this matter, though he has been paid. As a
result, Mr. Baugh continues to assist his client in improperly maintaining a lien against my
property, with the intent of causing further litigation where Mr. Baugh, I suspect, would
earn more in fees.

1 1 . The statute of limitations may have run on my prior complaints to the Bar; however, if
called to testify, I would restate all the claims in those complaints that demonstrate the
pattern and practices Mr. Baugh willfully employs in divorce cases, with the addition of
the new complaint that Mr. Baugh is engaging in misconduct by refusing to answer and
act to remove the lien on my property as the law intends.

1 2. Mr. Baugh' s continued refusal to produce a proper accounting of rental money deposited
to his trust account during divorce matters should be closely examined by the Bar and law
enforcement agencies. Community rental monies were paid to Mr. Baugh' s trust account
by a lawyer, Barbara Parrish, with whom Mr. Baugh had a relationship and where the
rental likely provided a favor, benefit or kickback. Mr. Baugh's strategy is clearly
designed to create confusion, and allow financial matters to become so complex that they
are impossible for courts to discern to assure equal division of community property.

3
, ·

1 3 . I am legally designated as elderly. Mr. Baugh appears to continue to act with moral
turpitude in our current dealings in a manner designed to cause me harm, distress and
embarrassment.

1 4. During divorce proceedings Mr. Baugh and his criminal enterprise work in a manner to
discredit opposing litigants, and lawyers, not part of the enterprise. Lawyers who were
part of his enterprise who represented me worked indirectly and directly with Mr. Baugh
as a sort of quid-pro-quo. These lawyers would drag out proceedings, refuse settlement, lie
to judicial officers and generate communications that yielded no results, and no
meaningful settlement efforts, because it was not in the interest of the lawyers to promote
settlement as the law mandates. I was ready to go to trial in the first 60 days of the
proceedings but under Mr. Baugh's direction the proceedings were dragged out for over
another 4 years where Mr. Baugh and his accomplices were paid and at times forced to
represent myself and no longer afford my own lawyer. I had been a stay-at home-mom
and had no education or training in the law and was nowhere near qualified to legally
protect my interest in a community property estate.

1 5 . Santa Clara Family lawyers part of the criminal enterprise engage in a Code of Silence,
where they repeatedly refuse to report Mr. Baugh to the State Bar. Judges in the county
also refuse to report lawyers to the Bar as a matter of standard practice. In return, these
complicit lawyers who fail to provide their clients a zealous representation are protected
from State Bar discipline and judicial sanctions. In support of this claim:

A. I sued the first lawyer in my case, Joseph Johnson, in pro per and was awarded a
judgment of over $3,662,008.32, which to this day I have been unable to collect and
where I recently learned Mr. Johnson has filed for bankruptcy and failed to notify or
name me in that action.

B. I sued and settled with another attorney and can only submit the details under seal.

C. I sued my fourth attorney, Rebekah Frye. After I documented collusion between Brad
Baugh and this other attorney, Frye called me into her office and informed me;

"Brad is {urious with me because you named .XXX in your lawsuit "

Ms. Frye subsequently quit my case, failing to provide me with zealous representation
due to her relationship with Bradford Baugh, where "keeping Mr. Baugh happy"
appeared to be a condition on her initiation into what she referred to as ''the Big Boys
Club" and "the Cabal."

The culmination of the misconduct of the commissioner and the failure of the court to
control these lawyers left me with ineffective counsel and ultimately caused me to be
forced into an unfair settlement while I was in pro se regarding discovery and banished

4
from the courtroom during our pretrial conference, and threatened to sign Brad Baugh' s
settlement where I received far less than my half of the community property estate.

1 6. Each attorney I hired appeared to be acting to benefit Mr. Baugh, James Cox or Nat Hales.
The total lawyers I used in my divorce case were seven and they included Margaret
Patrick, Joseph Johnson, Bill Dresser, Rebekah Frye, Tracy Duell-Cazes, Daniel Jensen
and Craig Silman. Johnson and Silman were disbarred by the Bar in a manner to protect
the public prospectively, but not in a manner that served to retrospectively remedy the
harm done to me. Such conduct demonstrated malfeasance and moral turpitude, prohibited
under the Professional Rules of Conduct.

1 7. On information and belief, Mr. Baugh received, and continues to receive, favors from
those who indirectly benefit from the criminal enterprise in Santa Clara County's legal
community. These favors include money and other benefits that are regularly exchanged
between Mr. Baugh and bad actors. These actors include county clerks, court clerks, court
reporters, court-appointed experts, and court-appointed private judges, pro terns, referees,
Discovery Masters, Special Masters and Receivers, and agreements are secret or contained
in private settlements. As this enterprise is unleashed on the public, Mr. Baugh and his
cronies continue to receive a free pass from the District Attorney' s office. Mr. Baugh
receives this protection because of connections to lawyers in the DA's office like those
with my former husband, Mr. Nudelman.

1 8. Brad Baugh has unwarranted influence with certain judicial officers, namely lawyers
acting with j udicial immunity such as James Cox and Nat Hales. When these actors are
involved, outcomes result that cannot be legally explained away. Every time we went to
court, Brad Baugh brought pre-prepared Orders, which seemed to be signed automatically,
regardless of the actual hearing proceedings. Mr. Baugh is notorious for the irregularities
shown by his drafting orders, where he obtains the signatures ofjudicial officers, with
whom I believe Mr. Baugh has undisclosed social, personal, and professional
relationships, where litigants are left in the dark.

1 9. Mr. Baugh 's enterprise uses publicly-funded law enforcement agencies as a private
security company. Various Santa Clara County law enforcement officers appear willing to
overreach their authority to assist Mr. Baugh and his clients. As a result, Mr. Baugh's
clients and associates are able to carry out schemes and plans in connection with divorce
cases:

By way of example, despite a lawfully-issued court order granting me possession of our
home, a Los Gatos police officer refused to enforce it, allowed Mr. Nudelman to stay,
escorted me out of our Los Gatos home and threatened arrest if I stayed and he had to
come back.

5
As another example, Mr. Baugh knew the only possibility of removing a spouse from a
family home was in the event of a domestic violence claim, even if those claims were
false, or devised as part of a scheme or plan. In the few encounters I experienced with
law enforcement during my divorce, it was clear that Mr. Baugh and my former husband
schemed to incite an emotional response that would allow law enforcement to document
a reaction that would be used to justify a domestic violence finding. Mr. Baugh is known
for this scheme during the course of representation in high net worth divorce cases.
Additionally, Mr. Baugh and his clients appear willing to misrepresent court orders to
confuse law enforcement officers responding to their calls.

During marriage, Mr. Nudelman was employed with the Santa Clara County District
Attorney' s office, where he often bragged, "Los Gatos police protect me," and they did.
This protection continues to be extended to Mr. Baugh and his clients.

20. Mr. Baugh uses litigation tactics to have opposing parties in divorce cases subjected to
domestic violence restraining orders. Such orders, under a Family Code Section 3044,
would provide Mr. Baugh' s clients not only a litigation advantage, but an economic
incentive that could terminate child and spousal support obligations.

2 1 . Mr. Baugh and his clients appear to enjoy prosecutorial immunity that allows for outright
white-collar crimes to be imposed on women and elderly clients whom Mr. Baugh's
clients (active or not) oppose in divorce or custody matters. By way of example, a minute
order in my divorce case required the division of rental income during my divorce, yet
through Mr. Baugh' s tactics and collusion with attorney Nat Hales and James Cox, that
money never got divided and the court orders issued by James Cox and Nat Hales never
got enforced. Mr. Baugh clearly knew court orders would not be enforced, and he assisted
in dilatory tactics which included failing to provide accountings for these rental income
property transactions. Instead of enforcing court orders, the court had us take out a $400K
loan against our free-and-clear property, and the reasoning was to ultimately pay attorney
fees, not to preserve community property until final division. Mr. Baugh repeatedly
represented to the court that funds were distributed and accountings had been provided
when they had not. I am now aware that this constitutes a violation of BPC 6 1 28, for
which Mr. Baugh was never charged.

Without our consent or approval, Bradford Baugh got the court to order $ 1 OK taken from
the $400K loan to pay Nat Hales and $50K to put into Brad Baugh's trust fund. I believe
those funds were ultimately converted entirely to pay Mr. Baugh's fees, as I was denied
fees to pay for legal parity and where Mr. Baugh never made a full accounting of the
money and interest that trust account would have held.

22. As a policy and practice, the Santa Clara County DA's office consistently fails to
investigate or prosecute violations of court orders arising from family law matters except,
of course, when people opposing Mr. Baugh's clients or Mr. Baugh's witnesses are

6
brought to the attention of the DA. Both the DA and local law enforcement agencies
consistently appear to have bad actors embedded in them willing to act favorable to Mr.
Baugh, Mr. Nudelman and others in what is surely an unlawful enterprise.

23 . During my dissolution matter, James Cox was appointed by the court to be the Receiver
for our office building on 08-07-2003. Nat Hales was court appointed on 05-06-2004 as
Discovery Master. Instead of expediting our divorce and assisting the court as their
appointments prescribed, working directly and indirectly with Mr. Baugh, they delayed
the proceedings to earn more in fees, and rubber-stamped Mr. Baugh's requests while
working to discredit and disadvantage me. This is a pattern and practice observed in Santa
Clara County for over 30 years where these bad actors have been involved.

24. Santa Clara County's family law culture has been allowed to thrive based on the complicit
policies and practices of the State Bar and the Santa Clara County Bar Associations
activities, where many of these lawyers belong. This culture, with regard to criminal
matters, is most aptly described in a recent report issued by the Santa Clara County Grand
Jury, which can be seen here:

Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report- Justice Delayed
https://www.scribd.com/document/3 5529 1 03 7/Santa-Clara-County-Grand-Jury-20 1 6
201 7-Report-Felony-Justice-Delayed

25. Prosecutors willing to use harmful error, and the complicit trial and appeals courts who
allow them free reign are documented as far back as when Mr. Nudelman was associated
with that culture, which is documented here:

Santa Clara University Innocence Project Report:
https://www. scribd.com/document/3 73 699920/Innocence-Project-Report-Prosecutorial­
Misconduct

26. A corrupt motive existed for Mr. Baugh to act with Mr. Nudelman with regard to the
pension and retirement benefits paid by Santa Clara County. On information and belief,
attorney Bradford Baugh and his family law enterprise use settlements, limited scope
representation and unlawful ex-parte communications to conceal communications that
would otherwise reveal their attorney crimes and misconduct. By way of example, Mr.
Nudelman was eligible for, and did receive, benefits from Santa Clara County during our
dissolution proceeding, to which I was entitled as well. Mr. Baugh and attorney Suzanne
Hunsinger, a privately paid court-appointed expert, engaged in improper communications
related to those benefits, which was suspected after Ms. Hunsinger billed for several
communications with Mr. Baugh, but never copied me on those communications. This is a
common practice which most clients opposing Mr. Baugh fail to capture. When I
questioned the billings and requested the corresponding communications, which included
correspondence from the Bar, I was ignored then seriously threatened by Ms. Hunsinger. I

7
believe such was used to deprive me of Honest Services in my divorce action, with regard
to the pension and benefits Mr. Nudelman received from Santa Clara County. I estimate I
lost around $50,000 related to this issue alone.

27. Mr. Baugh's scheme or plan is designed to drag out divorce proceedings and create a legal
nightmare that ensures no other lawyers will be willing, or able, to oppose him because of
the Gordian knot of legal posturing he creates. This results in a pricey practice that
reduces the quality of legal services available to litigants involuntarily forced into
dissolution proceedings. I was ready to go to trial within the first 60 days of our divorce
and it was the litigation tactics of Mr. Baugh and his crony network that obstructed that
process. The scheme to inflict the maximum amount of emotional distress and financial
harm to an opposing party and their lawyer is supported by the enterprise to gain legal
collateral that assures lawful interest in a community property estate is ultimately
converted to the fees of lawyers and experts of Mr. Baugh and his enterprise.

28. My fourth attorney, Rebekah Frye, was aware of documented collusion between Brad
Baugh and one of my attorneys. Frye called me into her office and informed me;

"Brad is furious with me because vou named XXX in your lawsuit. "

Ms. Frye subsequently q uit my case, failing to provide me with any representation due to
her relationship with Bradford Baugh, which caused me to have to initiate legal
proceedings simply to have the retainer I paid Ms. Frye returned.

29. Each attorney I hired appeared to be acting in a manner to benefit Mr. Baugh, James Cox
and Nat Hales. The total lawyers I used in my divorce case were seven and they included
Margaret Patrick, Joseph Johnson, Bill Dresser, Rebekah Frye, Tracy Duell-Cazes, Daniel
Jensen and Craig Silman.

30. Santa Clara County Courts regularly work with the DA, the Public Defender and the Santa
Clara County Bar Association to address issues related to gender bias, elder abuse,
domestic violence, white collar crimes and attorney misconduct. These agencies, managed
by lawyers who earn both public and private funds, are known to repeatedly ignore
complaints, suppress information and threaten those who speak up to demand
transparency, public integrity and public protection.

3 1 . Through informal advertising and Santa Clara County Bar Association referrals, people of
power and influence are directed to pay just the "right" lawyer in Santa Clara County to
get more than equitable divorces. My former husband, a member of the prosecutor's
office, clearly knew this when he hired attorney Bradford Baugh.

8
.
'

32. As further evidence of moral turpitude, Braford Baugh acts to destroy relationships
between parents and their children. Mr. Baugh's tactics repeatedly fail to assure the best
interest of children, grown or underage, where Mr. Baugh and his enterprise use tactics to
discredit the parent opposing his client and emotionally "gaslight" women, children and
the elderly, the most vulnerable parties in a dissolution action, and Mr. Baugh engages in
moral turpitude for a corrupt motive to earn more in fee awards, and sanctions for himself
and his criminal enterprise.

3 3 . Mr. Baugh is regularly appointed as a lawyer for children where the court' s local, state
and federal grants often pay him, or where he is paid directly by Santa Clara County
taxpayers. As with any predator who harm children, the Bar should act immediately to
preclude Mr. Baugh' s involvement in cases where children, child support and issues
related to the parties' children are concerned -- even if those children are adults.

SUMMARY

It is clear from audits conducted by California' s State Auditor that the State Bar' s attorney
discipline system has repeatedly failed to protect the public from unethical attorneys willing
to engage in unlawful conduct surrounding Santa Clara County dissolution matters.

For over 30 years, I, and others similarly situated, repeatedly submitted complaints to the
State and Local Bar, the DA and the County complaining about Mr. Baugh, as his colleagues
used a Code of Silence to protect him. These complaints revealed a disturbing pattern in the
treatment of what local lawyers refer to as the "out spouse", usually women, or the party with
fewer financial resources. Mr. Baugh's conduct has served to harm the elderly, both men and
women, who are financially, emotionally and physically unable to withstand the sheer
malicious prosecution Santa Clara County's criminal divorce enterprise is willing to unleash
for a corrupt motive.

REMEDY

I. As a matter of public protection, I am asking the State Bar to immediately require Mr.
Baugh, Nat Hales, James Cox and Rebekah Frye to withdraw from all family law
matters in Santa Clara County, especially where these lawyers act as a court
appointed referee, Special Master, pro tern or minor's counsel.

9
..

II. In the interest ofj ustice, I am asking the State Bar to recommend amnesty and the
reopening of any Santa Clara County divorce case where a woman, or elderly person,
opposed a client represented by Mr. Baugh.

III. As a matter of public protection, I am asking the State Bar to launch an independent
investigation of the licensed attorneys acting in Santa Clara County family law
matters involving attorney Bradford B augh and determine if he, ai;id other lawyers,
have acted in a manner that served to harn1 to women, children and the elderly.

IV. As a matter of public protection, I am asking the State Bar to hire an independent
auditor to audit the billing pract ices of attorney Bradford Baugh, Nat Hales, James
Cox and Rebekah Frye.

V. As a matter of public protection, I am asking that the State Bar hire an independent
accounting firm to investigate the trust accounts of Bradford Baugh, Nat Hales, James
Cox and Rebekah Frye.

VI. A s a matter o f public protection, I am asking that the State Bar investigate the Santa
Clara County Bar Association's communications and activities for potential
violations of state and federal Antitrust activity where attorney Bradford Baugh, Nat
Hales, James Cox and Rebekah Frye acted in divorce cases.

VII. I am asking the State Bar to launch an investigation, or make a referral to the
Attorney General 's Office, requesting an audit uf the Santa Clara County District
Attorney's Office with an eye to investigating abuses of prosecutorial discretion with
regard to family law matters and to report if Bradford Baugh, James Cox, Nat Hales
and Rebekah Frye acted in a manner demonstrates violations of Penal Code Sections:
93, 94, 97 and 9 8 , 1 1 5, 1 1 8, 1 27 and Business and Professions Codes 6 1 28 and 6 1 48
through a pattern and practice in SRnt;:i Clam County di vorce and custody cases.

Should the Bar require additional information in support of this complaint, I would request an
'investigator be sent to my office to scan and copy documents I have maintained for over 20 years
related to the issues raised herein. I have attached an index and small sample of the documents I
have in support of this complaint.

