Saturday, June 20, 2009

Interlude 11: Drexel and the DAs

Chief Trial Counsel Scott J. Drexel's removal has so demoralized the California State Bar bureaucracy that its trial counsel have succumbed to temptation to do the unthinkable: debate a former respondent. The discussion was at Crime and Federalism, a proprosecutorial blog, which bemoaned Drexel's firing. To start toward the end with comments by a current state-bar respondent, an elderly and disabled attorney, who describes his ordeal before the State Bar:

Unless you have experienced the tactics used by the State Bar, you cannot appreciate the Mike Nifong mentality that permeates the process from start to finish. I know enough from experience the Drexel marching order is a "take no prisoners" operation that justifies its inquisition by parroting "We're protecting the public." Anybody critical of Scott Drexel must be opposed to protecting the public. Right? Drexel's M.O. has been to squander millions in building an empire devoted to destroying the sole practitioner, preferably elderly and disabled,while the big firm lawyers only find their licenses lifted due to federal court convictions. Do not believe the State Bar prosecution press releases as they are strictly public relation promotions like the above.

Attorney William Wells later added:

Further to the Scott Drexel playbook. During a continued trial I sufferred multiple fractures from a fall that required surgical repairs, hospitalization and bed confinement so I obtained a Declaration from a physician aware of these facts and filed it with a motion to continue in the routine manner in such events. Unknown to me, the Deputy trial counsel Erin M. Joyce secretly issued a subpoena for the personal appearance in court of my physcian over a two week span and caused a week of stalking, trespassing and harassment by a State Bar Investigator of my physcian at his home, office and hospital. Despite no personal service, Erin Joyce, trial counsel, caused to be prepared a false Declaration of personal service that only surfaced when a Motion to Quash was filed by my physcian and disclosed that the Declaration of Service was on its face totally illegal. The court agreed and granted the Motion to Quash but no sanctions or attorney fees and no redress by a tort action for abuse of process. If I need a Declaration from my physcian what would be your response? and his response? Who could blame him? This is an example of Nifong-Drexel protecting the public. [My emphasis, for legal significance.]

My only disagreement with poster William Wells is: "Unless you have experienced the tactics used by the State Bar, you cannot appreciate the Mike Nifong mentality that permeates the process from start to finish." To the contrary, I think readers can appreciate the thuggish mentality of the State Bar simply by reading its contributions to the discussion. The State Bar communicates with telltale signature rhetoric, immediately conveying how it views its function.

The first commenter was a former State Bar prosecutor who recycles his public relations blurb for Drexel. His boilerplate included this observation: "Not one of the cases I brought to trial resulted in a finding of no culpability." This half-truth is the standard argument for Drexel's project of public posting from a case's inception, and I pointed out that the relevant statistic — even if you trust the Bar Court to provide the criterion — is the percentage of charges dismissed with prejudice, since public posting accuses the attorney of the full set of charges. The Bar Court dismisses the majority of charges!

Normally, the State Bar wouldn't compromise its arrogance or risk exposing its bad motives and poor competence by intervening in a public discussion. The State Bar is so unused to contention that it can't state a rational argument. Instead of dealing with my point about the dismissal with prejudice of most charges, never answered, the at-the-time-anonymous poster referred readers to my State Bar member record; nothing more except to put "position" when referring to "Mr. Diamond's position" in scare quotes.

Back to my quibble with William Wells concerning the need for first-hand experience to appreciate the State Bar's oppressiveness. From the ad hominem method of obfuscation alone, one could already surmise much. The signature use of scare quotes in place of arguments sufficed to categorize the poster as a bar prosecutor. When he replied to my response, which pointed out his refusal to identify himself while attacking me personally, he compromised and signed with his first name, "Patrick": my old friend Supervising Trial Counsel Patrick O'Brien. O'Brien was in charge of my case at the beginning. After he made some intemperate remarks, such as alerting me that he would report my refusal to comment orally as an admission, he transferred the case to our prosecutrix, Melanie J. Lawrence. Apparently the bar thought the case needed a "woman's" touch. [Scare-quote irony intended.]

Apart from these hints to William Wells and others on how to detect oppression at a glance, I want to deal with one other question the Crime & Federalism article raises concerning the Drexel removal: Drexel's prosecution of several San Diego deputy district attorneys. District attorneys usually avoid any bar investigation, but the reason isn't that the bar is reluctant to prosecute district attorneys. The judges, through California's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, are the only sufficiently centralized authority capable of exerting major power over bar affairs, and district attorneys' withholding evidence doesn't please Chief Justice George. The reason that the State Bar emphasizes civil attorneys is financial. The State Bar zealously enforces attorney trust accounts because the State Bar is the their hidden beneficiary: it receives the interest on most accounts, and the State Bar's authority to disburse these funds augments its power; any trust account violation, any instance of commingling in regular accounts, takes money at the State Bar's disposal. While the client suffers delay following misappropriation, the State Bar is the loser. Misappropriation and comingling are the State Bar staples and the trust accounts the glaring conflict of interest, but, recently, court-order violations have been prominent. To understand the change, more important than the rise and fall of Chief Trial Counsel Drexel in the California bar is the rise of Chief Justice George in the California courts.

