Nobody quite knows why James Towery—the replacement for ousted extremist Scott Drexel—resigned on July 1, one year into his term as chief trial counsel for the California State Bar. Publicly, Towery blamed the resignation on the logistics of his commute from his San Jose residence, but the subsequent firing of four managers by the State Bar’s executive director, Joseph Dunn, convinced even David Cameron Carr, leader of the State Bar defense establishment, that the so-called resignation—precipitated by the California Senate’s failure to confirm after eleven months—was the beginning of a purge.
Yes, but who comprise the factions? Immediately following Drexel’s ouster, kanBARoo court surmised that the State Bar defense establishment spearheaded it. But the Towery purge wasn’t the prosecutory bar’s revenge. At issue—what to do about the huge backlog created by Drexel’s excesses (as well as some of Towery’s in the foreclosure arena).
Towery’s contention with the State Bar’s political leadership centered on the new rules, effectuated in January 2011. In his public comment on the proposals, Towery—while pretending a general sympathy with the rules—opposed all the major proposed changes:
- Eliminate most discovery from State Bar court proceedings
- Remove the Evidence Code in disciplinary proceedings, replacing it with the rules prevailing in administrative courts
- Automatically disbar defaulting respondents
Towery submitted (verbatim) the following criticisms in August 2010 after the Board of Governors allowed extra time for public comment to allow the new chief trial counsel to submit a response:
- As for discovery, each party should continue to be allowed at least one deposition of a nonexpert witness and without court approval;
- Unlimited depositions of expert witnesses;
- Parties should be allowed to take depositions of out-of-state witnesses;
- Parties should have the right to unlimited depositions in reinstatement and moral character cases;
- As for the evidence standard, reliability and predictability of evidence is best served employing the high standards and safeguards of the Evidence Code;
- The relaxed standard of evidence would permit parties to offer large quantities of hearsay testimony and documents
- APA hearsay objections can be lodged but not ruled upon until just prior to submission;
- Outside training for judges and OCTC counsel may help with the undue consumption of time pertaining to evidentiary objections.
But these comments don't address the backlog. Towery's alternative for cleaning it up might have been the "fire sale on settlements" disavowed by Executive Director Dunn, an alternative bound to be unpopular with the State Bar's prosecutory wing—and wildly popular with the State Bar defense establishment (the "respondent bar," who participate in deliberations.)
19 comments:
Perhaps it's because Towery, and the idiots at the OCTC who advised the RAD committee to adopt rules that violate B&P Code section 6001, which prohibit adopting anything from the Administrative Procedures Act without express approval from the legislature, and now open up everything they do to collateral attack because they are violating the State Bar Act, is why they were fired. Yes, Towery voiced a weak opposition to the new rules, however he should have told them they were forbidden to adopt the rules, not argue on the merits. Cameron should have also informed them of this, instead he whined that they shouldn't rather than inform them they are breaking the law. In addition, Towery allowed one of his deputy counsel, to write a article, which gives one MCLE credit, stating that respondents cannot assert the 5th, in express violation of B&P Code section 6085(e). See legislative notes of 1999, which Joe Dunn Voted for, which expressly allows the respondent the right to assert the privilege self-incrimination, which was reiterated in the CAL Supreme Court case Speilberg v. Santa Clara, which cited to Specvack. The OCTC are managing agents, and therefore, give notice to the State Bar that they are violating respondents rights, under 1983 claims. Yes, the State Bar set into policy, that they will violate respondents rights, which under the recent US supreme court case Connick v. ? is the only way one can sue a prosecutors office, and have it stick. Cameron should be charged with incompetence. On his website, he states that the State Bar is a "real court", not so, and advises clients that they cannot assert the 5th. Justice Baxter, stated that is not so, in the Spielberg case. Who knows what the hell is going on at the State Bar, anything Cameron says should be treated with the stupidity he espouses on his website. God help his clients.
Sorry for the typos, and grammatical errors, however, asserting the privilege of the right against self-incrimination was enunciated in the Spevack case over 2 decades ago. In 1999, when the Legislature restarted the Bar they were cognizant of the abuses of the State Bar and put into law these rights. Cameron was aware of this, because before 1999, he was part of the problem. These bastards belong in jail.
The relevant part of Business and Professions Code section 6001 states: "No law of this state restricting, or prescribing a mode of
procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state
agencies, or classes thereof, including, but not by way of
limitation, the provisions contained in Division 3 (commencing with
Section 11000), Division 4 (commencing with Section 16100), and Part
1 (commencing with Section 18000) and Part 2 (commencing with Section
18500) of Division 5, of Title 2 of the Government Code, shall be
applicable to the State Bar, unless the Legislature expressly so
declares."