I look forward to your response and immediate action.

s-(,l\
· C�f ely,
·
1._
(
.�--,

, ·: \r i �;
,�, ;\���
'- P
\
ela'Nudel

-- -
.. -- ··-
-."'\
-----

10
,. • '

INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS

EXHIBIT A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judgement for $3,662,008.32 Against Attorney Joseph Johnson

EXHIBIT B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Bar Complaint Re: Attorney Bradford Baugh

EXHIBIT C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Order of James Cox for Money to Baugh Trust - Appointing
Roggia, Evans or Thompson, more attorneys earning fees.

EXHIB IT D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accountings Refused by Baugh for Trust Account,
w/community property rents were paid by Baugh colleague
Attorney Barbara Parrish.

EXHIBIT E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcript - Court relies on Cox for single rental property

EXHIBIT F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communications - Baugh refusals to Release Lien

EXHIBIT G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . County Court Response on James Cox
.

EXHIBIT H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Bar Complaint - Alan Nudelman

EXHIBIT I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Special Master Nat Hales Withdrawal - January 20, 2005

EXHIBIT J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hales Order - Shows Attorneys Delaying Proceedings

EXHIBIT K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Cox Orders - Shows Pattern and Practice of Fee Kickbacks

11
EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A
\
DOCUM ENT : 2 1 2 1 6386 Pages : 2
EJ-001
AHORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT AHORNEY (Name, address, State Bar number, and

Recording reqi.:ested by an"' return to:
telepflone number):

Pamela N u delman
408-3 54-8900
I I I Ill ll l lllll II 1 l Fees .
T a xe s .
C op i es .
AMT PA I D
22 . 00

5 3 0 N orth Eighth Street
San Jose, CA 95 1 1 2
RDE #
REG I NA A L COMENDRAS
012
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER
6 / 2 3/20 1 I
D 0 D ASSIGNEE OF
Reco r ded at t h e r eq u e s t o f
3 : 58 PM
FOR CREDITOR
ATTORNEY JUDGMENT
RECORD A t t o rn e y
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SA NT A CLARA
STREET ADDREss: 1 9 1 North F i rst Street FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY

MAILING ADDRESS:

c1TY AND z1P coDE San Jose, CA 95 1 1 3
BRANCH NAME Civil Division
PLAINTIFF: Pamela Nudelman CASE NUMBER:

DEFENDANT:
l -05 -CV-05 1 400
J oseph Johnson
FOR COURT USE ONLY
ABSTRACT OF J UDGMENT-CIVIL
D Amended
AND SMALL CLAIMS

1 . The 0 judgment creditor D assignee of record
applies for an abstract of judgment and represents the followi ng:
a. Judgment debtor's
Name and last known address
r
I Joseph Johnson I
\
950 South Bascom Avenue, S u ite 1 1 1 3
San Jose, CA 95 1 28-3 5 3 7
_J
b . Driver's license n o . (last 4 digits] a n d state: 0 U n known
c. Social security no. [last 4 digits]: 0 U n known
d. S ummons or notice of entry of sister-state Judgment was personally served or
mailed to (name and address):

2. D I n formation on additional judgment 4. CJ I n formation on additional j udgment
debtors is shown on page 2. creditors is shown on page 2.
3 . Judgment creditor (name and address): 5. D Orig inal abstract recorded in this county:
Pamela N udelman a . Date:

5 3 0 N orth Eighth Street, San J ose, C A 95 1 1 2
Date: (o., ' 1 5 -H
Pamela N udelman
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

6. Total amount of judgment as entered or last renewed: 1 0. D An
$ 3 ,662,008.32
7 . All j udgment creditors and debtors are l isted o n this abstract. a. Amount: $

8. a. Judgment entered on
b. I n favor of (name and address):
(date). December 7, 2009
b. Renewal ente red on (date).

9. D This judgment is an insta llment judgment. 1 1 . A stay of enforcement has
a. 0 not been ordered by the court.

D
[SEAL)
b. been ordered by the court effective until
· ··.' (date):
\ ....
1 2 . a. 0

I
I certify that this is a true and correct abstract of

I JUN
I This abstract issued on (date):
the judgment entered in this actio n .
b
0 ; �� : =�:
f d i "dg me

\: :�::�'.
I
.
1 5 201l A v ,, i v
. Clerk, by ChiefE xecuti v '
: Deputy
Page 1 of 2
Form Adopted for Mandalory Use ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT-CIVI L 1 6�g ����
E.J-001 !Rev. January 1 , 2008)
JUdfclal Council or Calffomla Code Civil Procedure
AND SMALL CLAIMS �
county of Santa Clara
Office of the District Attorney

County Government Center, West Wing
70 west Hedding Street
San Jose. CalifoJTlia 95 l l o
(408) 299-7400
www . santaclara-da.org

Jeffrey F. Rosen
Dis1rict Attorney

April 9, 20 1 8

Ms. Pamela Nudelman
530 N. 8th St.
San Jose, CA 95 1 12
(408) 3 54-8900

Re: REF #RF-1 804-03400

Dear Ms Nudelman,
. •

I was recently made aware of your complaint following receipt of your letter of Apr. 2, 20 1 8, and verbal complaint on Oct. 1 7, 2017.
I just reviewed the case as well as the investigation. First of all, I am very sorry for your circumstances and hope I can adequately
address your concerns, as well as those of the Office of the District Attorney.

Your complaints are mostly of a civil and administrative nature. I note you have already made complaints to the Judiciary and State
Bar. Something we have also advised you to do. As far as your own civil attorney, if you were unhappy with his/her representation,
you could also make a complaint to the State Bar and/or sue him/her for malpractice. I understand that part of the time you represented
yourself, which is a very difficult thing. Please know that your accusations of collusion and mismanagement of trust funds are not
criminal in nature, so your remedies, should you be able to prove them with sufficient proof, lie in civil court where the standard of
proof is much more lenient. Also, as far as your accusation of violations of Antitrust and Racketeering, those are generally federal
crimes, and would not be investigated at the State's level. Also, the statute of limitations to file a criminal case is four years from the
date of discovery ofthe theft. Again, to pursue your legal remedies, you would need to hire a civil attorney and discuss whether filing
a civil lawsuit would be beneficial.

As to your claim of not receiving full satisfaction ofjudgment in order to have the two liens against you removed, this is not a crime.
Nevertheless, our Real Estate Fraud Unit looked at this allegation. Although you did not provide our office with copies of the liens, we
located and reviewed them. The two Abstracts of Judgments against you were recorded Sept. 2007 and Feb. 2008. The liens totaled
$ 14,500, not including post-judgment interest. Please .know the Office of the District Attorney does not give out legal advice, and you
should seek civil legal advice on this issue just to be sure. That being said, it is my understanding that these judgment liens would no
longer cloud your title. Under Civil Procedure Code §683.020, a money judgment expires after ten years and any lien created by the
judgment is also extinguished, unless thejudgment is renewed. To renew the judgment lien, a certified copy of the application for
ren.ewal must also be recorded. The Real Estate Fraud Unit found no indication on the docket of your divorce proceeding that the
judgments Mr. Nudelman obtained against you were ever renewed. Also, nothing on the Grantor/Grantee index at the County
Recorder's Office show that these liens were renewed or that any new judgment liens were recorded.

We have concluded our investigation and will not be pursuing a criminal case. I thank you for your understanding and wish you luck
in the future.

1 ()
00 � �(A_)(-
Sincerely;

Cherie Bourlard
Deputy District Attorney
Elder Fraud Unit
ATTACH M'ENT · . D

ATTACHM ENT · : . D
N OT I CE O F P O ST I N G
Matters Pending Before a Privately Com pensated Tem pora ry J u d g e
California R u l e 2 . 834

75 20 1 2-6-FL-009266 ! Ann W ar m oth & J eff Warmoth 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

77 ! � 0 1 2-6-FL-009459 J �rik Marth & M a ry M a rth 650.364.6900

77 '. 2 0 1 2-6-FL-00946�j J a m e s A. P h i l l s , J r . & Debor�h H . Gruenfeld Neville K . Spadafore 408 . 2 92 . 1 7 1 7

73 1 2 0 1 3-1 -FL-1 63802 ! chin Chow & TheodoreC �ow Richard C. Berra _I 650. 3�..:9920

73 2 0 1 3 - 1 -FL- 1 6 5 2 7 1 ! P a l l e J e n s e n & Liza M . Jensen Nevi�le
_ K. Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

64 1 2 0 1 3 - 1 -FL-1 65297 \ Step _0 an � L i u & Etienne L i u__ _ Edward M i l l s
!
408. 752 . 2 2 2 5

77 1 2�_ -6-FL-0 1 0 246 ! C h ri sti n e C o � � & Thierry Costa D e n n i s J . Durkin - 1 650. 364:6900

78 j 2 0 1 3-6-FL-0 1 0700 -- ----
C a rl M. Berner & Kare n A. Berner Neville K . Spadafore ---
408 . 2 9 2 . 1 7 1 7

77 1 � 0 1 3-6-FL-0 1 1 6 37 J e n ifer F o u l ke s & David F o u l k e s Richard C. Berra 650 .349.9920

64 1 2 0 l � 1 -F1- 1 68436 S e rdar Uckun & J o A . F a h n estock _ Nevi l l e K . S pada!ore
,
408.292. 1 7 1 7

---
73 2 0 1 4-1 -FL-1 68466 Socorro Sweet & Carl Sweet Edward M i l l s 408 . 7 5 2 . 2 2 2 5

72 2 0 1 4-1 -FL-1 69075 E i l ee n Perkins & W i l l ia m Perkins Richard C . Berra 650. 349-9920

78 ----
2 0 1 4-6-FL-0 1 1 980 Lisa Nad e rzad & F a ram a rz Naderzad - ---- Edward M i l l s 408 . 752 . 2 2 2 5

75 _ 2 0 1 4-6-FL-0 1 2045
,
J Lynn K : Due & Daniel Due __ 1 Nevi lle K . Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

77 2 0 1 4-6-FL-0 1 3 1 35 C h ristine Ressa & David Ressa Nevi l l e K. �padafore 408.292. 1 7 1 7
I
77 - --
2 0 1 4-6- FL-O 1 3 2 2 0 Prashant tviehta & Rupali M e hta __ _N ev
_,_
_ il l e K . S padafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

77 2 0 1 4-6-FL-0 1 3 345 Richard Ogawa & S u za n n e Ogawa_ __ Richard C . Berra 650 . 349.9920
I
76 I 2 0 1 5 - 1 -FL- 1 70068 S h erry A. M e ngeri n k & Matthew W. M e_'.2g�rink !Nevi l l e K . S padafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7
i
_

I
76 2 0 1 5-1 -FL- 1 7 1 2 5 7 M a ry Gourlay & D o u g l a s Gourlay Dennis J . D u rk i n 650. 364.6900
I
65 2 0 1 5-1 -FL- 1 7 1 339 Easwar Sankar & Akhila Puru s h oth a m a n Edward M i l l s �08.75 2 . 2 2 2 5

I
74 2 0 1 �6-FL-01 �2l._7 Anr:ie W ojcicki & Sergey Brin N eville K . S padafore 408.292. 1 7 1 7

74 2 0 1 5-6- FL-0 1 44 1 0 M e iying P e n g & Al bert Tam Susan Vick l u nd W i l son 408. 779 . 4888 -
78 2 0 1 5-6-FL-0 1 44 1 3 I F ariba F a rshchian � Mehra n M_oalem Neville K . S[Jadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

74 2 0 1 5-6-FL-0 1 4686 l usa Sipko & Robert S i p ko Dennis J . Durkin 650. 364.6900

Prepared 4-2 1 -20 1 7
By S h aron L . Roper
N OT I C E OF POST I N G
M atters Pending Before a Privately Com pensated Tem porary J u dge
Cal ifornia Rule 2 . 8 3 4

Dept. ! Case N u m be r � ase Title Temporary Judg� Contact Number

73 J 1 998- 1 - F L - 0 7 5 5 2 2 I Lawrence Steinman & Hana Steinman Neville IS.:_ �adafor� -- -
408.292. 1 7 1 7

72 2 0 0 1 - 1 - F L- 1 0 00 1 2 Dorothy � Ros�nthal & Do_0ald M _J3osenthal Neville K. Spadafore 408.292. 1 7 1 7

72 1 2 00 1 - 1 - F L- 1 00747 - C harles -G riggs & - Katherine--Griggs JI
Neville K . Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7
1-
73
i 2 0 0 1 - 1 -FL-1 0 1 1 93_ Gene�asel l i & Ronald Case l l i Richard C. Berra 650.349.9920

77 1 2 0 0 2- 1 - F L - 1 09399 !'Janey A..:.. Lai & Cal bert K . h . Lai Neville K . S_padafo�e 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

\
_

72 2 004- 1 - F L- 1 2 2 8 � _Kath�ine Rit�hey & Tb_omas Ritchey - r. Neville
-- -
K . Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7
I
75 2005- 1 - F L - 1 2 5808 David_B-.:. Mahal & (_:: h r�ty M ._Wyatt Nevi�e K . Spadafo�e
_ 408.29 2 . 1 7 1 7

73 2005-1 -FL-1 29072 ! Monica G . Read & Garv T. Read Neville K�Spadafore_ - -
408.292. 1 7 1 7

78 2 0 0 6- 1 -FL- 1 3 6 1 42 I Grah� m G u d g i n & _france�udgin Neville K . Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

I Kim berly McNeely � --- --


77 2007- 1 -FL- 1 424 79 Q.?vid McNeely Edward Mills 408. 752.2225

78 2008-6-FL-00 1 29 1 ! Adam S i m m s & Den ise S i m m s -- Neville K. S p_adafore - --
408.292. 1 71 7

79 2 0 1 0 - 1 -FL-1 54452 I N� Q ; Peer & Gyora Peer Neville K . S e_adafore_ --.292.---
408 1 71 7

I
75 2 0 1 0-6-FL-005204 Yeo Lee & Hee Lee Richard C. Berra
- --· --
650 .349.9920

64 2 0 1 1 - 1 -FL-1 59600 Kent Cooper & Lisa Cooper Neville K . Spadafore_ 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

73 2 0 1 1 - 1 -FL-1 59996 I Bryan l
McDonal� & Catherine Giacom ini-McDonald _ l'!eville K . Spadaf�e 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

78 2 q_:l 1 -6-FL-0056 1 3 D ian� Farese & Andrew Page Neville K . Spadafore_ 1 408.292 . 1 7 1 7
77 2 0 1 1 -6-FL-006304 Loraine M. Fox & M ichael E . Fox _ Neville K . Spadaf�r� 1 408.292. 1 7 1 7
J = \
,
74 2 0 1 1 -6-FL-006804 I rene ��d & Ge:rge Reed _ Dennis J . Durkin 650. 364.6900
I
75 2 0 1 1 -6-FL-006886 Karen L. Westly & Dean R . Westly Neville K . Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

72 2 0 1 2-1 - F L - 1 60522 ! Thuy D�incent & Mark DeVincent Neville K . �padafor� 1 408 . 29 2 . 1 7 1 7
65 2 0 1 2 - 1 - FL- 1 63041 ! Jeffrey Prince & She_rri Pri nce Neville K . Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

I Monica
I
75 2 0 1 2-6-FL-0077 1 8 Giaco m i n i & Vincent Giaco m i n i Richard C . Berra 650. 349.9920
i
77 2 0 1 2-6-FL-008527 I Barrett Saik & Dawn Saik Nevil l e K. Spadafore 408.292 . 1 7 1 7

Prepared 4-2 1 -2 0 1 7
By S haron L . Roper
NOT I C E OF POST I N G
M a tters Pending Before a Privately Com pensated Tem porary J udge
California Rule 2 . 834

75 1 2 0 1 5-6-FL-0 1 5006 �ij� __E>_�de � El izabeth St�h�ns-Pande -· Dennis J . Durkin 650. 364.6900
I
78 I 2 0 1 5-6-FL-0 1 5463 Haleh Motagh i & S ha hra m Davari
I----- -
Edward Mills
-· - 408.752. 2225

1
-
���
-· ··-· -- ·-

75 2 0 1 5-6 0 5 7� Robert -- -
- �elgado & Heidi Delga�o Edward Mills ---
408 . 7 5 2 . 2225
l
79 i 1 6 FL 1 7 4596 __ R ichard _Jones & G a i l Jones Edward Mills 408. 752.2225

,
64

79 l
_ _!_¥L 1 7 4638

. 1 6 FL 1 74731 _ 1 J a m es Lam bert & Laura Marshall-Lam bert

G h�nf2.._ Schwarz�c_ti & Lillian G u ajardo


Edward M i l l s

Tracy Duell-Cazes
-
- -
408 .752 . 2225

408.267.8484

75 •'
1 6 FL 1 7--
5250
-- -- ---
Tianna F u & Hezhi Ai - �a�d_M ills 408.752 . 2225

64 1 6 F L 1 75794 Elaine Leff & Daniel Leff Richard C. Berra 650 . 349.9920

_? andeep G upta
1
78 1 6 FL1 7652 1 & S_h �chi Garg 408.752.2225
_ _
, Edward Mills · --·--- ·-

76 -
-
i 1 6FL 1 76755 C harles Prooth & M a rcy Ratliff Susan Vicklund Wilson 4 08. 779.4888
I
--
65 1 1 6 FL 1 76 9 1 4 Anna Griffen & T onv Griffen Edward Mills 408.752.2225

\
--- - - ·- --·

-- ,
64 . 1 6 FL 1 772 1 4 Anto _!:l i r:@ Otero & Rog_er Otero Edward Mills 408.752.2225
,
___
__ _ __ _ ___ _

-
i 1 6FL 1 77883 J?.§_niel
-
77 M urray � Joanna _M�rr�y Rich_§.rd C. B�r.@ .1650. 349.9920
, _
____ __

•,

Prepared 4-2 1 -2 0 1 7
By S haron L. Roper
ATTACHMENT · E

ATTACHMENT E
TH -P
--., _ � S,..,.
- .., A-1.. rr>
I 'L-1 - R ..l Brll
l :1... A "D
'-. OFFICE OF CHIEF TRJAL COUNSEL
ENFORCEi\11.:ENT UNIT
OF C.ALTFORl\llA.
um HOWARD STREEf. SA.I\! FRANCISCO. CALIFORNfA 94105-1639 TELEPHONE: {415) 538-2000
FA,"'C: (4 l 5) 53 ll-211l4.
http://www.calbar.ca..gov

DIRECT DIAL: (41 5) 53 8-2342

May 9, 20 1 6

Susan H. Bassi
1 6498 Los Gatos Almaden Rd
Los Gato s, CA 95032

Re: Respo nd ent: Nat Edward Hales, Jr.
Case Nmnber: 1 5-0-1 4053

Dear Ms. Bassi:

The State Bar has received a response to the allegations set f01th in your Complaint from Respondent.
Per your request, I provi de the following summary of bis response. P.te2se note, th].s .sum.mB.ry i3
�·:.:,·. prepared so!eilr from Res�onrlent's resF.?onses, 2.nd does not reflect 2n:/ tlete!'"min.aiion, o;of��o�,
- c�
r-'\ CGEctusion of the Lli!lvesfig�tion b-31 the state Ra1t of Ca.�ifarn�2..

s
Re p ondent states that on Ap1il 28, 20 1 4, he was appointed by the cou1-r, follo-i.-ving a stipul ation by all
parties, and their attorneys, to retain him as a referee in. tlii s case. B efore this appointment, Resp ondent
states be met with Ro b ert Tennant at his office, and at that tiI:ne, disciosed to l\/Ir. Tennant, the prior
cases he had with Mr. B augh. He state s that he was appointed by the court, UDder both CCP §63 8 and
§63 9: and that appointment was agreed to by all p a..-ties, and initialed. Under these statutes, and in
concert with Judge G1illi's Orders, Respondent s tates he vvas given the broad authority to act, to hear
motions, to order s anctions: to determine his own fees , and to order payments to himself and others.