The problem with the district-attorney prosecutions isn't inherent wrongfulness. Despite the hypocrisy of the State Bar's prosecuting other prosecutors for withholding exculpatory evidence, district attorneys who withhold evidence and who violate court orders by lying deserve disbarment — harsher discipline than imposed. The problem is the tardiness of these prosecutions, taking place under the State Bar's unlimited statute of limitations for cases the Bar claims to initiate. The lateness shows the prosecutions were at the behest of judges who continued to be dissatisfied with these officers of the court after the ordinary statute of limitations expired. The state-bar-establishment's loyalist defense wing, not the DAs, made the effective response to the district-attorney prosecutions — confirmed by the direction of a phone call preceding the ouster: district attorney to influential bar-defense-counsel Margolis.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Erin Joyce has previously engaged in violations of PC 632, the State wiretapping law.
She and the Bar have recording equipment attached to their phones and they often record without the permission or notice to the victim on the other side. If anyone discovers her doing this PC 632 can put her in prison or on probation, which conviction would prevent her from continuing her employment as a Deputy Bar Trial Counsel.
Watch out for this bar argument, that such communications are not entitled to be considered private or there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a false argument/statement.
ALL bar communications are confidential and personal until the NDC (Complaint) is filed with the Bar Court). They write those words on every bar envelope and/or letter. Since the Bar considers those communications confidential you have a privacy right and a reasonable expectation of privacy mentioned in PC 632.
If you read PC 632 you will have an eye opening experience and you will be able to control the bar to a degree because one Rule of Prof. Conduct says one member cannot induce another member into a violation of the Rules of Prof Conduct.
If you ever get a call from the Bar ask them if the contact is being recorded and tell them you do not consent to being recorded in person or on the phone. Simple.
Then hang up on them.
By the way, don't waive the attorney-client privilege when a client relative or the new atty makes a complaint. Only the client can waive that privilege. This is a trick the bar uses all the time, don't fall for it.

Anonymous said...

Drexel, Drexel, Drexel. A name that will live in infamy. He never met a lawyer he didn't want to disbar.
He smiles at you, as he plots to disbar you. He appears to be reasonable, but he couldn't make it as an appeal attorney so he joined the bar and stayed with it during the shutdown, after the Bar pissed off lawyer/Gov. Pete Wilson.
Wilson was dissed by the bar when he was taking the bar exam several times.
Wilson also said no other single act of his got him so much positive comments as shutting down the State Bar. He said people kept coming up to him congratulating him on his action.
Yes people hate lawyers. Yes people have unreasonable expectations of lawyers. Yes the Bar commits criminal acts on a regular basis.
Does the legislature hate the State Bar? Hell yes. Legislative Aides I have spoken to tell me that they hate the Bar lobbyists as does the legislator for whom they work. Good Job State Bar you have successfully joined people together to dispise you and lawyers.

Zigmund Kachitski said...

To: State Bar INTAKE
• Felony perjury by Erin Joyce, State Bar Prosecutor
• Subornation of Perjury by Erin Joyce, getting Investigator II Lita Abella to commit perjury in her declaration to the State Bar Judge
• Ethics violations, Erin Joyce misleads and lies to State Bar Judge
COMPLAINT
State Bar Prosecutor Erin Joyce has committed several counts of felony perjury in her declaration to the State Bar Judge.
She has also intentionally lied to a State Bar judge. She believes that these felonies and unethical acts on her part shall never cause her to be brought to the bar of Justice because she has been acting in this unethical fashion for years.
Exhibit-Erin Joyce’s felonious and perjured declaration made under oath, typed out by a State Bar support staffer, served on the State Bar Court by State Bar Prosecutor support staff but containg one felony perjury after the other.
Exhibit-perjury by Lita Abella, suborned to perjury to Erin Joyce, State Bar prosecutor
Exhibit-Declaration under oath of Lily Jeung IN PORTLAND pointing out what Erin Joyce said to her (with state bar Investigator II, Lita Abella as a witness)
Exhibit-Declaration under oath of Darren Walchesky in PITTSBURGH pointing out what Erin Joyce said to her (with state bar Investigator II, Lita Abella as a witness).
Erin Joyce committed perjury repeatedly and lied to the State Court Bar judge. The two witnesses that Joyce and Abella interrogated without their lawyer present and against their report the same statements of Joyce and Abella.
These witnesses have never met or talked to each other. They report the same statements made by Joyce and Abella to each of them. As such, there is clear and convincing evidence that Erin Joyce lied to these represented witnesses, has committed perjury and suborned perjury of Lita Abella. Joyce and Abella’s denials as co conspirators and joint felons are unconvincing as against the clear and convincing evidence of their perjury and lying to the State Bar Court Judge by the independent witnesses on opposite sides of the country who have never met nor spoken at any time.