I don't find that the above language has ever been construed by the courts. So, you may have an argument, although I don't read the statute that way. It doesn't appear to preclude incorporating administrative law into the Rules of Procedure. The point seem to be that the Rules of Procedure govern—that they trump other provisions in the Business and Professional Code and Government Code where the Rules of Procedure apply.
You're correct about Spevack v. Klein (1967) 385 U.S. 511. A state-bar respondent is protected against criminal self-incrimination. But note, respondents are NOT protected against self-incrimination related to the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Business and Professions Code, where no _criminal_ liability is involved.
6085(e) states that the rights afforded in the Cal and US const. will be afforded in State Bar proceedings. That includes all rights afforded in the constitution, including the right against self- incrimination. This criminal rights were extended to state bar "proceedings". It's an oxy moron to extend rights to proceedings where crimes can't even be charged. Hello? It's what triggers the 6049,6050,and 6051 statutes of the state Bar act for the state bar to enforce a subpeona in order to force someone to take the stand. This was amended in 1999 to include these rights.
6001 specifically cites to govt. code sect. et seq. The sections in the govt. code that are specifically cited include the Administrative Procedures Act.
What part of "no law prescribing a mode of procedure"..."shall be applicable to the state Bar unless expressly authorized by the legislature" is unclear? The APA is part of the Govt. Code that is cited in the division you quoted.
Administrative law is codified by the statutes. It's not common law.
Rules of court[any court] cannot trump Statutes created by the legislature. the BOG is not allowed to violate the State Bar Act, which is codified by statutes 6000 -6199. That is what makes them void.
The specific section where the APA discusses what evidence can be considered under the APA is Div. 3, commencing at 11000 et seq.
No oxymoron. The point is the respondent can avoid testifying when the testimony is such as to subject him to criminal liability. This is very settled. Read one of the cases you previously cited, Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara (2009) 45 Cal.4th 704:
"The constitutional guarantee against compelled self-incrimination protects an individual from being forced to testify against himself or herself in a pending criminal proceeding, but it does more than that. It also privileges a person not to answer official questions in any other proceeding, “civil or criminal, formal or informal,” where he or she reasonably believes the answers might incriminate him or her in a CRIMINAL case. … [I]t is well established that incriminating answers may be officially compelled, without violating the privilege, when the person to be examined receives immunity “coextensive with the scope of the privilege”—i.e., immunity against both direct and “derivative” criminal use of the statements.
The whole pleading procedure in the state bar is presupposed on the absence of protection for non-criminal self-exposure. There's a lot that's very bad about the operation of the NDC (http://tinyurl.com/c4ao5t), but it's well-established that there's no inherent problem in requiring respondents to admit any guiltiness. Perhaps you were confused by some of the ambiguities in Spevack. But the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the limitation to criminal self-incrimination (per the actual language of the Fifth Amendment). (Douglas, who wrote Spevack) was the sole Supreme Court justice to interpret "self-incrimination" as broader than involving crimes.)
As I say, this law is well settled.
You also ask, "What part of "no law prescribing a mode of procedure"..."shall be applicable to the state Bar unless expressly authorized by the legislature" is unclear?"
It doesn't say that only the Legislature can prescribe rules for the state bar. It says the Legislature can prescribe rules for the bar only by specifically saying so, but it doesn't say the state bar is prohibited from establishing its own rules. To quote:
"No law of this state restricting, or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies..." Procedures the state bar establishes for itself are NOT prescribed for "state public bodies or state agencies": the state bar is said to be a "public corporation sui generis," thus NOT a state public body or state agency.
***** documentation is here: https://www.yelp.com/biz/leah-moslehi-amini-san-jose
I told my attorney, Joshua Bentley, that my now ex-wife had made filings for a divorce. He then asked me what Department my case was in.
Mr. Bentley then told me [in person] to text him for a referral to a family law attorney. I had to contact him several times over the next week and half to get that referral.
When he finally got back to me, he referred me to Ms. Amini, who I then hired.
Ms. Amini told me that she could not represent me if I did not hire a therapist to prepare me for my divorce. She then referred me to Valerie Houghton.
I was emailed instructions to pay Ms. Houghton only in cash and not to tell anyone. Furthermore, Ms. Houghton stated several times to me that the judge [Honorable James E. Towery] would be angry should I fire either her or Ms. Amini.
I asked Ms. Amini several times about needs for secrecy and cash payments. She never gave me an answer that made any sense.
After paying about $30,000 between the two of them in a span of two months, I fired both of them.
The next hearing Judge Towery vacated all of my hearings without my consent. These hearings included ones pertaining to custody and visitation.
Judge Towery also consistently ruled against me and violated many Rules of Court to my detriment throughout the remaining proceedings.
After the end of my divorce I carefully examined Ms. Houghton's website. She listed the Honorable Towery as a former employer and as a reference.
It has been almost four years since I have last had contact with my children. There is nothing in the record that would indicate that it should be so. In fact, the police report which is the basis for no contact [that I subpoenaed] has been removed from the record against my objections.