In response to your allegation that he failed to provide a proper waiver of conflict, Respondent states
that he compiied ·with the rules, set forth in the I1L11e 25, 2014 CoUit Order App ointing Referee, signed
by Judge Grilli, paragraph 5. In response to your allegation that Respondent had no authority to issue
§27 1 sanctions, detennin.e his ovvn fees: compiy vvith Judge Towery's orders, or grant immunity to Nir.
B utera, Respondent states that Judge G1iili issued several order on these issues, including tho se on
March 20 20 1 5 and June 29th, 20 1 5, and confirmed Respondent's authority as to the aforementioned.

In response to your allegation that Re spondent misapprop1iated $3 0, 0 0 0, and $28,000, when he
transfened thes e amounts into his trust account as pavment for his fees. Respondent states as follows:
The $3 0,000, was by his order on May 26, 20 1 4, t.hat'was con_-firrne d by Judge Grilii, that pe:r.mitted him
to order v-.ithdrawal of these funds from the Il'TG savings account as a retainer. As to the $28,000.00 that
was lI. Baugh's trust account, Respondent states that Judge Grilli's order of June 29,
transferred from IV
20 1 5 , specifically authorized him to use these funds to pay ms own outstanding fees and costs.
\
.ill H. Bassi
.dY 9, 20 1 6
. age 2
'

In response to your allegation that Respondent violated court orders, including the order to withdraw as
referee, Respo ndent states that neither Judge Grilli, nor Judge Towery, ever issued an order that found
he ,
violated any court order. Respond ent further states that the Court did not order him removed but that
,
he filed a motion to 'Nithdraw as referee and that Judge Grilli granted his motion on June 1 1 , 2015 for
all matters, except the Gilroy property issues before Judge Towery. Respondent further states that Judge
G1illi's Findings and Order after Hearing on June 1 1, 2015, shows he complied with the Court's
conditions for withdrawal, and that he was ord�red to continue his appointment through Judge Towery.

In resp o nse to your allegation that Respondent failed to provide an accounting of his fees, he responded
that both you, and Mr. Bassi, were provided monthly invoices since he \Vas retained.

Fi.nally, in response to your allegation that Respondent entered into a fee refe1ral relationship with his
son regarding the listing of the Gilroy propert-y, and disclosed confidential information, Respondent
states that his only request to his son was to obtain the name of a realtor in that area. Any conduct of his
son, b eyo nd that, was not authorized by Respondent. Respondent adds that he first learned that his son
contacted Ms. Filice, i n January 2 0 1 5 , when you had emailed him regarding the matter. Thereafter, on
January 22, 20 i 5, Respondent states he brought th.is issue before the Court and recommended that the
co urt issue an Order that there would be no referral fees paid to his son. Resp ondent also states that on
fone 2 9 , 20 1 5, and found in her order; Judge Grilli ruled that Respondent did not violate any conflict of
interest or ethics rules .

.Q.Qce the investigation is complete, you v.ill be contacted. In the meantime, I emailed iv.Ir. Tenna.nt, on
)-
th

r 5 , to schedule a telephone interview to fill in certain information areas. I am also waiting for
aaditional documents to anive, and revie\v, tbat are necessary for this investigation.

Very truly yoms,

i
'· ·
/
. - .: __ _ _ .

Lori R. \.Val-lefstein· ·····
Investigator

/iab
THE STATE BAR OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL
ENFORCEMENT
OF CALIFORNIA Gregory Dresser, Interim Chief Trial Counsel
1 80 HOWARD STREET. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 05-1 639 TELEPHONE: (4 1 5) 538-2000
FAX: (41 5) 538-2220
http://www.calbar.ca.gov

September 2, 20 1 6

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Susan Bassi
1 6498 Los Gatos Almaden Rd.
Los Gatos CA 95032

Re : Respondent: Nat Edward Hales, Jr.
Case Number: 1 5-0- 1 4053

Dear Ms. Bassi:

As you know, the State Bar of California investigated your complaint against Nat Edward Hales, Jr.,
who is a member of the State Bar of California appointed as a special referee pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 6 3 8 and 639 in In re the Marriage ofBassi.

We are writing to advise you that on September 2, 20 1 6, the State Bar entered into an Agreement in
Lieu of Discipline ("ALD") with Mr. Hales in order to resolve this matter.

In the ALD, Mr. Hales stipulated to committing acts of professional misconduct in violation of rule
1 -7 1 0 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that "A member who is serving as a
temporary judge, referee, or court-appointed arbitrator, and is subject under the Code of Judicial Ethics
to Canon 6D, shall comply with the terms of that canon. " Canon 6D incorporates many provisions of
the Code of Judicial Ethics, including
In all proceedings, disclose in writing or on the record information required by law, or
information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Canon
6D(3 ), including personal or professional relationships known to the temporary judge,
referee, or court-appointed arbitrator, that he or she or his or her law firm has had with a
party, l awyer, or l aw firm in the current proceeding, even though the temporary judge,
referee, or court-appointed concludes there is no basis for disqualification . . . .
At no time did Mr. Hales provide a written conflict of interest disclosure statement to any party or
counsel in Jn re the Marriage ofBassi. Also, without the agreement of the parties, statutory authority, or
specific court authorization, Mr. Hales sent the parties in In re the Marriage ofBassi invoices which
purported to charge interest on unpaid compensation for his services as referee. Mr. Hales has since
withdrawn invoices for interest.

Mr. Hales will be required to attend State Bar Ethics School within one year as part of the resolution of
your complaint.
S usan Bassi
S eptember 2, 20 1 6
Page 2

The ALD may be taken into consideration in the event the State Bar receives additional complaints
against Mr. Hales. However, the ALD is confidential and this disposition has not been disclosed to
anyone except you and Mr. Hales. It is not discipline and cannot be considered evidence of professional
misconduct by other courts or in an employment application process.

We appreciate your efforts in bringing this matter to our attention. Given Mr. Hales' almost 50 years in
practice without any discipline, we believe the issuance of this ALD adequately addresses the conduct
you brought to our attention.

Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

Sherrie B . McLetchie
Senior Trial Counsel

SBM/sbm
ATTACHMENT F

ATTACHMENT F
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

3
STANDING ORDER

4 USE OF RECORDING DEVICES IN COURTHOUSE FACILITIES

5 It is well settled that while the media has the right to attend and report on open judicial

6 proceedings, there is no constitutional right to photograph or otherwise electronically record

7 them. (See Marin Independent Journal v. Municipal Court ( 1 993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1 7 12, 1 7 1 8

8 ("Electronic recording ofjudicial proceedings is subject to the discretion of the court"] , citing

9 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. (1 978) 43 5 U.S. 589, 6 1 0.) Furthermore, a courthouse

10 facility qualifie.s as a nonpublic fonnn. (See, e.g. United States v. Grace (1 983) 461 U.S. 1 7 1 ,

. 11 1 78 .)

12 Consistent with case law, California Rules of Court, Rule 1 . 1 50 and Superior Court of

13 California, County of Santa Clara General Court and Administration Rules, Ru le 2, the

14 following activity is prohibited:

15 1 . No photographs may b e ta.ken anywhere in any Courthouse facility with any device
capable of photographing, recording or broadcasting. The only exception is for the
16
media upon proper order of the Court.
17

1� 2. No video recordings may be taken anywhere in any Courthouse facility with _any device
capable of photographing, recording or broadcasting. The only exception is for the
19
media upon proper order of the Court.
20

21 3. No audio recordings may be taken anywhere in any Courthouse facility with any device
capable of photographing, recording or broadcasting, unless permitted upon proper
22
order of the Court.
23

q{;;_q/n
24 SO ORDERED.

2s Dated: ��� ��
Hon. Patricja M. Lucas
26 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
ATTACHMENT G

ATTACHMENT G
Silicon Valley Public Trust C o mmittee
C / O S usan Bassi - P . O . Box 2 2 2 0 Los Gatos, CA 9 5 0 3 1 \ 8 3 1-3 2 0-642 1 \ GilroyBassi @gmail.com

Ca l iforn ia S u p re m e Cou rt
c/o Cle rk's Office N ove m b e r 26, 2018
350 M cA l l ister Street
Sa n Fran cisco, CA 94102 Hand Delivered with USB Exhibits

Re: Appe a l o f State B a r Antitrust Dete r m i n ation #2018-003

This l etter a ppeals the Ca lifo r n i a State B a r' s Antirust Dete r m i n ation #20 18-003 . The State B a r erred
by ignoring a req u est for an i nd e pe n d e nt i nvestigation based o n a media a u d it that revea led potent i a l
a ntitrust a ctivity i nvolving l icensed attorneys associated with the Santa C l a ra Cou nty Bar Association
and e m ployed by the State Bar.

W h e n m a rriages b rea k and fa m i l ies fract u re, m ot h e rs and fath e rs rea ch to fa m i ly law attorneys to
assist them in sett l i n g the i r fi na ncial matters and t h e i r most pers on a l affa i rs . These u nsoph isti cated
l ega l c o n s u m e rs rely on the state to a ss u re that the lawye rs they reta i n; a ct m o ra l ly, eth i c a l l y a n d
accord i ng to the law s u c h t h a t j u stice rese m b les w h a t they have s e e n o n te l evision a n d i n the m ovies.

If i n n ocent spouses e ncounter u neth ica l lawye rs who i ntend to earn u n consci o n a ble p rofits t h rough
an a b use of a lega l p rocess that a l lows fo r the stea l i ng of savi ngs, ra i d i ng of retirements, d ra i n i n g
col l ege invest m e nts a n d foreclosing o n fa m i ly hom es, t h e n t h e potential for a nti rust a ctivity
becomes a rea l ity a s it has i n Sil icon Va l ley fo r the past th ree d ecad es, which is the su bject of this
a p pea l .

1. Requ est for S a n ctions o n State Bar Lawye rs

State B a r lawyers violated the Cou rt's Ad m i n istrative O rd e r #20 1 7-09-20 when it decli ned to
i nvestigate a l legations of a ntitrust a ctivity b rought to the attention of the State B a r by mem bers of
the p u b l i c in J a n u a ry 2018 a n d in M a rch 2018. Both com p l a i nts a l leged a ntitrust activity i nvolvi ng
Sil icon Val ley d ivorce lawye rs and we re s i m ply ignore d . A patte rn com m o n l y seen at the B a r w h e re
fa m i ly law attorn eys i n Santa C l a ra Cou nty a re concerned .

M r . Clyde Berg 1 , the com p l a i n a nt i n J a n u a ry 2018, is a victim of atto rney crime given a pend i ng
i nd ict m e nt of fa m i ly law atto rney Va lerie Houghto n . Based o n the testi mony of other victi ms, it is
now b e l ieved that i n a d d it i o n to stea l i ng from M r. Berg t h rough a b u s i n ess i nvestm ent, M s . Houghto n
was consu lted with M r. Berg's fo rmer wife, who m a d e fa lse a l l egations of dom estic violence t h at cost
M r . Berg nearly $6,000, 000 to d efe nd h i mself in a Santa C l a ra Cou nty cri m i n a l, civi l a n d fa m i ly law
matter, despite M r. Berg having executed a pre n u pt i a l agree ment prior to h is m a rriage.

1 Complaint lodged by victim Clyde Berg in Janua ry 2 0 1 8, antitrust activity alleged not investigated .
1 \ Page
It was d u ri ng h i s former wife's testimony at a 2 0 1 3 p re l i m i n a ry c ri m i n a l h e a r i ng that M r. Berg learned
his for m e r wife h a d been co n s u lting with d ivorce atto rney Bradford Baugh for at least two years
before she made a l l egati o n s of d o mestic violence and filed for d ivorce. In fact, i n 2010 as she
consu lted with Baugh, she was being prosecuted for domestic violence and e l d e r a bu se, which M r.
Berg a sked the d i strict attorney's office to d rop, a c o m m o n occu rrence for vict i m s of i nt i m ate p a rtner
a b u se .

2
A t t h a t s a m e heari ng, DOA A l l ison F i l o e ngaged i n p rosecutor i a l misco n d u ct, aga i n , when s h e
o bjected to a l i n e o f q uest i o n i ng that M r. Berg w a s e ntitled to h ave p u rsued s u c h that he could
d eterm i n e the ro l e Bradford Baugh 3 and S h a ro n Rop e r 4 p layed i n his cri m i na l, fa m i ly a n d civi l cases. 5

M r . Berg conti n u es to be d e n ied j u stice i n the H oughton matte r, whe re M s . H oughton, reported ly a
close fri end of M r . Baugh's, is c h a rged with felony crimes i nvolvi ng m o ra l tu rpit u d e a n d conti n u es to
work with fa m i l ies a n d ch i l d ren as a l icensed attorney. Th is work has been assu red based o n refe rra l s
from M r. B radford Baugh a n d p u b l i s h i ng o p po rt u n ities p rovid ed b y the State B a r . 6

For nea rly th ree yea rs, Santa C l a ra Cou nty Victim's Services rep resentatives have fa i l ed to p rovide
services to M r. Berg, services that a re offered to other vict i m s of crimes. M r. Berg is 79 yea rs of age
a n d h a s faced i rrep a ra b le h a rm, a nd loss, d u e to the fa i l u res of the State Bar, a n d the Santa Clara
Cou n ty District Attorney J eff Rose n .

7
Nudelman

I n h e r M a rch of 2 0 1 8 com p l a i nt to the B a r, Pamela N u d e l m a n , the fo r m e r wife of a n ex Sa nta C l a ra
Cou nty p rosecutor, Alan N u d e l m a n , a lso raised issues of pote ntia l a ntitrust activity that s h e
experien ced o p posing M r . B a u g h in h e r d ivorce c a s e . F o r 10 yea rs after the d ivorce, M r. Baugh
cont i n u ed to refuse to release a l ie n h e had p l a ced o n her property i m p roperly. Pa m u lti m ately
learned that h e r l a wyers made secret deals with M r. Baugh, refe ree J a mes Cox and Speci a l M aster
Nat H a les, to her d eterment. Those "d eals" resu lted in d i m i n ished q u a l ity of lega l s e rvices a n d
created a n i n a b i l ity for h e r t o retai n lawye rs w h o cou l d com pete a n d a dvocate o n h e r behalf i n a
cou nty w h e re h e r h u s b a n d h a d been e m p loyed as a lawyer fo r most of t h e i r 29- yea r ma rriage. M r.
N u d e l m a n reti red fro m that offi ce fo l l owi ng a fe lony c h a rge. A d d iti o n a l ly, M s . N u d e l m a n was awa re
the Bar had rece ived co m p l a i nts a l l eging that M r. N ud e l m a n had engaged i n an i m proper sexua l
re lati o n s h i p with a client, w h o was a victim of d o m e stic violence. The B a r' s website reports n o
d isci p l i n e l odged aga i n st M r. N u d e l m a n .