Erin Joyce, state bar prosecutor has also used deceit to frighten represented witnesses to be interrogated by her out of the presence of their lawyer. Joyce lied to both Jeung and Walchesky by false stating that a lawsuit filed in US District Court by attorney Bernath, an active member of the California Bar and of the US District Court Bar was “illegal” and “invalid” and thus the witnesses were in civil or criminal trouble and thus must be interrogated by Joyce to be free of prosecution. (Declaration of Walchesky at Page 3, Lines 49-51)
Please look at statement of Lita Abella. She was a witness to the statements made to Darren Walchesky and Lily Jeung and subsequent perjuries of Erin Joyce. Lita Abella, a former LAPD Lieutenant, and thus could not bring herself to lie for Erin Joyce and falsely state that Joyce did not make the statements. Of course as Abella heard all conversations she would say that Joyce is telling the truth but Walchesky and Jeung are lying if that was true.
But, the conspicuously omitted denial by Lita Abella that Joyce did not make those statements speaks volumes as to Erin Joyce’s perjuries. Former Police Lieutenant Abella just could not bring herself to commit perjury as Erin Joyce did. Abella deceives the State Bar judge by leaving out what she heard Erin Joyce say as recounted by witnesses Jeung and Walchesky.
While state bar prosecutor Erin Joyce has immunity for abuse of the power to prosecute frivolous claims against lawyers, she does not have immunity to commit felony perjuries and to lie to a State Bar Judge.

Daniel A. Bernath
Calif. Bar 116636

Zigmund Kachitski said...

State Bar Court
Hearing Department Los Angeles


in re Daniel A. Bernath 116636 ) Cases 14-0-00699
California Bar Association Member ) 14-0-01941
) SUPPLEMENT TO Motion to Exclude
) Purported Attorney-Client
) Communications and work-product
) of Dr. Allan Panzer, Darren Walchesky
) Lily Jeung, Mei Mei Sayers

Rogue State Bar prosecutor Erin Joyce was fully aware that Panzer, Walchesky, Jueng and Sayers were represented by legal counsel in re Bernath and in Jeung et al. v Yelp.

And yet, unethically she gave legal advice to these clients to dismiss their lawsuit against Yelp, Inc. and to interrogate them by bypassing their lawyer who represented them in re Bernath and Jeung v. Yelp.

When I first received news that Erin Joyce and her agent was attempting to contact my clients, it was before she and her agent Lita Abella had actually gotten through to them.
I instructed Erin Joyce that she shall not contact my clients as they are represented by legal counsel in the Jueng et al. v. Yelp, Inc. matter and in re Bernath as witnesses.
From: Daniel Bernath
To: Erin
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 8:12 PM
Subject: Cease contacting Lily Jeung, Amy Sayers, et al.

This is the second time I have instructed you that my clients have demanded that you cease contacting them in any way.
This misconduct after you file a frivolous bar complaint against me is further proof of your unethical conduct in bringing a bar complaint when you did not have probable cause.

I am filing a complaint about your unethical conduct to the Bar and as I said earlier, I am calling you as a witness at my trial, in re Bernath.
Daniel A. Bernath

Thus, Joyce and Abella admit that it was ONE FULL DAY after they received instruction that the witnesses were represented by counsel in the Yelp matter and in re Bernath, they blatantly violated their ethical obligations and interrogated these witnesses on “April 17, 2015, Senior (sic) Trial Counsel Erin Joyce and I talked to Walchesky via phone.” Abella declaration, Page 17, paragraph 7, L 4-5
Not only is Joyce a government and ethics lawyer and held to a higher standard of ethical standards that other lawyers, but she is a “SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL” and thus sets an example to the other, just regular “trial counsel” at the State Bar to breach ethics rules and do anything, unethical or even illegal (wiretapping of witnesses and accused) to get a conviction.
[Orange County is an example as to how prosecutors have become law breakers. Superior Court Judge Thomas M. Goethals made an unprecedented, historic move after announcing he’d lost confidence in Orange County prosecutors to obey simple legal rules of conduct. Judge Goethals recused prosecutor Rackauckas and his entire staff of 250 prosecutors from People v. Scott Dekraai, the capital case stemming from the 2011 Seal Beach salon massacre. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419110/when-district-attorneys-attack-kevin-d-williamson
Earlier, prosecutor Nifong in South Carolina was disbarred for his lawlessness as prosecutor. The bar committee said Nifong manipulated the investigation to boost his chances of winning his first election for Durham County district attorney. In doing so, he committed "a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct" that involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation." Along with accusing Nifong of withholding the DNA evidence and making misleading and inflammatory comments about the three athletes, the North Carolina State Bar said he lied to both the court and bar investigators. The committee found Nifong broke the state's rules of professional conduct more than two dozen times.http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/duke/ncbnifong12407cmp.html ]

Zigmund Kachitski said...


