kanBARoo Court. 18B Installment. The prosecutrix fails to deny specific evidence of her fraud.

The "State Bar's Reply to Respondent's Opposition to Motion for Entry of Default," served on December 12 by Deputy Trial Counsel Lawrence, has a couple of problems. First, the document is unfileable, as the State Bar Court does not have reply papers, and the prosecutrix, sanctionably, never moved the court to permit additional filing. Second, the last day for filing was December 11; the court denied Lawrence's motion on the same day she filed or tried to file her reply.

This reply warrants my taking a few minutes to type all of it, which you will find below, with my good faith effort to preserve even Lawrence's formatting. You may want to compare the prosecutrix's document to my opposition to the motion for entry of default, to which it replies, and take away an otherwise unavailable sense of this case. Her reply begins in a logical circle, continues to the relitigation of issues already adjudicated, and ends in a deeply inculpating declaration. She admits the evidence of her fraud where she is silent by failing to state that she can produce the unsigned proof of service. The prosecutrix's superiors apparently ordered her to write this reply, belated and ill-advised.

------------------------------------------

STATE BAR'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT"S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

COMES now the State Bar of California ("State Bar'), by and through Deputy Trial Counsel Melanie J. Lawrence, in Reply to Respondent's Opposition to the State Bar's Motion for Entry of Default for respondent's failure to file a Response to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges as required by Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar Court. This Reply is based upon Rules 103 and 200 of the rule of Procedure of the State Bar court, Business and Professions Code section 6088, the attached declaration of Melanie J. lawrenceand all pleadings and documents on file with the Court in this matter.Respectfully submitted,THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

MELANIE J. LAWRENCEDeputy Trial Counsel2/12/07

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Unless the time is extended by Court order, or by written stipulation of the parties, a written response to the notice of disciplinary charges shall be filed and served by the respondent within twenty days after service of the notice of disciplinary charges. (Rule 103(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar Court.) A "response" is the answer referred to in Business and Professions Code section 6088. (Rule 2, 3.00.) The board may provide by rule that alleged facts in a proceeding are admitted upon failure to answer. (B&PC section 6088 [emphasis added].) Factual allegations in the NDC shall be deemed admitted upon entry of default. (Rule 200(d)(1).)

Respondent has failed to file an answer to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges

Respondent admits he has not filed an answer to the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC"). Also, a response to the NDC requires either a specific admission or specific denial of the allegations set forth in the NDC. (Rule 103(c)(2)(i).) So, the "logical next pleadings" Respondent has filed throughout this process have not been the answer contemplated and required by Rule 103 and Business and Professions Code section 6088. Rather, he has filed an untimely motion to dismiss the NDC and an untimely motion to reconsider and attempted to file a petition for review. This Court order Respondent on November 9, 2007, to file a responsive pleading, pursuant to Rule 103, within twenty days, and on December 4, 2007, denied Respondent's Request for an Immediate Stay of these proceedings. But, he still did not file a response, as required by Rule 103. By rule, and by this Court's order, Respondent is required to file an answer to the NDC in which he admits or denies the allegations. To date, he has not. His default must be entered. (Rule 200(c).)

Respondent's accusation of misconduct by the Deputy Trial Counsel and the Corut Clerk is unfounded, untruthful and outrageous.

On December 3, 2007, Respondent's petition for review was rejected for filing because it was not accompanied by a proof of service that bears an original signature and did not include four exact duplicates with the original. By way of explanation, Respondent accuses the Deputy Trial Counsel and the court clerk of conspiring to prevent him from filing a petition in the Review Department and destroying documents. In fact, the State Bar did receive a copy of Respondent's petition, with an unsigned proof of service. But, the Deputy Trial Counsel has not had any contact with the Court, and most certainly, has not conspired and schemed with anyone, as Respondent has accused, to prevent his filing of the petition.

Conclusion

Respondent's baseless accusations, unsupported by any credible evidence, demonstrate his contempt for these proceedings. The Court cannot allow Respondent to continue to flagrantly defy the rules and this Court's orders. He has failed to answer the NDC. His default must therefore, be entered.

I MELANIE J. LAWRENCE, declare:
All statement made herein are based on my personal knowledge, except for those stated to be under information and belief.

1. I am an attorney admitted to all courts of the State of California.
2. I have been employed as a Deputy Trial Counsel in the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel since December 2005.
3. This matter was assigned to me on or about July 9, 2007.
4. The State Bar did receive a copy of Respondent's petition, with an unsigned proof of service.
5. I have not had any contact with the court clerk regarding Respondent's petition, have not seen the copy of the petition that was filed with the Court, and most certainly, have not conspired and schemed with anyone, as Respondent has accused, to prevent his filing of the petition.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 12, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.

MELANIE J. LAWRENCE
Deputy Trial Counsel