Ove r t h e cou rse o f a six-yea r d ivorce, M r. Baugh's re p resentation o f Pam's former h us b a n d caused
Pam to be evicted from the Los Gatos h o m e where she had raised h e r fou r c h i l d ren, to i n c u r
u n necessa ry lega l a n d busi n ess expenses o n h e r re nta l p ro p e rty in Sa nta C l a ra, a n d t o lose i ncome a s
8
Baugh a l l owed atto rney Barbara Pa rrish t o m iss payments on a contracted lease Pa rrish h a d with

2 https :/ /www.m e rcurynews.com/2 0 1 1 / 0 4 / 1 6 /report- Fi nds-prosecutorial-miscond uct- i n-bay-area/
3 Deposition of Bradford Baugh in the matter of Berg Case # 1 - 1 3 -CV-243348 taken January 4, 2 0 1 6

4 Deposition of Sharon Roper in the M arriage o f Berg Case # 1 - 1 2 - F L 1 6 3 0 2 7 taken o n January 1 0 , 2 0 1 3

5 Partial Transcri pt from Filo examination- Prelim. H earing August 22, 2 0 1 3 .
6 Houghton Emails a n d Publ i cation with State Bar employees.

7 N u d elman Complaint to State Bar M arch 2 0 1 8 . And S anta Clara County DA letter dismissal.

8 Barbara Parrish was an attorney leasing offi ce space from the Nudelmans and friendly with M r. Baugh.

2 1 Page
the N ud e l m a ns . Baugh col l u d ed i n gross m isma nage m e nt of that property with refe ree, J a m es Cox
a n d Spec i a l M a ste r Nat H a l es 9 , a l l of w h o m d ra gged out the d ivorce a n d i m p a i red Pam's effort to
reta i n com petent loca l co u nsel capa b l e of d e a l i ng with the u nfa i r a n d dece ptive b u s i n ess practices
regu la rly d e p loyed by M r. Baugh and A l a n N u d e l m a n d u ri n g what s h o u l d h ave been a s i m p l e d ivorce.

O n l y o n e of Pam's lawye rs a ss u red h e r d u e p rocess by d e m a n d i n g the with d rawa l of Speci a l M a ster
Nat H a les and by o bjecting to the a pp o i ntment of M s . Zecher after she m a d e the O N LY lawfu l
d isclos u res of cases h e l d i n c o m m o n with M r. Baugh that can be fou n d i n the p u b l i c c o u rt fi les. 1 0

U lti mately two of M s . N ud e l m a n' s l a wyers were d isba rred . T h ree were sued fo r m a l p ra ctice where
Pam obta i n ed a $ 3 . 6 m i l l i o n -d o l l a r judgement 11 agai n st o n e d isba rred attorney, which she wi l l l i kely
n ever be a b l e to c o l l ect. At 69 years of age, the harm M r. Baugh im posed t h rough u nfa i r a n d
d eceptive busi ness p ractices is o ngoing b a s e d o n recent i nte rviews cond ucted with the lawyer
2
re p resenting attorney Rebeka h F rye 1 whom Pam sued fo r m a l p ractice.

2. Pattern o f Antitrust Activity: M o n opoly o n Attorney Fees in S i l i c o n Va l l ey's Divorce Cases

As Sil icon Val ley experienced u n precedent wealth a n d su ccess, fa m i l ies req u i red l ega l services a c ross
va ryi ng s pecia lties. In i nterviews with fo rmer cl ients of M r. Ba ugh, and D o n e l l e M orga n , cl ients report
t h at a s m a l l grou p of fa m i l y lawyers sought to monopolize these lega l fees by:

A. See king to deter clients from consulting l awye rs with specia lties i n rea l estate, b u s i ness, a n d
cri m i n a l l itigation, eve n i f s u c h consu ltation wou ld have b e e n i n t h e best i nterest of t h e i r cl ient.
B. P ressu ring c l i e nts to agree to use joint experts, and othe r p rivately com pensated lawyers who were
afforded q u asi-j u d ic i a l i m m u n ity, without i nfo rming clients as to the h a rm such a p po i ntme nts cou l d
cause when lawfu l d isclosu res were secreted .
C. Ta king a dvantage of g u l l i b l e, and i n com petent j udges, who trusted these lawyers and were assured
d u e p rocess had been assured, when in fa ct they knew c l i e nts had not been p roperly i nfo rmed
when co u rts made a p pointments p u rs u a nt to Ca l ifo rnia Code of Civi l Procedu re §638 and §639.
D. Col l u d i n g with othe r lawyers to assure the p ress, the p u b l i c and the clients wo u l d have n o way of
d iscove r i ng t h e i r cri mes. M ost i ns i d i o u s was that w h e n Sha ron Roper prepared a l ist p u rs u a nt to
Califo r n i a R u l es of Cou rt 2 .834, a media a u d it shows that ove r 80% of t h e cases w h e re lawyers were
p rivately paid to act as j udges, were n ot o n the l ist. This resu lts i n obstructi ng the right of spouses,

9 Order of Receiver James Cox appointing Nat Hales as Discovery M aster in the Nudelman d ivorce failed to
make mandatory fin d ings when h e ordered $ 1 0, 0 0 0 to Baugh trust account and placed $ 5 0, 0 0 0 in Baugh
trust accou n t to manage community property asset. Ord ers of H ales filed 7-2 1 - 2 0 04- Notice of H ales
With d rawal dated January 28, 2 0 0 5 .
10Bill D resser Obj ections to Appointment of Zecher, filed 4-2 9 - 2 0 0 5-with Zecher's disclosures of cases
held wi th attorney Bradford Baugh Case # 1 -02-FL- 1 0 9 1 42; Order of Johnson filed May 6, 2 005,
appointi ng Richard Roggia granting Dresser's objections, but failing to m ake a ppro p riate findings to
determine an ability to pay.
11
Pam N udelman j udgement for $3,66 2 , 0 0 8 . 3 2 against d isbarred lawyer J oseph Johnson -6-23-2 0 1 1 .
12
Ms. Frye was the lawyer for Gloria H ej n a who j u m pe d to h e r d eath on h i ghway 1 0 1 reportedly d u e to
the emotional issues i nvolvi ng d i vorce and fol lowing h e r firi ng from Oracle where she was distraught
over being unable to pay lawyers to address the custody matters of her children. Email exchanges with
her sister and Frye following Gloria's death, Email dated 4-2 7 - 2 0 0 6 from rebekahfyre@earthlink.net.
3 I Page
a n d o ut-of-area-l awyers to be i nformed as to p ote nti a l co nfl i cts, or to assure t h e s u bordinate
j ud ic i a l offi cer t h ey paid wou ld charge a fa i r fee, and act without bias i n their d ivorce case.
E . U s i n g t h e trust a ccou nts o f certain lawyers to col lect, a n d conce a l , co m m u n ity a n d separate
property rents, i n come a n d h o m e e q u ity in a m a n n e r that se rved as an u n d ergro u n d fi n a n c i a l
i nstru ment t h a t avoided d etection fro m t h e taxing a uthorities a n d viol ates t h e law t h a t p rovides for
these trust accou nts to be u sed for "nominal sums" , a n d for "short periods of time" .

3. Audit o f Divo rce Cases: Reveal Victi ms o f the M o n opoly

I n 2016, Ste p h a n J a m es 13, a n i n depend ent investigative reporter ca m e to Silicon Val ley fol l owing h is
own d ivo rce in Sacra mento, w h e re h e m a d e a m e d i a req u est i n the M a rriage of Bassi. That req u est
was gra nted by J udge M a ry A n n G ri l l i . Susan Bassi h a d worked in fa m i ly fa r m i ng b u si nesses fo r ove r
20 yea rs a n d h a d ad d itiona l ly been a p u b l i s h e r of My Out a n d About M agazine, which she sold i n
2015 to the S a n Jose M etro N ews a s s h e h a d t o represent h e rself in a d ivorce case opposing Bradford
Baugh.

A l l s u bsequent req uests M r. J a mes m a d e to J u dge G ri l l i , and J u dge Towery, i n t h e M a rriage of Bassi,
Brooks a n d Diana Do ng, w h e re M r. Baugh represented the fi n a n ci a l l y d o m i na nt h us b a n d, were
d e n i e d . 14

For the past decade M r. J a mes has a u d ited a n d m o n itored t h o u s a n d s of d ivorce cases across
Ca l ifo r n i a . In 2016 he made fo rmal media req uests in the m a r riages of Brooks a n d Dong that led h i m
to begi n to i nvestigate a n a p pe a ra n ce o f c ri m i n a l a ctivity in high asset d ivorce cases i nvolving
attorney B radford Baugh. By Dece m b e r of 2016 that investigation led him to i nvestigate the custody
case of M r. Mc D o n a l d, a fo rmer 49e r footba l l player who h a d been a ccused of sexu a l assa u lt a n d
d o mestic violence. 1 5

Since that time Susan Bassi a n d M r. J a mes have poo led resou rces a n d co l l a bo rated with p u b l is h e rs,
reporte rs, ed ito rs, a n d p u b l i c records resea rchers d u ring a m e d i a investigation of potenti a l a ntitrust
activity that a rises i n Silicon Va l l ey's h igh a sset d ivorce cases i nvo lving lawyers a n d j udges associ ated
with the Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty Bar Associatio n .

I n h i s wo rk, M r. J a mes is m i n dfu l t o m a i nt a i n a n eye t o socioeco n o m i c j u stice issues t h at i m pact the
poor, the elde rly, and our m ost v u l n e r a b l e citizens who m u st re p resent themse lves in cou rt.

For h is efforts M r. J a m es has faced s u bsta ntia l b l acklisting from m e m b e rs of the Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty
Ba r Association, fro m J u d icia l Officers i n c l u d ing J a mes Towe ry 1 6, a n d from co u rt staff who have
den ied, d e l a yed a n d atte m pted to m a rg i n a lize h i s work as a reporter. This is a patte rn that has been

1 3 h ttps ://muckra ck.com/stephen-james/portfolio- M uckrack.com is a website used by independent
reporters and j o u rnalists as a resume to reta i n work from publishers and editors.
1 4 Stephen James media request i n Brooks for the disqualifi cation o f Baugh a n d Dailey - denied.
1 5 M edia Request and Transcript of December 8, 2 0 1 6 and other court documents i n the M cDonald v. Scott

Custody and Domestic Violence cases.
1 6 Transcript from H earing o n the Bassi child support matters of 1 2- 2 1 - 2 0 1 6. J udge James Towery while

presiding over a child support a rrearage hearing i n the Bassi m a tter d e famed Stephen James and acted in
violation of California's Code of J u dicial Eth i cs, currently under review by CJP.
41 Page
seen i n Sa nta Clara Cou nty for decades a n d had o n ly been d iscovered i n the cou rse of this
i nvestigat i o n .

The Silicon Valley Public Trust Committee would like t o acknowledge, and thank, Mr. James for his
contributions to this appeal.

4. Audit of Vict i m s Cases I mpa cted by Divorce M o n opoly

17
Bea uchesne : Baugh Effort to Monop olize

Cou rt files s how M r. Baugh rep resented a lawyer, R i c h a rd Bea uchesn e, d u ring a d ivo rce case w h e re
M r. Baugh e ngaged in what a p pe a rs to be a ntitrust a ctivity a s we l l as cruel a nd u n us u a l treatment of
a client in n eed of m e ntal hea lth services. This case a l so s hows evi d e n ce in s u pport of the a l l egations
as to h ow M r. Baugh regu la rity m isleads j u d icial officers to excuse a n d ignore h i s crimes.

I n this case, M r . Baugh obta i n ed h is c l i e nt's consent for the a p poi ntment of a guardian ad ! item, GAL.
O n ce a GAL had been a pp o i nted, Mr. Baugh re prese nted both the GAL and h is c l ie nt in a d ivo rce case,
which rises to the l evel of great concern where such co nfl i ct s h o u ld be strictly scrut i n i zed by a
s u p e rvising s u p e rior court judge.

When J u dge J o h nson q uestioned M r. Baugh o n what a p pe a red to be a clear confl ict, Baugh c l a i m ed :

18
"We have got a waiver of confl i ct " .

J udge J o h nson d id not ask M r. Baugh to p ro d u ce evid e nce to s u p port the state me nt, a n d no s u c h
wa ive r a ppears i n the cou rt fi l e . M r . B a u g h w a s removed a s co u nsel for the client, but re m a i n ed i n
the case fo r t h e GAL, cons u m i n g A L L the fees poss i b l e u n t i l t h e re were n o n e left, d e m onstrati n g the
h a rm t h at can be i nfl icted when a cli ent wa ives t h e i r rights a n d a re u n i nfo rmed by t h e i r lawyer.

Mr. Baugh never p rod uced the waiver he c l a i m ed to have, and the m atte r a p pears to be being civi lly
l itigated at this p resent t i m e . It is u n l i ke l y M r. Bea uchesne w i l l ever o bta i n j ustice i n t h e cou nty where
M r . Baugh has operated h i s c ri m i n a l m o n o poly for d ecades.

The pattern of M r. Ba ugh fa lsely c l a i m i n g to have a wa iver, o r co nse nt, that was l awfu l ly o bt a i n ed by
i nfo rming cl ients, opposing p a rties, opposing l a wyers, a n d j ud ges, of p otentia l confl i cts is so pervasive
that it is t h e cornerstone of M r. Baugh's conduct.

It is b e l i eved that Mr. Ba ugh's c l ient, who was i nvestigated by the B a r h i m se lf, did n ot lodge a p roper
co m p l a i nt with the Bar agai nst M r. Baugh.

1 7 Commu nications from the Bar, Joseph D u n n and Lucita Torres for records and Cri m i nal # C 1 0 9 3 2 48 and

M i n Order from Heari ng where Ba ugh and GAL withd raw on4-24- 2 0 1 3 Beauchesne letter to J u d ge Persky
dated April 2, 2 0 1 3 .
1 8 Transcript of H earing before Judge J o h nson 1 0- 2 7- 2 0 1 1 , Page 1 9, line 1 2 "We have got a waver o f
conflict"- a n d supportive d ocuments i n Beauchesne.
S I Page
T I M H A R E R : Secret E m p l oyment a n d Potential Kickbacks

Victims: Moorehead, N u d e l m a n , Dong, Brooks, C he riton, N ewman, H u l l , Cheriton, Bassi & B u rch

It is fro m the Bea uchesne cou rt file (J a n u a ry 2015) t h at we lea rned h ow M r . Baugh secretly e m p loyed
M ic h e l l e H a rpe r, the wife of Ti m Ha rper, a vocatio n a l exa m i ne r used in nearly every h igh a sset
d ivorce case in Santa C l a ra Cou nty, i n c l u d ing the N u d e l m a n case where M r. H a rper was reta i n ed by
Ms. N ud e l m a n . 1 9

A l l egatio n s that M r . H a rper d i d work for t h e pu rpose of benefiti ng M r. Baugh's cl ients have been
fou n d in countless i nterviews. Documenta ry evide n ce to s u p po rt these c l a i m s, and how they a cted as
ba rrier to m a rket entry ca n be seen in t h e b i l l i ng statements of M r. Berg .

O n ce M r. Berg reta i n ed co u nsel fro m a n out-of-a rea lawyer, he w a s t o l d a vocationa l exa m o f h i s
fo rmer wife w a s n eeded, a pattern that occu rs i n a l l h igh asset d ivorce cases. (J u dges m u st figure
these issues out on t h e i r own when it i nvolves poor people with no lawye rs) .

M r. Berg's b i l l s sh ow that a s M r. Baugh rep resented h i s for m e r wife, h i s lawye rs rea ched o u t to reta i n
t h e services of M r. H a rper. M r. Berg was b i l l ed for that com m u n icat i o n . U lti mately, M r. H a rp e r was
not u sed fo r M r. Be rg, and Berg was not told why. If cou rts posted l i sts for these a p po i ntme nts, local
lawyers wo u l d n ot be a b le to secret deals and confl icts that would add to b i l l ing expenses to cl ients.

Tra n s pa re nt l i sts noting the q u a l ifications n eeded fo r vocat i o n a l exa m i n e rs used in a local fa m i ly
cou rt wou l d a l l ow for a fa i r m a rket com petition fo r these services, which a re cu rrently m o no p o l ized
by u n l i censed persons act i n g as J U N K experts for lawyers a ctively e ngaging i n a ntitrust activities. N ot
o n ly d o th ose activities restrict a ccess fo r com petition for lega l s e rvices, the p ractice p rovides a
seco n d a ry monopoly for experts who s h ut out com petition for t hese services, m ost of which a re not
needed.

Before M r. Berg used a n out-of-a rea l a wyer, h e p a i d Donel l e M orga n $80,000 . M s . M o rga n was
d isq u a l ified by M r. Baugh from the Berg d ivorce wit h i n 2 months n o n etheless. M r. Berg recently
learned M r. Baugh did not seek to d isq u a l ify M orga n fro m other cases, whe re the s a m e
circu m sta n ces existed that were the basis f o r d isq u a l ification i n the Berg matter.