11. While I was being intimidated I thought but was too intimidated by Erin Joyce to protest; "I need to talk to Bernath about this, he's my lawyer on the things you're asking me."
12. Government lawyer Erin Joyce said to me, "you might want to hire an attorney to protect yourself."

13. Erin Joyce communicated to me I had got myself caught up into something bad and that I had to get out of it and by giving up my private, protected papers, I would be OK and not be prosecuted by this government lawyer Erin Joyce and her Investigator II, Lita Abella.
14. Erin Joyce and Investigator II, Lita Abella made me feel that I was on the edge of a cliff and that Joyce and Abella were driving a wedge between me the client and my attorney, Daniel A. Bernath.
15. I was frightened by her coercive statements to me.
16. I got hysterical from fear of what they said to me.
17. I've never been involved in anything like this and told them "I only signed up for a class action lawsuit!"
18. Erin Joyce told me that Daniel A. Bernath was not a good enough lawyer to sue Yelp Inc. for my wages saying that Bernath was merely “A Social Security lawyer, not qualified to sue Yelp for you.” I was confused because she also said the Yelp case "was going forward" but Erin Joyce contradicted herself by saying my Yelp case was "invalid" and "illegal."
19. Erin Joyce told me to fire my attorney Daniel A. Bernath and dismiss the lawsuit against Yelp. Erin Joyce said “[dismissing a case is] very simple, you can Google it how to get out the case.”
20. Erin Joyce and Investigator II Lita Abella said, "you need to tell everyone" [to get out of the case]. I don't know what she meant by that, whether all writers for Yelp or just the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Lily Jeung and Amy Sayers or the 5,000 collective/class members seeking their wages from Yelp, Inc.
21. Erin Joyce’s actions, comments and legal direction to me were all coercion and intimidation and I waived neither attorney client communication nor work-product of my attorney’s strategies to get me my earned money from Yelp, Inc.
22. She said that the lawsuit filed after Jan 1, 2014 by Bernath was "invalid" and “illegal” as in her opinion “Bernath wasn’t registered with the bar” when he filed my lawsuit. I looked it up; clearly the state bar’s records show that Bernath was in fact active when he filed my lawsuit, and those similarly situated v. Yelp, Inc. (and Bernath a member of the US District Court, Veterans Affairs Court, etc. at all times relevant).

Zigmund Kachitski said...


1. I did not authorize the attorney client communication nor the work-product that Erin Joyce acquired through coercion and intimidation.
2. I am appalled and shaken that these attorney client communications and work-product regarding my lawyers strategies on the case Jeung, Walchesky, et al. v. Yelp, Inc. have now been provided to defendant Yelp, Inc. and provided to the State Bar Court for public disclose as filed by Erin Joyce.
3. Joyce is in communication with defendant Yelp, Inc. having threatened another plaintiff [Lily Jeung] accusing her of lying to a federal judge after Yelp, Inc. Senior Trial Litigator Aaron Schur made that accusation to Erin Joyce.
4. My attorney’s mental impressions on how he will win me a victory and other statements that could be twisted by Yelp in trial are now provided to Yelp, Inc. and published by Erin Joyce in the public record.
5. This is a terrible violation of my rights to be free from my attorney client communications being handed over to defendants by Erin Joyce of the State Bar to defendants Yelp, Inc., who owes me about $400,000 in wages.
6. Erin Joyce and her agent (Investigator II, Lita Abella) scared the hell of me when - a good cop/bad cop vibe to the incident; Abella intimidating “bad” cop.
7. I felt coerced to even speak with her. Erin Joyce told me that I must talk to her that it was compulsory and that it was urgent and I must clear myself immediately [as did Investigator II, Lita Abella]. Being a mostly warehouse employee I was very frightened by her coercive and intimidating statements.
8. I felt that if I didn't talk to then I'd be in trouble criminally or civilly.
9. They used my ignorance of the law against me and bypassed my lawyer who represents me in the investigation in re Bernath to interrogate me.
10. Erin Joyce told me that I would have to go to “testify in Los Angeles”. She left if vague as to whether I was being charged with something or if my attorney Daniel A. Bernath was charged with something. I thought, “testify to what? He [Bernath] didn't do anything [wrong]."