I informed Judge Towery of my intent to complain. The next day the record was uploaded into digital format. Many of my pleadings [1/3 of the record] are now missing.
Ms. Houghton's website has also been removed from the internet [www.valeriehoughton.com].
Despite the Honorable Towery's obvious conflict of interest, he has refused to recuse himself. In fact, he has ordered that I not have contact with any of my four children for an additional 5 years. There is a pending complaint against him regarding this matter filed with the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Please see Federal Complaint against James Towery for additional information and documentation for the above post:
https://www.scribd.com/document/383591530/Judge-James-E-Towery-Complaint-Superior-Court-of-California-County-of-Santa-Clara
I told Ms. Houghton, Ms. Amini, and Marie O'Leary (supervisor for visitation) that my ex-wife was letting an older man molest our 13 year old son. They mostly ignored me. Although my son was displaying severe distress, I was not allowed to talk to my son about it. I became confused and stopped thinking about it. I trusted Ms. Houghton, who is not only an attorney, but also a therapist, to never let anything bad happen to my children.
At the following hearing my ex-wife disclosed that she had hidden $130,000 worth of gold coins. I was in complete shock. No one even mention the possibility of this before the hearing. I never thought that I would see those coins again because my ex is greedy.
Ms. Amini got an agreement that we would each get $25,000 worth of gold coins. The remaining $80,000 went to Ms. Amini to be held in trust.
It was after that hearing that I fired Ms. Amini and Ms. Houghton.
My son has recently turned 18, so I was able to see him. He confirmed the sexual molestation. I have strong reason to believe that my other 3 children have also been molested, but I have yet been able to confirm that because I have not seen them in almost 7 years.
I told my son to report what had happened to the police. A week and a half later Judge Towery order on HIS OWN ACCORD that I could only have supervised visitation with my adult son.
In light of what my son confirmed, I also asked Judge Towery to order an emergency screening to make sure that my other kids are safe. He has thus far refused my requests. At a recent hearing I also asked Judge Towery to tell my why I could not contact my kids. He looked at his computer for several minutes and could not provide me with a reason of ANY kind.
Now I am being retaliated against by Judge Towery for suing and complaining.
I have a daughter with another mother. Said daughter is under the custody of a known rapist. Evidence that the man previously drugged and raped a teen was entered into the record. The mother understands the inherent danger of allowing a rapist to have legal custody of a girl with whom he shares no biological relation with.
The mother came to court and AGREED to my motion to establish paternity. Before we could sign the stipulation, we were rushed into the courtroom, where the judge DENIED my motion to establish paternity. The judge even acknowledged the memo from the mediator by referring to the defect and waiver of service.
No one cares that my children are being sex trafficked. The Commission on Judicial Performance refuses to investigate any of my claims. Gregory Dresser, himself, wrote me a letter stating his refusal to reconsider investigating.
Assemblymember Mark Stone, who chairs Judiciary Committee, will not even respond to me. He has the constitutional power to impeach Judge Towery.
Judge Towery is a public servant. His salary is funded by the tax payer, yet he will not enforce laws protecting children from child molestation. Judge Towery acts as if I owe him something for complaining.
There is a law against allowing a rapist from gaining custody if the act of rape results in pregnancy. Letting a rapist have custody of girl that he is not related to is even worse.
You would think that Judge Towery has ownership of my children by the way that he behaves. If two parents agree to paternity, he has no business making the decision to force the child to be under the legal custody of a rapist.
Ms. Houghton has already told me that custody for the first four was "bought and paid for".
It's all about child rape and ownership with Judge Towery. This is already the second time.
Check out this site if you want more info on what James Towery did to my kids.
https://forum.legaljunkies.com/forum/family-law-divorce-custody/child-custody-and-support/653143-valerie-houghton-sex-trafficked-all-of-my-kids-then-had-me-poisoned-when-i-complained
Judge James Towery is a degenerate man who will stop at nothing to ensure that your children are sexually assaulted. This is his thing.
He could have gotten me back a million other ways for complaining about the sexual abuse of my children. But he decided to do it yet another time with a daughter whom I share with another mother.
Judge Towery just couldn't resist stopping the parents from stipulating and forcing the young girl to be under the custody of a man who previously drugged and raped a teen.
I wrote some complaints on his robing room webpage.
Here is one of the responses:
"Unfortunately, the court sees evidence that the man holding custody raped and drugged someone in the past as "ancient history." Although in the court of public opinion we all know your child should not be with such a person, the court doesn't care. This is the root of injustice--the discrepancy between how the court thinks versus a reasonable person's common sense."
http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=15387
This is not a human being. judge Towery is an uncivil animal.
He had me poisoned so many times that now all my organs are damaged, testicles atrophied and the shape of my face has changed.
Post a Comment