There is m o re than a n a p p e a ra n ce that M r. Baugh a n d M s . M o rgan, and othe r lawye rs associated
t h rough the Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty Bar Association, stage FAKE confl icts as an i n d i rect form of
advertising to attract h igh asset d ivorce cases w h e re they both will p rofit rega rd l ess of the outco m e .
The i nfo rmation conta i ned i n M r . B a u g h ' s motion t o d i s q u a lify M s . M orga n 20, co m b i n ed w i t h the
d isq u a l ification of M r. Baugh from the W a h l v . Perki n s h e a r i n g before J udge Pe rs ky on April 17,
2008 2 1, and the d e positio n of Bradfo rd Baugh o n J a n u a ry 4, 2016 i n t h e Berg civil matter serve to
i l l u strate how the cond uct of a core g ro u p of local fa m i ly law lawyers work to restrict access to l egal

19 Vocati onal Exami nation of Alan N udelman cond u cted by Tim H arper.
20 Baugh motion to disqualify M organ signed by judge Elving on 6-7- 2 0 1 3 includes declarations of Mr.
Baugh's staff, partners and others including Bill Dok, Chris G ill, M a rianne Gi ll, Darcy Taylo r, and Leah
Amini.
2 1 Transcript from the Persky hearing on M otion to Disqualify Bradford Baugh held April 1 7 , 2 008.

6I Page
s e rvices a n d how they i ncrease p ri ces a n d d i m i n i s h t h e q u a l ity of l ega l s e rvices fo r fa m i lies i nvolved i n
Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty d ivorce a n d custody cases.

In m a ki ng his req u est to d i sq ua l ify M o rga n, M r. Ba ugh s u b m itted decla rations fro m h is p a rt n e rs a n d
office staff. M s . H a rp e r w a s n ot noticed i n that m otion, a n d t h e re is n o w a y o f knowing i f she was
e m p l oyed by M r. Baugh's firm at the t i m e the motion was m a d e . I f she was, her statem ents cou l d
have b e e n relevant s u ch t h at M r. Berg w o u l d have kn own i f Ms. Berg i nteracted with a vocat i o n a l
exa m i n e r' s wife as M r. Berg sought to reta i n t h a t expert as h i s witness i n a d ivorce case.

These "staffi ng" p ractices d em o n strate h ow u nfa i r and deceptive busi ness p ractices in the S i l icon
V a l l ey's fa m i ly l a w com m u n ity d ate back to the N u d e l m a n d ivo rce (2002-2008 ) and serve to h a rm
l ega l co nsu mers . M ic h e l l e H a rper has a p peared as M r. Ha rper's ADA a i d e i n d ivorce tri a l s a s rece ntly
a s J u ne 2018 ( Bassi), where it was never d isclosed that she had once worked for M r. Baugh ( 2 0 15), as
Ms. Bassi was se lf-re p resented and issues of c h i l d s u p port were at h a n d and a n a ctive DCSS case was
o p e n . Ti m H a rper a l so acted in D i a n a Dong's case i n 2015, where she was i m p uted with i n co m e she
never earned, causing her c h i l d re n to be h a rmed by M r. H a rper' s negl igent work.

Ti m H a rper has been used i n m o re h igh a sset d ivorce cases to get M r. Baugh's c l i e nts out of paying
child and spousal s u pport than a ny oth e r expert. If M r. Ba ugh "emp l oyed" M r. H a rper' s wife, i n l i e u
of paying fees to H a rper i n o rd e r t o m a n i p u l ate outcomes i n attorney fee a n d c h i l d s u pport matte rs,
such c o n d u ct wo u l d rise to the level of c ri m i n a l activity that s e rved to c h i l d re n a n d fa m i l i es.

In i nte rviews co n d u cted i n a nd a ro u n d the San J ose Cou ntry Club it was reported that M r . Ha rper, a
former teacher with n o u n i q ue l i cense, credentials o r e d u cation, d rove expensive s p o rts ca rs, p ut his
son t h rough costly p rivate schools a n d enj oyed a l ifestyle m u ch l i ke that described i n the H o ughton
i n d i ctment. A l ifestyle M r. H a rp e r l i ke l y cou ld n ot h ave afforded without i l legal o r q uestio n a b l e
b u s i n ess practices.

The State Bar s h o u l d be ordered to i nvestigate if M r. Baugh did i n fact e m p l oy M ic h e l l e Ha r p e r a n d
p ro pe rly report that e m p l oyment t o t h e taxing a ut h o rities. T h e State B a r s h o u l d a lso dete r m i n e if M s .
H a rper w a s in fa ct t h e "person i n c h a rge" in h i s office i n 2015 a n d if M r. B a u g h , a n d h i s p a rt n e rs,
p rope rly s u p e rvised a n d m a n aged M s . Ha rper to a s s u re that cases where M s . H a rper' s h us b a n d
acted as a paid vocatio n a l expert for opposing lawye rs, a n d l itiga nts, were n ot ta i nted .

Brooks

The Sil icon Va l ley D ivo rce M o n opoly is best reve a l ed i n the M a rriage of B rooks, w h e re Eva n Brooks
used ove r $30 m i l l io n i n p rofits fro m Digi Design, a n d the d eficien cies i n the fa m i ly c o u rts, to inflict
ten yea rs of a buse o n h is fo rmer wife, which was m a sterfu l ly executed by h is attorn ey, Bra dford
Baugh a n d which benefited an a rmy of lawyers Ms. B rooks was forced to reta i n .

Cou rt fi les show that M s . B rooks was d u ped ea rly o n i nto agreeing t o u s e a privately compensated
attorney to act as a j u dge, whose confl icts with M r. B rook's counsel were n ot d isclose d . 22

22 Declaration o f Violet Brooks i n S upport of Recusal of P rivate j u d ge Cassedy filed M arch 6, 2 0 1 2 .
7 1 Page
Fortunately for M s . Brooks s h e had access to enough assets to p ut u p a good fight for h e r rightfu l
s h a re of co m m u n ity p rope rty, a n d to try to p rotect h e r c h i l d ren, a n d he rself, from what was
descri bed e a rly i n the d ivorce as dom estic violence and sex u a l a buse pe rpetrated by M r. Brooks.

Sad ly, that fight cost Ms. Brooks m o re than money. It took yea rs for t h e lawyers and experts to take
her m o n ey. It took lawyers j ockeying to reta i n the cou nty's highest p a i d experts i ncl u d i ng CPA J a mes
Bute ra, attorney and "custody consulta nt" Valerie H o u ghton, Tim Ha rper, G a rett D a i l ey a n d
u n licensed reu n ificat i o n c a m p operators t h at were recently t h e s u bject of a recent N BC Bay Area
. . . 2
1 nvest1gat1ve report . 3

Violet's fri e n d s a n d fa m i ly reached o u t to reporte rs, to s u p po rters, a n d t o a nyone who wou l d be a bl e
to sto p M r. B a u g h ' s consta nt d egra d i ng o f h e r cha racter i n hea ring after h e a r i n g before J udge M a ry
A n n G ri l l i . H oweve r, Violet's m ost recent l a wyer, Hector M o reno, did n't want p u b l i c attention a n d
m a d e t h reats t o m a ke s u re t h e monop oly's secrets w o u l d rem a i n i n t h e c o u rthouse. 24

Perh a ps J u dge G r i l l i d i d n't notice because as the loca l lawye rs kn ew, s h e was i m p a i red, and in p a i n
based o n h e r o w n m e d ica l i s s u e s . Or p e rh a ps s h e d i d n't n otice beca use she had s o m a n y u n d iscl osed
relatio n s h i p s h e rself with M r. Baugh and M s . H oughton, that she fe lt she co u l d trust them to h ave h e r
back.25

M o ney co u ldn't save Violet . The monopoly d e m a n ded more fees, which brought m ore lawyers a s
J u dge E rica Yew a pp o i nted referee Nat H a les 2 6, a n d the corruption esca lated . O n record d isclosures
that Violet was e ntitled to were n on-existent. A l i st of privately compensated te m p o ra ry j u dges that
s h o u l d have been p osted i n t h e S u n nyva l e Co u rthouse p u rsu a nt to Ca l ifornia R u l es of Cou rt 8 . 34,
weren't. If they h a d been, M s . Brooks co u l d have seen that at that same t i m e M r. Baugh had
convi n ced J udge G r i l l i to a p point N at H a les in the Bassi case d u ring a hearing o n April 8, 20 14, J u dge
Yew was a p po i nt i n g N at H a les i n the Brooks case. If the l ist h a d been posted , as the law req u i res, M s .
B rooks cou ld have see n t h a t M r. H a l es a n d M r . Baugh a lso a cted in t h e N u d e l m a n case, a n d Pam
cou l d h ave wa rned Violet a bout what Baugh a n d Nat H a l es h a d d o n e to h e r fa m i ly. Brad Baugh knew
that l ist wasn't posted, a n d so did Hector M o re n o .

If M s . B a s s i had been affo rded a lawye r, a s the law req u i red, when Violet B rooks s pe nt h u n d reds of
thousa n d s of d o l l a rs to get M r. Baugh a n d M r. D a i l ey d isq u a l ified from h e r case 27 , M s . Bassi could
have let M s . B rooks know that M r. D a i ley knew a l l a bout M r. H a les and M r. Baugh because s h e had
consu lted with M r. Dai ley and told him what was going on. Susan Bassi reached out to G a r rett Dai ley

23 M in. Order shows H ough ton as witness before G ri l li on 6-4-2 0 1 2 and
https: //www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/No-Oversight-for-Programs-Advertising-They-Recon nect­
Children-with-Ali enated- Paren ts-49941 2 8 5 1 .html
2 4 M oreno email threat to website Re: Cease and Desist sent October 1 4, 2 0 1 6 at 5 : 1 3 pm, the State Bar
should investigate i f Ms. Brooks was billed for the drafting and sending of this th reat.
2 5 S anta Cla ra County Bar notice of: Voice of the Child Baugh a n d Grilli N ov. 1 4, 2 0 1 4 N OT disclosed i n

Bassi, B rooks or Dong
2 6 O rder of Eri ca Yew dated 4-29- 2 0 1 4 a p pointing referee Nat Hales without making lawfu l fi ndings over

the ability to pay.
2 7 M in Order of Baugh DQ denied 1 0- 2 - 2 0 1 5 and pleading for March 2 0 1 6 Reconsideration DQ denial of

Dailey.
B l Page
lf-re p resented
beca use she thought as the former E l ki n s lawye r, M r. Dai ley . wou l d certa i n28ly h e l p a se
p a rty being beaten u p by a mob of greedy lawyers. M s . B a ss 1 was wrong.

Li ke D i a n a Do ng, and othe r women who had to deal with M r. Ba ugh, Violet's c l a i m s of Dom estic
Violence that were made early i n her case were s i m ply ignored, as Eva n Brooks conti n u ed to h a n d
m o n ey ove r to M r. Baugh aga i n a n d aga i n , accou nti ng for n o n e o f it. Violet had to accou nt for every
p e n ny a n d s pe nt h u n d reds of h o u rs resp o n d i ng to Baugh's h a rassing d e m a n d s . Violet was eve n
sa n ctioned for "losing" a req uest for d omestic violence p rotection. M s . Berg was never sa nctioned for
req uests t h at were fou n d to be u nfo u n d ed by a c ri m i n a l cou rt a n d a j u ry. Violet j u st d i d n't know that
Baugh cou ld convi n ce the cou rts to p u nish women, o r bel ieve them, d e p en d i ng on who was payi ng
Bradford Baugh.

M r. M o re n o cou l d have d o n e m ore for Violet, but he wasn't a bout to t e l l J u dge G r i l l i she was
b rea king the law by letting M r. Baugh get away with it. Besides, M r. M o re n o needed some of the
$2,000,000 Violet p a i d i n lega l fees to h e l p him s u p po rt the local Bar events, and so h e could be
" l i ked" by J udge Towe ry, who would decide how much he cou l d get i n fees i n Kendra Scott's case .

Sad ly, as Violet B rooks may "wi n" somet h i n g in the Sixth Dist rict Cou rt of Appea l l i ke Tracy H ayward
did in N a p a Cou nty, it is u n l i kely M r. D a i ley w i l l let the Cou rt focus on the issues that got that "wi n"
for M s . Haywa rd, as long as Eva n Brooks is willing to pay h i m N OT to te l l a bout what N at H a l es a n d
B radfo rd Baugh d i d t o her.

29
Lynch- Woodwa rd

I n the early 1990s, B radfo rd Baugh was a p pointed as m i n o r' s cou nse l in the high a sset d ivorce case of
Alexa n d ra Lynch's pa rents, w h e re N at H a les represented A l exa n d ra's father. I n m u lti p l e i nterviews
both Alexa n d ra's p a re nts d escri bed h ow Ba ugh's a p pointment to re p resent t h e i r c h i l d ren caused
perm a n e nt emotion a l d a m age and d isa b i l ity to t h e i r c h i l d r e n . This was ech oed i n oth e r i nterviews
with a d u lts Ba ugh rep resented as c h i l d re n dating back to the 1990s.

When Alexa n d ra grew up, she d ated Don Woodwa rd, who reta i n ed B radford Baugh to represented
him i n h is d ivorce case as he a n d Alexa n d ra dated . After Alexa n d ra a n d M r. Woodwa rd had a fa l l i n g
o u t i n t h e i r relati o n s h i p, M r. B a u g h t o l d a n o ut-of-area lawyer that h e w o u l d n e e d to s e e k a DVRO
aga i n st Ms. Lynch in o rd e r to p revent his cl ient fro m losing custody of his c h i l d re n and paying m o re i n
c h i l d s u p po rt. This is not t h e o n ly case w h e re M r. Baugh a pp e a red t o u s e d omestic violence a s a
l itigation tool i n order to g e n e rate m ore i n fees for h i mse lf, it is a case that s h ows the capacity M r.
Baugh h a s to h a rm c h i ld ren, a n d h i s own clients.

W h e n Ms. Lynch told a j u dge that M r. Baugh s h o u l d n ot rep resent her former boyfriend because he
had been her lawyer as a chi ld, M r . Baugh said h e "forgot" . J u st l i ke he told J u dge J o h nson he h a d a
"wa iver" i n M r . Beauchesne's case. It is u n l i kely M r. Baugh wo u l d h ave forgotten a case that
generated m i l l i o n s in profits as Alexa n d ra's pa rents d ivorce case wou ld have.

28 Email from Bassi of 1 1- 1 2 - 2 0 1 8; J u d i cial Council Internal Audit, J udge Lucas, Lisa H errick, M r.
Russoniel lo, Hector M o reno Travis Krepelka, Rebekah Frye, a n d m ore Re: 6 3 8 and 6 3 9 appoi ntments in
Books case before J udge Grilli and Erica Yew. With attachments.
2 9 Baugh - Lynch m inors counsel- DV i n Woodward case, Baugh gets Towery to order: $ 3 , 2 9 2 . 3 4

9j Page
I n J u ly of 2 0 1 8, before J udge J a mes Towery, M r . Baugh conti n ued to o bt a i n c o u rt orders fo r M s .
Lynch t o pay h i s atto rney fees, d espite t h e fa ct M s . Lynch h a d l o n g since m oved from t h e a rea, was
i n d igent and was o n fed e ra l d is a b i l ity. M s . Lynch, a d isabled woman, o n fed eral assistan ce, conti n ues
to suffer ongoing h a rm based on the cond u ct of M r. Baugh. When Ms. Lynch co m p l a i ned about M r .
B a u g h t o the State Bar a n d the cou nty's p resid i ng j u d ge, Patricia Lucas, Alexa n d ra d i d n o t receive a n
a nswer.

Lawyers l i ke M r. Ba ugh who represent c h i l d ren d u ri ng a d ivo rce case a re eve ry pa rents worst
n ightm a re .

D i a n a Dong

When M r. Baugh rep resented the for m e r step-son of Sean Con ne ry in a d ivorce case befo re J u dge
G ri l l i, h e ea rned $ 1 00, 000 in an atto rney fees which were paid from the sepa rate property of an
i m m igrant mot h e r forced to i nvol u nta rily represent h erse lf opposing M r. Baugh i n what beca m e a 10-
year d ivorce p rocee d i ng. When Ms. Dong a p pealed that o rd e r, the Sixth District Cou rt of A p p e a l said
she d i d n't ask the right way.

That m ot h e r's c l a i m s of d o m estic vio l e n ce just d ro p ped off c a l e n d a r as s h e could not pay lawye rs to
a ssist her. The m ot h e r cou l d n ot affo rd h e r own lawyer as she was forced to pay fees fo r the co u rt
a pp o i nted c h i l d ren's lawyer, Heather A l l a n , who stayed i n the case fo r 10 years a n d obta i ned o rde rs
for t h e m ot h e r to n ot spea k to h e r c h i l d re n in h e r native l a ng u age and put c o u rt o rd e rs in p l a ce that
a l lowed the mot h e r' s a buser to record h e r ca l l s with her own c h i l d ren, whom she was not a l l owed to
see.

I n that same case, Baugh o bta i n ed j udgements from a mot h e r o n welfa re, a s Ba ugh had e n o ugh
m o n ey to reta i n G a r rett Dai ley to assist him i n assuring the se lf- represented mot h e r cou l d n ot p reva i l
on a p pea l i ng a ny o f J u dge G r i l l i's orders. Cou rt files i n that case s how J u dge G ri l l i continued to awa rd
M r. Baugh some of the high est fee a w a rd s in t h e cou nty, with no legal basis fo r d o i ng so.