Zigmund Kachitski said...

footnote re Erin Joyce, Senior State Bar Prosecutor California Lita Abella, a former police lieutenant, DA and attorney general investigator and now Investigator II for the Bar prosecutor Erin Joyce.
Abella knows and employed all intimidation and coercion techniques on me. Her biography, published by her at the Southern California Fraud Investigators outlines that, “Investigator Lita Abella
Lita started her career in 1980 with the Los Angeles Police Department working various assignments and promoted to the rank of lieutenant. After 20 years of service, she left the LAPD and in 2000 became a licensed private investigator …for the past 15 years.
[Lita Abella leaves out that she sued the LAPD and that “She said she was retaliated against by her superiors at LAPD, resigning with charges pending.
Lita Abella said LAPD eventually launched a "major personnel complaint" against her that had been manufactured to get her fired. She quit, she said, rather than fight the charges because the situation was making her physically ill. So, Lita Abella resigned from LAPD with charges pending. She states in other press accounts that she was “psychologically damaged”) LA Times headlined “More Than 60 Officers Join Lawsuit Against LAPD”, 10.10, 2000] One step ahead of the LAPD pink-slip, Abella worked at the Riverside DA’s office, California Attorney General… 35 years of investigative experience … on the Board of Directors for SC Fraud Investigators Assn., … past Director-at-Large, Los Angeles District Director, and Los Angeles District Governor for the California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI).

Stephen R. Diamond said...

Thank you for posting this.

Zigmund Kachitski said...

Daniel A. Bernath, Esq.
Member US Supreme Court, California Supreme Court Bars
1319 Kingswood Court, Ft Myers Florida 33919
ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com
Florida: (239) 288-6034 cell: 503 367 4204
June 5, 2015
To: Assistant District Attorney O’Rrad, Los Angeles County, California
Re: People of State of California vs. Erin Joyce
Perjury of California attorney Erin Joyce
Dear Counselor:
The sworn declarations of Darren Walchesky of Pennsylvania and of Lily Jeung of California and Oregon are indeed what they will testify to exactly at trial. I will inquire as to travel to court in California for the trial.
I also see the turmoil and corruption at the California State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel. I agree that a felony conviction against Erin Joyce for perjury to a California State Bar Judge will do much to adjust the ethical awareness of all other prosecutors within that office.
I agree that any agreement with Erin Joyce to avoid a felony conviction should require that she resign from her license to practice law in California.
I am available for any further discussions regarding Erin Joyce’s felonious perjuries.
Respectfully,
Original signed
Daniel A. Bernath

Stephen R. Diamond said...

This could be important. I just e-mailed Daniel A. Bernath as follows:

Dear Mr. Bernath,
Zigmund Kachitsky has posted comments to my blog about what may be a landmark case against bar prosecutor Erin Joyce.
I'm contemplating a posting regarding your case based on the information Mr. Kachitsky has supplied.
Could you confirm that you are interested in having your case discussed? Also, you can post or e-mail any additional information. The comments are here: http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2009/06/interlude-11-drexel-and-das.html )
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Diamond

Zigmund Kachitski said...

ERIN JOYCE, prosecutor, Calif Bar, perjury
"a. At all times relevant to the matters herein, Lita Abella ("Abella), Investigator
II for the State Bar, has been assigned to this matter and performed various
investigative tasks at my direction;
b. On or about July 2014, I instructed Abella to contact Darrcn Walchesky, ask
various questions regarding the nature of Walchesky' s relationship with
Respondent, and request that Walchesky provide copies of all email
correspondence between Walchesky and Respondent;
c. On or about May 14, 20 IS, the State Bar received an envelope that had been
postmarked May 8, 2015, and which contained an unsigned copy of
Respondent's 'motion to exclude Purported Attorney-Client Communications
and work-product coercively (sic) or deceitfully acquired by State Bar investigator
and attorney Erin Joyce' and 'motion to recuse Erin Joyce' in this matter;
I am not, and have not at any time been, an "agent of Yelp, Inc.";
I have not at any time acted to "terrorize" Respondent's clients, or any other
18 individuals that Respondent claims to represent;
19 12. I have not at any time acted to "aid" Yelp, Inc. or in any way participate in or
20 involve myself in Respondent's litigation with Yelp, Inc. in his capacity as either a party or an
21 attorney of record;
22 13. I have not at any time provided legal advice to Lily Jeung, Amy Sayers, Dr. Alan
23 Panzer, Darren Walchesky, or any other individual that Respondent actually represents or claims
24 to represent;
25 14. I have not at any time told to Lily Jeung, Amy Sayers, Dr. Alan Panzer, Darren
26 Walchesky, or any other individual that Respondent actually represents or claims to represent
27 that their litigation regarding Yelp, Inc. is
28 / I I
-19-
I 15. "illegal," that they should "dismiss the lawsuit," or "fire" Respondent as their
2 attorney;
3 16. I have not at any time identified myself to Lily Jeung, or any other individual that
4 Respondent actually represents or claims to represent, as an employee for "STATE F A&\I[";
5 17. I have not at any time made any of the following statements to Lily Jeung, or any
6 other individual that Respondent actually represents or claims to represent:
7 a. "put an investigatol' on you";
8 b. "you must dismiss your lawsuit";
9 c. "Bernath is an ambulance chaser";
10 d. "Bernath is the type oflawyer who give other lawyers a bad name"; or
11 e. "Be very careful with Bernath;
12 18. The State Bar did not obtain any documents from Darren Walchesky, or any other
13 individual that Respondent actually represents or claims to represent, through "improper means";

