The State Bar's Review Department remains unknown to me first-hand, and of it I venture no opinion. That will change, as I filed a Petition for Review. I also filed, as standard procedure, a Hearing Department motion to stay proceedings. Without a stay, the rush of events will moot the interlocutory review, grounded in the irreparable harm following from invasions of privacy unwarranted by proper notice of disciplinary charges, subjecting me to lawless State Bar fishing expeditions. Whether the State Bar has stated a disciplinary charge must be finally determined before the case continues.
As I expected, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel opposed my motion for a stay. Tenacious procedural obstruction has always been the staple of incompetent lawyers, who, when blessed with power and entrusted with responsibility, seek support for their obstructionism in prevarication. Deputy Trial Counsel Melanie J. Lawrence writes in her opposition, "To date, Respondent has not filed a Response to the NDC." She adds the prevaricating footnote, "By Order dated November 9, 2007, the Court ordered Respondent to file a Response by November 25, 2007."
In fact the Hearing Department judge has always maintained that when the court orders filing a response, it means a responsive pleading. The court has also stated it will not issue advisory rulings. The court did not issue an advisory ruling to answer the NDC, when it ordered a response. Yet the Deputy Trial Counsel shamelessly misrepresents the procedural history to the court. The Rules of Procedure promote these lies, as they allow no reply brief to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's opposition and provide for no oral argument.
So far I have violated no State Bar rules or California laws. Now readers shall get to witness an actual violation, although I maintain applying the rule here is unconstitutional. The rule states that settlement conference briefs are confidential, but I am going to disclose what Deputy Trial Counsel stated in her settlement brief. I shall disclose this confidential information because restraining my speech constrains my rights. Deputy Trial Counsel lied in her settlement proposal. She thought her lies would escape detection, because she knew I would not submit a rebuttal or attend the conference, consistent with my contending the court's ruling on November 9 stayed the proceeding until November 25.
Lawrence grasped at the opportunity to lie to the refereeing court. The distortions were numerous, but the overt lie concerned what are termed mitigating factors. Lawrence stated there were none, a lie.She knows of major mitigating factors, as I abundantly acquainted Lawrence with them, not as mitigating factors but as evidence of innocence:
- Immediately upon discovering the fraud by staff, I closed my law office.
- After recognizing that handling money is not my forte, I have not represented clients.
Mitigating factors do not concern me, because they apply only where guilty. Lawrence, however, lies about the mitigating factors to blacken my reputation with the judges and portray me as conscienceless.
Prosecutors are supposed to show greater ethical constraint than civil plaintiffs. Bar prosecutors, entitled to a measure of co-operation from respondents, might be expected to reciprocate by showing, not honesty, but a reluctance to perpetrate gross lies and deceit. Lawyers expecting respect for truth when they face the California State Bar are naive about that bureaucratic parasite.