Othe r cli ents of Baugh rep o rt Ba ugh i nformed t h e m that D a i l ey wou l d cost $150,000 to d o a n a p pea l .
I n D i a n a Do ng's case J u dge G ri l l i was s o ta i nted by h e r u n d isclosed soci a l a n d p rofessional
relationsh ips with M r. Baugh that it was i m poss i b l e for h e r to rem a i n neutra l . This is the ca l l i n g card
of M r. Ba ugh's a ntitrust a ctivity.

Bassi

As M r. Baugh represe nted Robert Bassi befo re J u dge G ri l l i a n d J u dge Towe ry, a n d as Susan Bassi
invo l u nta rily re p rese nted he rself, M r. Baugh h a n d d e l ivered refe ree Nat H a l es ove r $28,000 in cash,
without a n o rd e r and without Susa n Bassi's consent. 3 0 Nat H a l es, who neve r p rovided Susan Bassi, or
her lawyer, a c o u rt o rd ered Confl ict of I nterest State ment fo r the cases he held with M r. Baugh,
issued a n order awa rd ing B rad Baugh $50,000 i n p rofits c h a rged to Ms. Bassi's s h a re of e q u ity i n a
G i l roy p ro p e rty h o m e she had owned fo r ove r 2 3 yea rs, s h o rtly after Baugh had d e l ivered that cash to
Nat H a l es a n d as M s . Bassi h a d n o m o n ey to pay h e r own lawyer.

30 Memo or N at H ales Dated 1 2 - 1 8-2 0 1 4 " B rad Baugh bro u gh t $28,683. 25 i n cash to my o ffi ce"
l O I P �� g e
When Susan Bassi com p l a i n ed to the State Bar, a n d J o h n Chase at the Sa nta Clara Cou nty DA's office
a bout the co n d u ct of Nat H a les a n d Bra dford Baugh, the State Bar d i s m i ssed the co m p l a i nts agai nst
M r. Baugh and gave N at H a les confidential d isci p l i n e {ALD) that conce a l ed h i s co n d u ct from t h e
p u b l i c, which Susa n Bassi a l ways conte n d ed resu lted after J a mes Towery i nte rvened i n h e r
co m p l a i nts t o t h e B a r . 3 1

The State Bar's confi d e ntia l d is c i p l i n e executed aga i n st Nat H a les 3 2 fa i l ed to a d d ress H a les stea l i ng
m o n ey a n d accepting bribes. The Bar d i d n't eve n investigate if Nat H a l es l ied when h e told t h e m he
had told M r. Ten n a nt, a fo rmer Santa C l a ra Cou nty p rosecutor, of h i s conflicts with Brad Baugh.

In fact, the Bar hasn't eve n b ot h e red to a n swer M r. Te n n a nt's l etters wherein he c h a rged M r. Baugh
with com m itti ng ove r 15 fe l o n ies a n d m is d e m e a n o rs d u ri ng the Bassi d ivorce . Even Santa C l a ra
Cou nty District Attorney Jeff Rosen cou l d n't be bot h e red to m eet with M r. Te n n a nt to d iscuss M r .
Baugh's crimes.

The fa i l u re o n t h e p a rt of the B a r to i n vestigate, i nform a n d o r p rotect the pu bl ic, leaves
u nsoph isti cated lega l consum e rs ca p a b l e of h i ri ng a lawye r w i l l i n g to e n gaged in reckless cri m i n a l
con d u ct. N at H a l es engaged i n s u c h co nd u ct as a q u asi-j u d i ci a l officer that rose t o t h e level of
c ri m i n a l a ctivity a n d the Bar secreted that cond u ct a n d req u i red Nat H a l es to take an "eth i cs" cou rse .

33
Ra m a l i nga m

The a b u se M s . R a m a l i nga m suffered as a resu lt of M r. Ba ugh's re p rese ntation in h e r d ivorce case is
n ot h i n g m o re tha n a footn ote i n a p u b l is h e d r u l ing she lost. And w h i l e M r. Baugh and his p a rt n e r Liz
Good ley settled out and reporte d ly p a i d $600,000 in fees, it took Ms. Ramaglingam six yea rs i n
a p peals a n d civil fi l i ngs t o get t o that sett l e ment, eva porat i n g a ny fi n a n c i a l ben efit t h e sett l e m e nt
wou l d have p rovided . Baugh o n the othe r h a n d p a i d m a l p ra ctice i n s u ra nce ( beca use h e cou l d ) a n d
used $100,000 towa rd litigating aga i n st h is fo rmer c l i e nt. It cost Baugh n ot h i n g t o k e e p a b using t h i s
wom a n whose fa m i ly was d estroyed a s she i nvo lved B a u g h i n h e r effort t o j ust get h e r h a lf. Baugh
convi nced h e r to u se M ic h a e l Th ompson a s a j o i nt expert, and this cost her everyt h i ng, and
Thompson got CPAs l i ke J a mes Butera and J a c k Peth i m m u n ity i n a p u b l i shed r u l i n g that has become
law.

H OW TH E S I LICON VALLEY D IVORCE M O N O P LY O P E RATES :

5. Deceptive Bi l l i ng Practi ces H a r m Lega l C o n s u m e rs : B a ugh' s Deceptive B i l l s Don't Add Up

An a u d it of M r. Baugh's b i l ls, a n d fees awa rds, show patterns that can not be expl a i ned by fa i r
com petition w h e n com p a red t o othe r fa m i l y l a w attorneys a n d oth e r cou nties.

A 2011 p u b l ic records req uest s howed Santa C l a ra Cou nty d i d n't track o r report atto rney fees. Othe r
counties, i n c l u d i n g Sacra m e nto, typi c a l l y track s i m i l a r fees a n d report a m o u nts a s l ittle a s $ 100 p a i d

31 Transcript 1 0-24-2 0 1 6 Towery Bassi Threats t o B ra d Baugh turned in t o the Bar.
32 State Bar letters of 2 0 1 6 givin g Hales confi dential D isci pline and an Eth i cs course.
3 3 Baugh malpractice settlement statement Baugh has a $ 1 million i n malpractice and used $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0
l itigati ng against former client.
ll l P a g e
to ou r c h a rged to lawye rs, fo r a l l cases, but the m i l l io n s p a i d to lawyers i n Sa nta Clara Cou nty a re n't
eve n record ed. And a u d its of fees Ba ugh reports to j u dges, d o n't add up. 34

Santa Cla ra Cou nty Su perior Cou rt's fa i l u res a l l ow Baugh a n d oth e r lawye rs to conceal how m u ch
they p rofit i n high asset S i l i co n Val ley d ivorce cases. F u rthermo re, i n the co u rt fi les Baugh's fee
i nfo rmation shows he m a kes m i l l io n s in these fee awa rds that a re n ot reported . I n stead of Baugh
kee p i ng a ru n n i ng total so a judge, o r m e m be r of t h e p u b l i c, cou l d see what he b i l l s i n each case,
Baugh S E LCETIV E LY reports w h at he ea rns in d ivorce cases by u s i ng la nguage such as "fees n ot
i n c l u d ed h e re", o r by om itting certa i n d ates in h i s re ports to conceal what h e earns.

Kathey Fyke, who was o n a c o u rt fee waiver, was fi ned $1,000,000 that was converted to fees for
Ly n n e Yates Cate r, who acted as Falcone's l awye r fo r nearly 10 years. Ms. Fyke eve n h a d to pay fees
to lawye r Ed M i l ls, whom J u dge Lucas fa i led to a p point lawfu l ly in h e r case, as J u dge Lucas a l lowed
Ms. Fyke's lawye r to withd raw after she was u n a b l e to pay h i m . The fines c h a rged to Kathey d u ring
her d ivorce a re not ava i l a b l e i n any c o u rt record that is rep o rted to the p u b l i c. 3 5

M a ri Lyn n e Earls was sa nctioned ove r $500,000 that went to benefit h e r Silicon Val ley tech tita n
form e r h u s b a n d . Those fines a re not reported i n a ny record ava i l a b l e to the p u b l i c .

S u s a n Bassi w a s sa nctioned n e a r l y $500,000 which went t o p a y atto rney fees t o B a u g h and Ha les a s
she w a s se lf-rep resented a n d c o u l d n ot afford to p a y h e r o w n lawye r. Th ose fi nes a re not reported i n
a ny p u b l i c reco rd .

Baugh a p pe a rs to negotiate to su ppress fees a n d payment sched u les fo r his m a l e c l i e nts, as he a cts as
a predatory debt c o l lector fo r h is fe m a l e clients, u n l ess Baugh feels confi d e nt he can get fees from a
wea lthy ex- h u s b a n d (Berg, H u l l, Lasa l a ) o r, i n the case of Kari Wolff, Baugh b e l i eves the wife ca n
p rovid e a fee l ife l i n e to assure h e r "wi ns" i n co u rt.

In a 2018 o rd e r Baugh c l a i m ed h e i n cu rred, a n d was awarded, fees by J u dge Towe ry, i n the a m o u nt of
$3,292 .42 as he obta ined a perman ent DVRO agai n st a wo m a n h e rep rese nted as a c h i ld, fo r the
benefit of a nothe r c l i e nt, Don Woodwa rd . By c o m p a rison, i n M s . Berg's case Baugh i n cu rred
$250,000 in fees, which we re paid by M r. Berg, fo r l ess t h a n one yea r of re p resentation after Ba ugh's
client fa lsely accused M r. Berg of dom estic violence. I n te rviews wit Baugh's former clients revea l that
Baugh h a s sa i d h e a d d s $50,000-100,000 i n fees i n cases i nvolving d o m estic vio l ence.

In Diana Do ng's case, Baugh told the j u dge he i n cu rred ove r $65,000 i n fees to h ave M s . Dong
d e c l a red vexatious d u ring h e r d ivorce case, as custody rem a i ned i n d ispute.

We know from the d eposit i o n to Ba ugh a n d Roper that fo r two years before Baugh forma l ly
rep resented M s . Berg, Baugh wasn't b i l l i ng h e r, a n d Roper wasn't b i l l i n g h e r when s h e com m u n i cated
with Baugh o n her b e h a lf. We a l so know that S h a ro n Roper prepared a co u rt posted l ist p u rs u a nt to
Ca l ifor n i a R u l es of Cou rt 2 . 834, a n d M r. Baugh's cases were N OT on that l ist.

34 2 0 1 1 from SCC C E O don't keep records, sample of records kept by other counties, sample B augh fees
self- reported in a case redacts and omits as a deceptive practice.
35 Fyke documents : Order of Lucas for withdrawal of counsel filed 1 1 - 2 1 - 2 0 1 6 and Order appointing
referee (Special M aster) 639 and 638 filed 1 2 - 1 4- 2 0 0 6 .
12 I P a g e
D i a n a Dong, who was o n a c o u rt fee waiver, was ord e red to pay M r. Ba ugh, her h u sband's l a wyer,
over $ 100,000 a fter M r. Baugh s u b m itted b l a n k b i l l s to J udge M a ry Ann G ri l l i that w h e re the p roof as
to how he h a d c h a rged such fees.

By April of 2017, Baugh spent nea rly $800,000 i n fees for Robert Bassi w h i c h were p a i d a year befo re
the case rea ched a fi n a l trial, a n d as J a m es Towe ry a n n o u n ced at a Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty Bar
Association that h e would award m o re in fees to lawyers he " l i ked".

M r. Baugh's b i l l ing practices s how that a l a c k of ove rsight and reporting o n these fees p rovid e
lawye rs i n t h e cou nty to use fees as a s h ield, a nd a sword, to b l ock ent ry i nto the m a rket f o r oth e r
lawyers a n d t o d i m i n i s h the q ua l ity o f lega l services i n the cou nty. B a u g h u ses d ece ptive b i l l i ng
p ractices t h at a n n o u nce a flat fee, but t h e n d e m a n d s paym e nts a n d b i l l s some clients for eve ry e m a i l ,
w h i l e oth e r clients he a l lows to b u i ld u p u n pa i d fees promising them h e wi l l convert a form e r
spo u se's p ro p e rty t o p a y h i s b i l ls, as h e told Robert Bassi i n 2015. 3 6

The State B a r s h o u l d be o rd ered to a u d it a l l fees i n a l l cases M r. Baugh a cted fro m 2 000-20 18.

6. Deceptive B u s i n ess Practices: Coll usion to Fix Prices a n d Limit M a rket Entry

I n 2008 J u dge Persky d is q u a l ified Brad Baugh from a h igh-p rofi l e d ivo rce case w h e re M r. Baugh
represented i nternet icon D rew Perki n s . I n that case Brad Baugh re portedly h i red away a staffe r from
a fi rm associating in with M r. H a m mo n to represent M r. Perki n's wife, M s . Wa h l . If J u dge Pe rksy had
reported M r. Baugh to the B a r a s Ca n o n 3D2 req u i red, the p u b l i c wou l d n ot know because n o such
d isci p l i n e is noted by the B a r, a s J udge J a mes Towery a ptly exp l a i n ed o n J u ne 23, 2016. 3 7

Towe ry a p po i nted, without fo l l owing the law, Valerie Ta rvi n as a refe ree i n the Bassi case i n 2 0 1 7 .
M r. B a u g h rem a i ned s i l ent o n the fa ct t h at Ta rvi n was his f o r m e r p a rtner. These p a rt n e rs h i ps a re
fu rt h e r concealed in representations to t h e p u b l i c, eve n i n b u s i ness l icense i nfo rmation conta i n ed i n
San J ose's p u b l i c records. H a d S u s a n Bassi been self-re p resented s h e w o u l d have h a d no w a y of
knowing of the Ta rvi n-Baugh con nect i o n . Fort u n ate ly, M r. Ten n a nt knew a n d o bj ected to Ta rvi n's
a p point m e nt.

Baugh's cond uct a n d use of sel ective d i sq u a l ification a n d selective " p a rt n e rs h i ps" verses
"associations" is clearly a deceptive b u s i n ess practice designed to l i m it o utside com petition a n d
restrict trade for those who a re n ot fa m i l ia r with M r. Baugh's history.

F u rt h e r, Baugh's con d u ct looks d ifferent with oth e rs in the M onopoly. In the Berg case when
Catherine G a l lagher was a p pointed a s a Speci a l M aster p u rs u a nt to CCP 639, M r. Baugh clearly
worked to a d d ress confl icts M s . Bechtel h a d with G a l lagher i n what a ppea red to be a n effort to
d isq u a l ify G a l lagher from the case. Baugh m a d e no such effort in the N u d e l m a n case, the Brooks
case, the Bassi case, o r the Dong case when co u rts a ppoi nted lawyers i n c l u d i n g Catherine G a l lagher.

7. Loc a l B a r M eeti ngs : Potenti a l for Violation of Antitrust Laws

36 Email of Baugh to Bassi to convert wife's pro p erty in form of fees and sanctions.
37 Towery Transcri pts in Bassi J u ne 23, 2 0 1 6 s h ow S tate Bar Pro tecti on of Baugh and Hales.
13 I P a g e
O n April 28, 2017, d ivorce attorn eys Tracy D u e l l-Cazes, a n d Lyn n e Yates C a rter, a long with J udge
M a ry G reenwood a n d J udge J a m es Towery, p a rtici pated in a p a n e l d iscussion o n atto rney fee issues
fo r the Sa nta Clara Cou nty B a r Associatio n . G a rret D a i l ey p rovi ded materia l s for the event, free of
c h a rge. 3 8

D u ring that m eeti ng M s . Yates Ca rter d escri bed how s h e su ccessfu l ly m a naged to get the for m e r wife
of lawyer R i c h a rd Fa lcone, s a n ctioned ove r $1 m i l l io n d o l l a rs, which was p a i d from the wife's s h a re of
p roceeds from t h e s a l e of t h e fa m i ly's Sa ratoga h o m e . A h o m e that had neighbo red J u dge W i l l i a m
Da nser, a n d h i s wife, reti red J u dge Catherine G a l lagher.

D u ri ng the p a n e l d iscussion s, lawyers a p p e a red to s n i cke r a n d cheer at the thought of su ccessfu l ly
h avi ng M s . Fyke s a n ctioned, a n d d e c l a red vexatious, w h i l e reporting she was a d d ition a l ly cri m i n a l ly
p rosecuted for taking $1 from a com m u n ity b a n k a ccount. M r. F a l cone evaded conte m pt c h a rges for
the o rd e rs he violated d u ri ng the divorce. M s . Fyke was forced to represent h e rself after a N ovem be r
2 1, 2006 hea ri ng, wherei n J udge Lucas a l lowed h e r lawyer, P a u l N esse, to withd raw, c l a i m i n g M s .
Fyke wou l d n o t be h a rmed by re p resenting herself i n a d ivorce case agai nst th ree oth e r lawyers.

Also, d u ri n g that April 2017 m eeting, J u dge J a mes Towe ry was heard te l l ing l oca l l a wyers that they
wo u l d receive greater atto rney fee awards from h i m , if he " l i ked them", givi ng a n a p peara nce that
J u dge Towery favo rs cond uct that restricts outside com petition i n high asset d ivorce cases w h e re
attorney fee awards a re m a d e .

These statemen ts evidence why antitrust laws strive to prevent such meetings from being conducted
where such con versations can take place. Litigants who involun tarily represent themselves h a ve no
access to these meetings such that they could know th at Judge Towery is willing to issue orders based
on wh om h e "likes".