legal counsel."
I have not at any time practiced law without a license;
I have not at any time advocated on behalf of Y el p, Inc.; and
I have not at any time driven "a wedge between [Respondent's 1 clients and their
I [ERIN JOYCE] declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 28th day of May, 2015 at Los Angeles, California.
Signed by Erin Joyce "
~
PENAL CODE
SECTION 118-131




118. (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will
testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent
tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath
may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and
contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or
she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares,
deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in
which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is
permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury
and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she
knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

Zigmund Kachitski said...

1. Erin Joyce is in communication with defendant Yelp, Inc. having threatened me of lying to a federal judge after Yelp, Inc. Senior Trial Litigator Aaron Schur made that accusation to Erin Joyce. Erin Joyce said to me “I’ve put an investigator on you.” I was terrified by that statement, thinking that I was to be criminally charged somehow and said “why did you put an investigator on me?”
2. My lawyer told Erin Joyce repeatedly that he represented me in any interview or investigation in re Bernath and in her false accusation that I lied to a federal judge. But she ignored that ethical rule and intimidated me into speaking to her.
3. My attorney’s mental impressions on how he will win me a victory and other statements that could be twisted by Yelp in trial are now provided to Yelp, Inc. and published by Erin Joyce in the public record.
4. This is a terrible violation of my rights to be free from my attorney client communications being handed over to defendants by Erin Joyce of the State Bar to defendants Yelp, Inc., who owes me about $400,000 in wages.
5. I felt coerced to even speak with her. Erin Joyce told me that I must talk to her, that it was compulsory and that it was urgent and I must clear myself immediately.
6. I work in servicing insurance policies at a retail level and know nothing about what Erin Joyce was saying or threatening me with.
7. I felt that if I didn't talk to then I'd be in trouble criminally or civilly.
8. I was frightened and deeply shaken by her coercive statements to me.
9. State Bar Prosecutor Erin Joyce said these words to me:
a) “I can’t give you legal advice”
(she then went about and gave the following legal advice):
b) Your lawsuit against Yelp, Inc. for wages is “illegal”

c) “I’ve put an investigator on you.”
d) “Fire your lawyer, (California Bar member Daniel A. Bernath.)
e) “Dismiss your lawsuit against Yelp, Inc.”
f) “Your lawyer is an ambulance chaser”
g) “be very careful with Bernath”
h) “Bernath is the kind of lawyer who gives lawyers a bad name.”
10. Without legal counsel present and after Erin Joyce was informed that I was represented by legal counsel she continued to press her theory on me that somehow I lied to a federal judge. I didn’t. I didn’t want to talk to her but she continued to press her accusation and continued to question me as if I was in a police interrogation or courtroom cross-examination…but without my lawyer present.
11. My co-plaintiff D lives on opposite sides of the country in Pittsburg. I live in Los Angeles and Portland Oregon. I have never met or spoken D.
12. But I note from his declaration that we have been inflicted with identical threatening, coercive and intimidating statements and issued the same legal advice from State Bar Prosecutor Erin about our wage lawsuit, that Bernath is a substandard, dishonest lawyer and Erin Joyce gave us legal advice to fire lawyer Bernath and dismiss our wage lawsuit against Yelp, Inc.
Sworn by witness


Zigmund Kachitski said...