Loca l B a r Associatio ns do n ot p rovid e a p u b l i c service, where ove r 90% of s po u ses m u st represent
t h e m se lves in co u rt, beca use they c a n n ot afford to pay a lawyer. Lawye rs from out of the a rea do not
attend these meetings and thus, over the past 3 0 yea rs theses a ssociations have become a b reed i ng
gro u n d for corru ption where u neth i c a l l awyers l i ke M r. Baugh a n d M r. H a l es use these associations
for a co rru pt m otive d esigned to en rich t h e m selves and harm i n n ocent fa m i l ies, and as they
monopol ize p u b l i s h i n g to the local l ega l com m u n ity a s wel l . 3 9

8. Cu lture of Abu se, H a rassment a n d Terror

To a s s u m e lawyers a n d j u dges are i m m u n e fro m the con d u ct d escribed in the m e d i a in recent yea rs
wo u l d be n a ive. Ass u m i ng the report on J u dge R u s h i n g in 2017 was the worst of the sex u a l a buse,
h a ra ss m e nt and terror women h ave suffered i n the l ega l com m u n ity over the past t h ree d ecades in
Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty wou l d be to m a rgina l ize vict i m s whose a bu se rs ca rry a B a r Ca rd .

39 Santa Clara County Bar Association J a n uary 2 0 1 4 N ewsletter- Baugh editor advertising new spaces for
Nat Hales, and other i nformation re: I rwin Joseph (Berg j u d ge who appoi n ted Catheri n e Gallagher a n d
n o w i n-laws with N udelman).
14 I P a g e
I n i nte rviews with h u n d reds of men, a n d women, who worked for, reta i ned, o r o pposed M r. Ba ugh,
a n d M r. H a l es, a l l te l l s i m i l a r stories that weave a web of cred i b i l ity b e h i n d what has been secreted by
atto rney- c l i e nt p rivi lege, and j udges, fo r d ecades.

Baugh's former fe m a l e clie nts h ave vividly d escribed h ow Baugh terrorized them as he rep resented
them i n a d ivorce case. This led to revict i m i zation of spouses who had experie nced d o mestic viol en ce
a n d sex u a l a b use d u ri n g m a rriage. O n e d o ctor client d escribed h ow Ba ugh told h e r to l i e on the
sta nd befo re J u dge G ri l l i, and w h e n s h e refused, Baugh beca m e so violent a n d a b u sive that h e kicked
boxes i n his office a n d cau sed her to remove him from the case. She fu rt h e r described how she was
retra u m atized having to pay Baugh's fees for work h e did poorly, as he a bused her and filed
docum ents in t h e c o u rt that he knew to be fa lse.

A wo m a n who a p pe a red before Nat H a les in a fa m i ly law case reported Nat Ha les told h e r if she
would "agree to be his m i stress" he wou ld "assu re her a favora b l e outcome" i n the case before h i m .
T h i s w a s reported t o t h e Bar, t h ey did noth i ng. T h e l oca l lega l com m u n ity knew Nat H a les h a d affai rs
a n d hit o n staffe rs i n va rious offices, reportedly i n offices s u c h a s those of K i m b e rly Lyn ch, a n d the
lawyers s a i d not h i ng.

This cond u ct was reported to the Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty Wh ist l e blower P rogra m by a th i rd p a rty, they
d i d n ot h i n g except th reaten a n d reta l iate aga i n st the reporte r.

C h i l d ren fa i r worse. One witness rep o rted hearing Baugh a n d Ha les engaging i n exp a rte
com m u n i cation i nvolving a custody m atte r, where a G ra n dfath e r was paying M r . H a l es' fees. On
i nfo rmation a n d belief, Nat H a les a n d B rad Baugh wou l d a ss u re cou rt o rd e rs to people they knew
were sexu a l ly assau lting and verbally a b u s i ng c h i l d re n .

O n e m a l e c h i l d s u bjected t o such a buse rea ched o u t t o t h e m e d i a for h e l p knowing h i s p riva cy wo u l d
be p rotected better in the m e d ia t h a n i t w a s i n t h e l oca l c o u rts w h e n B r a d B a u g h rep resented h i m .

The con d u ct o f M r. Ba ugh a n d M r. H a l es h a s c a u sed gen e rati o n s o f c h i l d ren t o m i strust o u r c o u rts.

9. Victi m s o f Antitrust Activity

For at l e a st th ree d ecad es, victi m s of antitrust a ctivity, a b use, dom estic viole nce a n d sex u a l
h a rassment i m posed b y fa m i ly law atto rneys i n d ivorce a n d custody c a s e s have l odged co m p l a i nts
with the Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty District Attorney's Office a n d the State Bar. Those c o m p l a i nts were
d is m issed through a pattern of co m p l i city as Sil i co n Va l ley d ivorce lawye rs cont i n u ed to o perate in a
m a n n e r that sought to monopol ize h igh a sset d ivorce cases with i m p u n ity fro m the cou rts, the Bar
a n d loca l law enforce ment agencies.

M r. Ten n a nt, a n attorney re p resenting one of the victi ms, was ignored by the DA, and cont i n u e s to be
ign o red by the State Bar. He is a former p rosecutor and h a s been p racticing law for over 50 years.

Robert J. Ten na nt is a lso a victim who h a s been d e p rived of the right to compete to p rovid e s e rvices
in the Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty l ega l co m m u n ity based on the cond u ct of Nat H a l es a n d Bra dford Ba ugh, a s
ass isted by J a mes Towe ry, former C h i ef Tri a l Cou nsel o f the State Bar.
15 I P a g e
Ca l ifornia's S u p re m e Court has the in h e re nt a uthority to reg u l ate the practice of law i n t h i s state. The
State Bar vio lated the rights of vi cti ms when it fa i led to i nvestigate co m p l a i nts a s o rd ered a n d by
consistently obstructi ng the right of victi m s to be h e a rd, as is a s s u red by Victim's Rights Laws .

10. I mprope r Gove r n mental Activity

These d ivo rce l a wyers d id not a ct a l o n e . U n derpaid j udges a n d c o u rt staff worki ng i n u n de rfu n d e d
courts, a s wel l a s gove rnment lawyers i nc l u d ing the cou rt's g e n e r a l c o u n s e l , Lisa H errick, a cted a s
"lookouts" a n d spies t h at s e rved to d eter i nd ivid u a l s w h o m ight reveal suspected a ctivity. 40

Lawyers i n c l u d i n g Hector M o reno, De bora h Kim a n d J o h n Perrot may not h ave d i rectly engaged i n
a ntitrust activity, b u t they benefited fro m i t b y d eflecting attention critical of m e m b e rs o f the loca l
b a r a n d j u d i ciary .

I n a n i nterview with attorney J o h n Pe rrott he a d m itted t o a cting as a "looko ut" by e ngaging i n
expa rte co m m u n ications to report t o J udge G ri l l i issues re lated t o t h e m e d i a and i d e ntifying for t h e
j udge who w a s associating i n groups a n d o n socia l m e d ia t h a t were criti ca l o f fa m i l y co u rt j udges a n d
l awye rs. 4 1

E l ise M itch ell u sed the perso n a l Facebook pages of Susan Bassi a n d Robin Yea m a n s i n an effort to
bias J a mes Towe ry against a victim of dom estic violence whom Yea m a n s a n d Bassi had advocated for
i n the m e d ia a s M itch e l l rep resented the victim's a l l eged a b user. M itch e l l even re ported Yea m a ns to
the B a r for h e r advocacy. The B a r s h o u l d h ave i nvestigated M itch e l l, n ot Yea m a n s .

W h e n victims t o o k to soc i a l m e d i a to co m p l a i n a bought B a u g h , they reported B a u g h th reatened YELP
to have t h e i r reviews taken d own . The B a r s h o u l d s u bpoena YELP.

Vocatio n a l exa m i n e r Ti m H a rp e r stated i n open cou rt he wo u l d seek to remove i nformation i n the
public domain that a l leged h e was i n vo lved i n c ri m i n a l activity a rising from fa m i ly cou rt cases.
Ste p h e n J a mes a ssisted the media i n m a ki ng s u re that i nformation did n ot get taken down.

H ecto r Moreno t h reatened his c l ients to n ot associate with the media or peo p l e known to be
s u p po rtive of fa m i ly c o u rt reform .

Santa C l a ra Cou nty p rosecutor A d m i r Alem u sed h i s office to d iscredit l itiga nts acting as witnesses
the case aga inst Va l e rie H o u ghto n .

Divo rce attorney Robert A l l a rd e m a i l e d reporters that they s h o u l d n ot bel ieve that M i chael Lazarin,
the b i o logical fat h e r of Aud rie Pott, as A l l a rd re p rese nted Sheila and Larry Pott fo l lowing the su icide
of Aud rie Pott w h e re Al l a rd and the Potts made m i l l i o n s i n sett l e m e nts by concea l i n g d o mestic
violence that had occu rred i n the homes of Sheila a n d La rry Pott t h roughout Aud rie's c h i l d hood.

4 0 L i s a H e rrick e m a i l of December 4 , 2 0 1 6 to Website serves as p r i o r restraint on speech and t o i ntervene

with speech d uring the recall election of a Santa Clara County S uperior Court J udge, Aaron Persky.
41)ohn Perrott pleading in M a rriage of H agen Case # 1 -0 7-FL- 1 4 3 604 a n d Grilli Vanilli Article in San J ose
M etro from 1 990s when parents were protesting these same issues and J udge Gri ll i 's conduct.
16 1 P a g e
Sheila, La rry a n d Aud rie Pott fa lsely a ccused M ic h a e l Lazarin for u s i ng Facebook n a mes that h e d i d
n ot use d u ri ng h i s advo cacy that fol l owed t h e death o f h is c h i l d .

Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty p rosecutor J o h n Chase can't i nvestigate p u b l i c co rru pti o n w h e n i t fa l l s o n h i s
desk. Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty w a s n egl igent by fa i l i n g to s u pe rvise h i m , which they knew s i n ce a 2016-
2017 Santa Clara Cou nty G ra n d J u ry Report criti cal of the District Attorney's Office.

In his e m a i l to Susan Bassi d ated Septe m b e r 12, 2017, respon d i ng to "Re: M is d e m e a n o r- Violation of
Business a n d Professions Code 6128 M IS D EA M E A N O R" M r. Chase had t h i s to say:

RE: Brad Baugh - Violation of B u i s ness and Professions Code 61 28-
MIS DEMEANOR
1 message

Chase, John <jchase@dao. sccgov.org> Tue, Sep 1 2, 201 7 at 1 1 :03 AM
To: Susan Bassi <gilroybassi@gmail.com>

Dear Ms. Bassi:

You have previously accused me of corruption. I n this email you accuse me of " more than an appearance
of retaliation and harassment." Since I a m not corrupt and have in no way ever retaliated or harassed you
(the most I've ever done is send emails explaining my decision not to open an investigation), I simply
cannot take what you say seriously. Accusing everyone who disag rees with you of being a criminal or
corrupt does not make it so. I'm afraid you do yourself n o service by making these false statements.

In any event, your email provides me no reason to spend the many hours that would be required to re­
examine what I have already thoroughly and conscientiously reviewed. I have written dozens of emails
over more than two years trying to explain why investigation of your allegations by o u r Office is not
appropriate. I cannot respond to every email that you write or copy me o n (there have been more than one
hu ndred). U n less I read someth ing new that our office should investigate, my intent going forward is not to
respond.

The State Bar s h o u l d be ordered to i nvestigate J o h n Chase for fa i l i ng miserably in h i s d uty to p rotect
Santa C l a ra Cou nty residents from p u b l i c corruption and d o mestic violence.

17 j P a g e
11. Private J udgi ng: Pote ntial for Antitrust a n d Monopol i stic Practices

As early as 2000 t h e state knew lawyers a cting as "rent-a j u d ge" in d ivorce cases c o u l d p rove to be
p r o b l e m atic. When the state sto p ped watc h i ng, l awye rs i ncreased pressure on c l i e nts to pay more
lawyers, promising these payments wou l d red uce co u rt costs and delays. It d i d n ot.

Antitrust a ctivity i m posed by a h a ndfu l of lawyers resu lted i n s i m p l e d ivorces beco m ing "co m p l ex",
a n d a n e p i d e m i c of c o u rt a pp o i nted lawye rs acting to represent c h i l d ren, o r as p rivately com pe nsated
j u dges ravaged high asset d ivorce cases in S i l icon Val l ey. Paym ents to these lawyers ecl i psed the state
averages reported by the J u d ic i a l Co u n cil in 2004. 42

Com p l a i nts to cou nty p resid i ng j udges d id noth i ng. Co m p l a i nts to the District Atto rney d id n ot h ing.
Com p l a i nts to the State Bar h ave done noth i ng. Th i ngs have only gotten worse.

ANTITRUST ACTIVITY: Col l usion Privately Compen sated Tempora ry J u dges CCP 638 a n d CCP 639

* * * 43 1 n preparing fo r this a p peal a docu ment p re p a red by d ivorce attorney S h a ro n Roper was posted
in the Santa C l a ra Cou nty F a m i l y Cou rthouse. That docum ent i n d icated it was p re p a red on 5-1-2017.
M s . Roper p rovided what s h e c l a i m ed to be the o n ly l ist prepared p u rs u a nt to Ca l ifo rnia R u l es of
Cou rt 2.834. In p repa ring that l i st, Ms. Roper, who was docum e nted in the Berg case for giving M r.
Baugh a n d h is cl ient p referent i a l payment a n d s e rvice agre e m e nts, fa i l ed to note ANY cases i nvo lving
Nat Hales and Bra dford Baugh that a re n ow known to have existed at the time Roper p re p a red the
l ist.

An a u d it of high a sset d ivorce cases in Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty sh ows NO cases i nvolvi ng Brad Baugh a n d
Nat H a l es a ppear o n the l ist a n d O N LY 2 0 % o f cases known to h ave s u c h a p pointments d u ring t h i s
t i m e were l i sted .

This con s i sted of secret d e a l s that o ut-of-a rea l a wyers a n d l itigants wou l d h ave n o way of knowing.
This l eft them n o way of lega l ly o bject i n g and n o way of know i n g if what they p a i d these privately
co m pensated j udges were reasonable fees.

It was the pe rfect crime and it h a ppened i n the fa m i ly law c o u rthouse.

422 0 0 4 Judicial Council Report to the State Legislature o n C C P 6 3 8 and C C P 6 3 9 appoi ntments - Use and
Costs .
43 Santa Clara County Privately Compensated Temporary Judge List Prepared by Sharon Roper and

dated 4- 2 1- 2 0 1 7.
18 I P a g e
The a u d it a lso fou n d p rivate payments fo r these a p pointments i n Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty d ivorce cases fa r
outstripped payments from the 1 6 cases the cou nty a ppears to have p rovi ded d u ri ng the preparation
of a report to the State Legislature. See ta b l e below taken from that report :

Copyrigh t to California's Judicial Council:

Northern/Central Region Bay Area/Northern Coastal Region Southern Region
Superior Courts Superior Courts Superior Courts

in References Cases in References Cases in Referen ces
Number of Number of Number of

per 1 .000 per 1.000
Cases

Reference Unlimited Civil Reference Referen ce
Which per 1 .000 Which Which

�'2UD1:i Bi;:i:u;n:i�g Eiliog� �s:mc� B�cCllftd �i�ilEiliDQ:ii �'21Hl� Bll'2'2Cllld !:<i�ilEiliog�
Unlimited Unlimited

Butte Los Angeles
Contra Cos ta 5
1 0.47 Alameda 23 1 .0 1 83 0.66

Fresno Riversid e 9
El Dorado 2 1.16 0.29 Orange 122 3.33

Kern Mon terey
14 1 .58 Marin 10 2.58 0.44

Merced Sa n Diego 84
1 0.20 8 1 .03 San Bernardino 2 0.14
0.90 San Benito 1 1 .03 2.62
Mono 1 2.86 San Francisco 3 0.13 Santa Barbara 2 0.56
Nevada 2 1 .78 San Mateo 19 3.00 Ventura 4 0.56

5
Placer 7 2.05 Santa Clara 16 0.90

7
Sacramento 29 1 . 38 Santa Cruz 2.32

Sis k iyou 5
San Joaquin 12 1 .40 Solano 1 .55
1 2.21 Sonoma 0.57
S tanis laus 2 0.41
Tulare 3 1 .36

S u b tot a l for
Yolo 2 1 .50

78 1 .00 egi o n 102
Subtotal for Subtotal for

r�gj�n r 0.84 resi on 306 1 .25

by the Superior Courts of l mpen al. Inyo. and Sa n
No references were reported dunng the study No references were reported during the study No references were reported during the study period

Humboldt. Lake, Mendocino. and Napa Counlles.
penod by the Supcnor Courts of Alpmo. Amador, period by tho Supcnor Courts of Del Norte,

Mariposa. Modoc. Plumas. Shasta. S:erra. Sutter.
Calaveras, Colusa. Glenn. Kings, Lassen, Madera. Luis Obispo Counties.

Tehama Tuolumne. Trinity, an d Yuba Counties.