NOTICE OF CLAIM to CALIFORNIA STATE BAR
Daniel A. Bernath v. Lita Abella, Erin Joyce, California State Bar, Florida Court
Demand of $1,000,000.00
Intentional infliction of emotional distress Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Defamation
Interference with Contract
Failure to Supervise
Negligent Hiring
Negligent Retention

Bernath v. Abella, Joyce and California State Bar
SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF CLAIM filed on
June 11, 2015
California State Bar has harmed me as stated in the Notice of Claim served this date by the negligent hiring, negligent retention and failure to supervise its employees.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Lita Abella resigned from the Los Angeles Police Department with criminal and/or ethical violations and discipline pending.
Erin Joyce has been the subject of many complaints about her unethical and tortuous conduct and the California State Bar was on Notice actually and constructively.
Negligent hiring negligent retention failure to supervise
Florida
a. Negligent Hiring
i. Elements: To establish a prima facie case for hiring, a plaintiff must show
that: (1) the employer was required to make an appropriate investigation
of the employee and failed to do so; (2) an appropriate investigation would
have revealed the unsuitability of the employee for the particular duty to
be performed or for employment in general; and (3) it was unreasonable
for the employer to hire the employee in light of the information he knew
or should have known. Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 362 (Fla. 2002).
“The core predicate for imposing liability is one of reasonable
foreseeability -- the cornerstone of our tort law. With regard to the claim
for negligent hiring, the inquiry is focused on whether the specific danger
that ultimately manifested itself…reasonably could have been foreseen at
the time of hiring.” Id.
b. Negligent Retention
i. Elements: The principle difference between negligent hiring and negligent
retention is the time at which the employer is charged with knowledge of
the employee’s unfitness. Negligent retention occurs when, during the
course of employment, the employer becomes aware or should have
become aware of problems with an employee that indicated his unfitness,
and the employer fails to take further action, such as investigation,
discharge, or reassignment. Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So. 2d 435, 438-39 (Fla.

June 11, 2015 Daniel A. Bernath

Zigmund Kachitski said...

TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
LEE COUNTY FLORIDA
_____________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Bernath, )
) Case No. 15-CA-001555
Plaintiffs, )
) Judge: Krier, Elizabeth V
vs. )
) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Lita Abella, ) (Jury Trial Demanded)
and )
Erin McKeown Joyce, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________________________________

COME NOW Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath a resident and is domiciled in Ft Myers, Florida, states and allege as follows:
1. Defendants Lita Abella, a resigned-with-charges-pending ex policeman and Defendant Erin McKeown Joyce committed the torts in a location unknown as stated herein and said false statements had an impact and caused harm within Ft. Myers, Florida to plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath.
2. On or about May 2015, defendants and each of them stated and published to third parties, either stating false “facts” or opinions based on facts that Daniel A. Bernath was;
a) An incompetent, poorly trained and lacking in experience, “A Social Security lawyer, not qualified to sue … for you.”
b) Plaintiff has committed barratry, criminal or unethical acts,
c) That the services that Bernath had provided to the third parties to the date of the defamations was “invalid" and "illegal” and thus Bernath was a criminal as he had committed a criminal act or that Bernath was incompetent to perform his duties to the third parties.
d) That the services that Bernath was to provide in the future were inadequate and that the third parties must spread defendants’ harmful malicious defamations by publishing to the third parties that;
“you need to tell everyone" to terminate Bernath’s services,
[Bernath has requested an Order from US District Court in California that thousands of potential clients “opt-in” to a wage class action/collective lawsuit.
Defendants sought and defendants seek to interfere with that legal process.
Most clientele will likely be Florida residents],
e) That Bernath had no license to act on behalf of the third parties at the time he had so acted.
f) That the third parties must “Fire” plaintiff for the within reasons,
g) That Plaintiff gives other people in his profession “a bad name”,
h) Implied that plaintiff is not to be trusted and that third parties communicated to must use care when transacting business with plaintiff (if opinion, all said statement is based on fact or implied fact relied upon by defendant and each of them).

3. All false statements and opinion based on fact are false as stated by defendants and are not summaries of governmental papers/ judicial proceedings/ public proceedings.
4. All utterances caused damage to plaintiff in Ft Myers Florida.
5. Defendant’s statements amount to at least negligence.
6. The falsity of the statement caused injury to the plaintiff.
Count One
Against Defendants Abella and Joyce
Defamation
6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein.

Zigmund Kachitski said...

Count Two
Against Defendants Abella and Joyce
Commercial Disparagement

7. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein.
8. Defendants did disparage the business reputation of plaintiff by stating that plaintiff as a businessman and a professional is incompetent, dishonest, and unethical.
9. The statements are false.
10. The defendants either intends the publication to cause financial loss or reasonably believes that the publication would result in financial loss for the business of plaintiff.
11. Financial loss did in fact result and plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint when the amount of the damages is ascertained.
12. The defendants published to third parties and acted with malice. The defendants knew either that the statements are false or defendants acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity of their published statements.


Count Three
Against Defendants Abella and Joyce
Tortious Interference Cause of Action

6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein.
7. A valid contract existed between the plaintiff and a third parties;
8. The defendants knew of the contracts;
9. The defendants took actions intended to induce a breach or disruption of the contracts;
10. There was no legal justification for the defendant’s actions, and;
11. Damages resulted.