Number o f Cases in Which References Re ported : 486
Statewide tota l :

References per 1 ,000 U n l imited Civil F il i ng s: 1 . 00

19 I P a g e
The re port a lso sought to d e m onstrate how m u ch time privately com p e n sated lawyers act i n g a s
su bord i n ate j u d i c i a l officers spent on cases, that m e a nt t i m e n o t p a i d by taxpaye rs:

F i g u re 3. T i m e s p e n t by refe ree

0
co
73

Median ( 1 6 hours)
0
en <O
Q)
en
ro
u
0 Average (35 hours)
Q) Q
...c ""'"
.....

34
E
:J
z
24

0
N

1 1 1 1 1
0

0 1 00 200 300
Total Time Spent

20 I P cl g e
F i n a l ly, the report n oted that across the state, 80% of a p pointme nts resu lted i n t h e payment of
p rivate a n d p u b l i c fees u n d e r $20,000, with a state-wide average of $ 12,769.

In M a rch of 2017, J udge Lucas knew that Nat Ha les had b i l l e d $ 100,000 i n a single d ivorce case. 44

F o u r months later J udge Lucas p u b l ished an a rticle atte m pting to exp l a i n h ow to m a ke proper
a ppointments. S h e offe red n o such i nfo rmation to the 97% of people rep resenting t h e m se lves i n
d ivorce a n d cu stody cases, w h e re such a p po i ntments a re poss i b l e . 45

F i g u re 4. Tota l fees c h a rg e d

8
....--
96

0
00
Med ian ($5,625)
(/)
a>
en
cu 0
u co Average ( $ 1 2 , 769)
-
0
....
a>
.0
E 0 37
:J """
z

0 16
(\I
11
9 8
5 4 4
2 2 2

0

$0 $20, 000 $40 , 000 $60 ,000 $80 , 000 $ 1 00 , 000
Total Fees Charged

44 Lucas Letter March 2 0 1 7 Nat Hales
45 h ttps:/ /www.dailyj ournal.com/mcle/ 1 1 7-appoi n tment-of- d iscovery-referees
21 J P a g e
By 2010 these lawyers cou l d not c l a i m they d i d not know t h at vast u n d e rfu n d i ng i n the cou rts wo u l d
serve a s a n ince ntive for lawye rs l i ke M r . Ba ugh t o sed u ce i n nocent lawye rs, a n d l itiga nts, t o p rovide
t h e i r consent for these p rivate j u dge a rrangements, fo r which t h e re wou l d be n o lawfu l d i sc l o s u res
a n d n o viable re l i ef for disq u a l ification o n ce such consent was obta i n ed .

PRIVATE J UDGES PRACTI C I NG LAW :
IS IT ETH I CAL?
M I C H E L E N E I NSALACO , C F LS G A R R ETT C . DAI L EY. C F LS
ACFLS DI R ECTOR NORTH - E LECT A L A M E DA C O U N T Y

SAN F R A N C I SCO COU N T Y G A RR ETT@ATY B R I EFCASE . C O M

M l @S U C H E R M A N - I N SA LAC O . C OM

Michelene Insalaco Garrett Dailey is a Certi­
is a partner at the fied Family LawSpedalist
l(!';\Ifirm Sucherman­ emphasizing appeals and
lnsalaco LLPin consulta tions. His office
San Francisco and is in Oakland, California.
a Certified Family He waspreviolfj/ya
Law SpedalisL Lea urer a t U.C. Da1{'i
Herworl<.foruses Schoolof Law, Colden
on complex cases, Cate Universiry Graduate
appelfite work and SchoolofTaxalionandthe
representing minors. University ofEdinburgh.
Ms. Insalaco is Mr. DaDeyis a Fellow in
currently a member both the American and
ofthe Executive InternationalAcaderru·es
Committee of the ofMatrimonial Lawyers.
Family law Section He wasnamed the2006
ofrhe State Bar (FlexCom) and the Board of Directors Family Law Person ofthe Year by the American Acaderrrj of
of the Association of Certified Family Law Speciali5ts Malrimonial Lawyers, Southern California Chapter. He was the
(Director North-Elect/. She is also the Vice-Chair Elect reapien t oftheAssodation of Certified Family Law Spr:rialiSI. ·s
of the Family Law Section of the Bar Association of Hall o/Fame A vvardin 1995, t11e BrandeisA wardjrom the Los
(".., ...., r... ... ..... ,.. :,.._... ,.. /I A,. f.,.. ... ,.,, .. ,,.,.. :,... - _, _,.. ,... ,.._. ,.,.. _ ,... f �... .......:1. , 1 ... . . . l\ ..., ,_,.. 1,..,.. r-o ,... . � "'- · D ., .. /\ ,..,... ,... ,.. :..., 1- :,... ... : .... ")/l l) ? .., ..,.,..1 :,... 1:.... �,.. ....1 :... '"fi.... ,... o ,... ,.. ..

I n 2015 G a rrett D a i l ey beca m e em b r o i l ed i n the very con d u ct h e knew to be p r o b l e m atic when Violet
Brooks attempted to d isq u a l ify M r. D a i l ey from a case w h e re M s . Brooks' fo rm e r h u s b a n d i s
re p resented b y M r. B a u g h a n d where Nat H a l es w a s a ppointed a s refe ree u n d e r C C P §638 a n d §CCP
639.

Ea rly i n the c a s e M s . Brooks h a d t o d i sq u a l ify a privately c o m pensate j u dge, M s . Cassedy, a n d t h e n
was fu rthe r h a rmed as Nat H a les acted, a n d d i d n o t d isclose o n the record the B a s s i case, w h e re
H a l es acted with B a u g h . Violet's most recent l a wyer, H ecto r M o reno, a ctively sought to d eter p u blic
scrutiny a s co u rt files i n d icate h i s office, a n d a ssoci ates, have ea rned ove r $2,000,000 i n fees, a s
d iscussed h e rei n .

22 I P a g e
O n J u n e 5, 20 18, Santa Cla ra Cou nty voters reca l led J u dge Aaron Perskie i n a l a n d s l i d e vote. The reca l l
was op posed by nea rly every j ud ic i a l officer a n d l icensed atto rney i n t h e state. I t i s b e l i eved that
J u dge Persky was rem oved by l oca l voters n ot just beca use of h i s role i n t h e sentencing of Brock
Turner based on a sexua l assa u lt conviction, b ut beca use of the c u lt u re that was a l l owed to t h rive
when J u dge Aaron Pers ky presided ove r fa m i ly law cases in Santa Clara Cou nty.

J u dge Pe rsky is b e l i eved to be a victim of the a ntitrust activity that created that c u lt u re which has
s e rved to h a rm public trust a n d confidence i n the local cou rts, a n d media.

This c u lt u re has ravaged the R u l e of Law a n d created cou rts where d i sfavored lawyers a nd l itiga nts
a re susceptible to vict i m ization and ignored by the B a r, and l oca l law enforce ment agencies.

1 2 . U n regu l ated Attorney Trust Accounts: Ripe for Antitrust Activity

Ca l iforn ia's State Bar Act provides that l a wyers ca n pl a ce " n o m i n a l funds" i n t h e i r tru st accou nts for
"short periods of t i m e " . These a ccou nts ca rry with t h e m the secu rity of attorney-client privi l ege a n d
the s u p po rt o f t h e State Bar which i n vestigates c l ient trust a cco u nt com p l a i nts as a m atte r o f h igh est
p rio rity.

I n some cases, I O LTA a ccou nts p roduce interest i n co m e that lawyers a re req u i red to p rovid e to the
State B a r, which is reported l y is u sed to p rovide pro bona lega l services for i n d igent cl ients.

H owever, a da ngerous pattern has em erged that s hows that as c o u rts bega n issu i ng orders to sel l
h o m es a n d b u s i n esses in d ivorce cases, c o u rts o rd e red proceeds from th ose s a l es to be d e posited in
attorney trust a cco u nts . These p roceeds were N OT " n o m i n a l s u m s" .

Bradford B a u g h beg a n p l a c i n g m i l l io n s o f d o l l a rs o f h o m e e q u ity a n d renta l i n co m e i nto h i s trust
acco u nt fo r long periods of t i m e, where t h i rd p a rties were owed a fid uc i a ry d uty that confl i cts with
M r. Baugh's re p rese ntation of his cl ients. As seen in the N ud e l m a n case, l awye rs cont i n u e d to i n c u r
fees s i m ply b y a s k i n g M r. B a u g h t o a ccou nt fo r com m u n ity a n d sepa rate property rents a n d expenses
that Nat H a l es orde red to be paid t h rough M r . Ba ugh's trust a ccount. Baugh even h e l d fees that
wo u l d be paid to H a l e s .

I n the Bassi ca se, J u dge G r i l l i o rd e red B r a d B a u g h to prod uce a n accou nting o n 9-9-2014, he n ever
did.

I n t h e Dong case, Baugh o bt a i n ed a stray paym e nt fro m t h e s a l e o f Dong' s h o m e . Baugh took the
payme nt fo r h i s fees and gave h a lf to m i n or's cou nsel, Heather A l l a n , without the consent of M s .
Dong, a n d without a cou rt o r d e r . W h e n M s . D o n g c o m p l a i ned to the Bar, she was igno red a s B a r
i nvestigators t o l d h e r t h e y o n l y i nvestigate lawye rs for m is h a n d l ing c l ient fu nds d e posited to their
trust a ccou nts. M s . Dong wasn't M r. Baugh's cl ient .

23 I P a g e
This p rovides for a n u nd e rgrou n d a n d u n regu lated fi n a nc i a l ma rket that a l lows for a ntitrust a ctivity to
t h rive. 4 6

The State Bar s h o u l d be ord e red to d o a com plete a ccounting of fu nds p laced i n M r. Baugh's trust
account from 2000-2018.

13. LESSO N F R O M OTH E R CO U NT I ES : Divorce M o n opoly Potenti a l

I n Haywa rd v. Superior Court of Napa County(201 6}, reci procal p rivate j udging relati o n s h i ps
p u rs u a nt to CCP 638 (consens u a l ) or CCP 639 ( n onconsensu a l ) d e m o n strated the h a r m they can
cause i n nocent spouses. These relati o n s h i p s p rovide a steady strea m of i n co m e to lawyers who
w i l lfu l ly engage i n a ntitrust a ctivity. These lawye rs h ave a n i n ce ntive n ot to d iscl ose confl i cts and
relat i o n s h i p s that wo u l d reve a l a pattern of favora b l e cou rt r u l i ngs for m e m bers i n what clea rly has
beco m e a m o n o poly for attorn ey fee awards a n d co u rt a pp o i ntments i n S i l icon Va l ley's high a sset
d ivorce cases where money is r u n t h rough u n regu l ated attorney trust accou nts .

Photo: Keith Do/nick lawyer for Ms. Hayward in: Hayward v. Superior Court of Napa County (2016}

46Letter from Baugh to Tennant on 1 1 -8-2 0 1 8, evidence Baugh took over $ 7 2 6, 0 0 0 i n his trust account on
the Bassi case and $5 0,000 i n the Nudelman case, h e has refused to account for either.
24 I P a g e
W h i l e t h e record i n t h e Haywa rd case is clear, that record fa i l ed to con s i d e r the u n re l e nting h a rm a n d
l o s s M s . H aywa rd s uffe red based o n the u nethical co n d u ct o f p rivate ly com pe n sated te m p o ra ry
J udge N a n cy Perkovich a n d o p posing d ivorce attorney Bob Bl eva n s . It i s a l so u n c l e a r why Keith
D o l n ick d e c l i ned to sue Ms. Pe rkovich and Mr. Bleva n s for d isgo rge ment of fees.

After M s . H a ywa rd i n c u rred $3,000,000 to pay lega l fees for what was considered a l ega l "win", the
State B a r refused to d isbar M s . Pe rkovich and M r. B l eva ns who were investigated by State Bar
e m p l oyee Ben Charney fo r over two years. The Bar's fa i l u res h ave cau sed Ms. H aywa rd to suffer
ongoing e m otio n a l t ra u m a a n d h a r m . Worse, the experience h a s left M s . H aywa rd with a co m p lete
lack of trust a n d confidence in o u r lega l syst e m .

I n i nterviews with oth e r Pe rkovich private j u dging c l i e nts, Pe rkovich reported ly cha nged tra nscri pts
a n d m is u sed law enforcement office rs, which M s . H ayward reported to the Bar, a nd n ot h i n g was
done.

I ronica l ly i nvestigative re porter Ste p h e n J a mes w a s a ssigned to M s . Pe rkovich i n h i s o w n d ivo rce case
w h e re Pe rkovich acted as a J u dge Pro Tern i n Sacra m e nto Cou nty. In that ca se, M r. J a mes was d e n ied
FC2030 fees and invo l u ntarily rep resented h i mself as Ms. Perkovich d e m o n strated favoritism toward
his fo r m e r wife's attorney, P a u l a S a l i nger. M r. J a mes reached out to M s . Hayward's lawyer. Keith
Doi n ick, fol l owi ng the p u b l ication of the H aywa rd case. Mr. D o l n ick did n ot res p o n d .

Had the Sacrame nto Courts a n d t h e State B a r p ro pe rly add ressed attorney misco n d u ct i m posed by
M s . Sal i nger a n d M s . Perkovich back in 2 0 1 2, M s . H a ywa rd m ight n ot have had to s uffer t h e
i rre p a ra b l e h a r m a n d l oss she clea rly fa ced after giving consent f o r M s . Perkovich to a ct as a p rivate ly
com p e n sated j udge i n her d ivorce case.

F a m i lies s h o u l d not need to be the fo u n ders of G oogle i n o rd e r to obta i n a fa i r o utcom e and
eq u ita b l e settle m e nt i n a d ivorce case, a s cou rt fi les i n d icate Sergey Brin received when h e d ivorced
in Sa nta C l a ra Cou nty in 2015, beca use he used a lawyer n ot p a rt of the S i l icon Va l ley D ivorce M o b .
Sergey Brin's d ivorce case w a s o n t h e l i st p re p a red by Sha ron Roper.

14. Vict i m Statements

Victi m s h e reby requ est the a p pointment of counsel to p rotect t h e p r ivacy rights of i n d ivid u a l s who
have s uffe red l oss, or harm, as a resu lt of u n et h ical, a n d cri m i n a l co n d u ct, i m posed by l icensed fa m i ly
law attorneys . Victim's state m ents a re cu rrently being prepared for broad cast, a n d o n b e h a lf of these
vict i m s we respectfu l l y req uest the assista nce of the Cou rt i n assuring t h ese vict i m s have the right to
be h e a rd and the right to be free fro m ret a l iation i n exercising th ose rights.

This a p peal wi l l be posted o n Susan Bassi's Li n ke d l n page, w h i ch is ava i l a bl e for p u b l i c view. M s . Bassi
wi l l rea ch out to her col leagues i n the media to get t hese i m portant stories told w h e re the p rivacy of
the vict i m s wi l l be a ssu red .

25 I P a g e
F i n a l ly, i n that t h e State Bar is perm itted to copy c o u rt fi les a n d d ocu m e nts without i n curri n g a ny
expen se47, The S i l icon Valley P u b l ic Trust Co m m ittee, t h rough t h e i r age nt, Susan Bassi, hereby
req u ests a n Order granting Susan Bassi, and her associates i n the m ed i a, as well as vict i m ' s rights
advocates, e q u a l access and the right to copy, o r p h otogra p h , at no c h a rge, d oc u m ents in the p u b l i c
c o u rt fi les i n t h e Sa nta Clara Cou nty Cou rtho use, without fea r of prosecution . 4 8

Relief Requested:

A . O rd e r f o r a p p o i nt m ent of Co unsel; w h e re p rivacy o f vict i m s a n d p rotection o f
confi d e nt i a l s o u rces wi l l b e assu red .
B . O r d e r t h e State Bar to a u d it the t r u s t accou nts of any S a n t a C l a r a Cou nty lawyers who
p l a ced com m u n ity pro p e rty rents, i n co m e, o r home sale p roceeds i nto their trust
accou nts from 2002-2018.
C. Order t h e Disgorgement of attorney fees, s a n ctions a n d costs in a n y Sa nta C l a ra
Cou nty fa m i l y l aw m atte r where a c o u rt a p p o i nt ment p u rs u a nt to CCP §638 o r CCP
§63 9 was m a d e in violation of a l itiga nt's d u e p ro cess rights for cases fi led b etween
2000 and 2018.
D. Order an i nvestigation of Santa Clara Cou nty D i strict Attorney Office, a n d Jeff Rosen,
for p rosecutorial m isco n d u ct and for repeated fai l u res to p rotect Victims' R ights.
E. Order Setting Aside the N o Photogr a p h i n g Order i n t h e P u b l i c Areas of the S a nta Clara
Cou nty F a m i l y Cou rth o u se, signed by Patricia Lucas on 10- 10-2017.

Resp ectfu l l y S u b m itted,

Susan Bassi and Pamela N u d e l m a n,

On b e h a l f of the M e m bers of the Sil i con Val ley P u b l i c Trust Co m m ittee

17 Letter from J o e D u n n to th e S a n ta C l a r a C o u n ty Cou rts in a B a u gh m atte r.
48 S e e j ud ge L u cas Stan d i n g O r d e r S i gn e d 1 0 - 1 0-2 0 1 7, posted on the c o u rt's w e b s i t e .

26 1 p a g e