Count Four
Against Defendants Abella and Joyce
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein.
7. Defendants acted willfully, maliciously and with the intent to harm plaintiff.
8. Furthermore, Defendants knew that Plaintiff has been hospitalized at HealthPark Hospital in Ft Myers with a life threatening illness for three days and is undergoing physical therapy to learn how to walk safely again but defendants with this knowledge, went ahead and timed their destructive publications to third parties to have maximum impact in harming and damaging plaintiff.
9. Plaintiff has been harmed and has sought medical treatment for the intentional acts of defendants as stated herein.
Count Five
Against Defendants Abella and Joyce
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein.
7. Plaintiff underwent mental suffering and medical treatment for said suffering which constitutes recoverable damages in cases of negligent defamation.

Punitive Damages

Plaintiff does not pled for punitive damages at this time but will seek leave of Court to plead for Punitive Damages and also to learn the assets of defendants for monetary recovery as defendants acted with intent to harm plaintiff.
WHEREFOR PLAINTIFFS PRAYS
A. For General Damages of $1,000,000,
B. For Special Damages according to proof,
C. For loss of profits and business caused by Defendants misconduct,
D. For pre judgment interest,
E. For costs of suit and attorney fees if statute so provides.
June 14, 2015 Daniel A. Bernath
Daniel A. Bernath
1319 Kingswood Ct
Ft Myers Florida 33919
(239) 288 6034
ussyorktowncvs10@yahoo.com

Zigmund Kachitski said...

"You have alleged that Erin Joyce committed perjury in her declaration to the State Bar Court regarding two witnesses...
"BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT PRESENT DURING ANY COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ERIN JOYCE and LJ and DW, your assertion that Erin Joyce's declaration is false does not provide a basis for investigation of the issue."

Joseph R. Carlucci
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
California State Bar

(Now that's funny!)

Mark Seavey said...

0/21 on your motions with the bar today, well done Dan!

Zigmund Kachitski said...

I'm baking a cake with a file in it for ya. Indi Bar should be looking up your ass real soon, eh?

Zigmund Kachitski said...


Powered by
The Gestapo
written by trueman
Facebook
Google+
Twitter

Diels

The Gestapo (GeheimeStaatspolizei) wasNazi Germany’sfeared secret police force. During World War Two the Gestapo was under the direct control ofHeinrich Himmlerwho controlled all the police units within Nazi Germany. The first head of the Gestapo was Rudolf Diels but for most of its existence, the Gestapo was led by Heinrich Müller. The Gestapo acted outside of the normal judicial process and it had its own courts and effectively acted as judge, jury and frequently executioner.

Stephen R. Diamond said...

Quite an ingenious idea: a lawsuit for defamation.

I don't see a Count 1. Slander per se?

Anonymous said...

I am looking for people who are willing to stand up and speak out against corruption by the California State Bar against consumer advocates, including but not limited to Erin Joyce whom I have had the "pleasure" communicating with over there.

They have, without any disapproval whatsoever, allowed a website operated by known Sovereign Citizen Extremists post my photo and solicit State Bar complaints against for almost the past year now. It is now my turn to use a public forum to solicit complaints against the State Bar and their employees including, but not limited to, Erin Joyce.

I am an activist and an advocate. I was the counsel who obtained a favorable opinion the case of Lueras v BAC Home Loans in 2013. The same California Court of Appeal also reversed a JNOV and reinstated my client's judgment in the case Womack v Lovell/Lovell v Womack. Both opinions were published. I obtained two reversals from the Ninth Circuit in homeowner cases as well: Yau v Deutsche Bank (Aurora), and Galope v Deutsche Bank (Barclays). Both of those cases are back on appeal for a second round. The Ninth Circuit will soon be deciding whether or not 15 USC 1641g is retroactive in the case of Talaie v Wells Fargo Bank (you can see the oral argument on Youtube). Print media such as the Daily Law Journal and American Banker have featured my fight against Wall Street.

But the State Bar has tried to demonize me. Other people (not clients) who have been in close contact with the State Bar have who wrote malicious reviews about me that are not true on Yelp, but the appellate opinions speak for themselves. The State Bar even went so far as to condone opposing counsel calling my client in the case of Womack v Lovell and trying to convince him to get an attorney to sue me for legal malpractice. My client saved one of the voice recordings.

I even just won a jury trial in Torrance, California in September 2015 against the Regents of the University of California for fraud. I do my best to help consumers in the State.

Now, it is time to fight the California State Bar. If you are with me, you can reach me at:

Law Offices of Lenore Albert

Lenore Albert, Esq.
7755 Center Ave #1100
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
714-372-2264 phone LenAlbert@Interactivecounsel.com email

Anonymous said...

Oh wowsy wow wow, after 15 years, a lawyer is supposed to have some wins. That doesn't mean that the Bar has to look the other way when there is unethical conduct.