kanBARoo Court. Interlude 3. More Answers to Questions

The following exchange recently occurred at http://tinyurl.com/yse2sq


On Jan 6, 6:10 pm, "David L. Martel" (italics)

Stephen,

You use the term "entry of default" in your post. Did you fail to show
for the hearing where you lost the privilege to practice law? If you failed
to show for the hearing can you appeal your "inactivation"?

Yes. My grounds are now such as would warrant even further appeal beyond the California Supreme Court, should that be necessary. (http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2008/01/kanbaroo-court-22nd-installment-can-you.html)

If you can and do win an appeal,
won't you just end up back at the State Bar facing the same charges? See:
http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2007/12/kanbaroo-court-18th-installment....
(The part about judicial decision making by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and its implications for due process, when prejudicial corruption is proven in that office.)

Sorry, all your strange notions and dilatory motions don't seem to add
up to a strategy unless your former clients are elderly and moribund.

You cannot honestly claim to *know* this, when you ask the question preceding. My tactics, moreover, are not dilatory.

See: http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2007/12/kanbaroo-court-installment-15-pr...

Bear in mind that successful tactics in State Bar will look very different from successful tactics elsewhere in law. For one thing, almost no respondent ever prevails at the State Bar Court. The playing field is far from level. The State Bar defense establishment plays at law while applying inapplicable generic tactics to the State Bar Court, producing a miserable record of failures.
While my tactics are not intended to delay, delay is indeed a byproduct, and holding off the State Bar Court for a half year in itself is a tactical accomplishment. A *mark* of a successful strategy, however, not its goal.

I would imagine your disgruntled clients will now consider
seeking redress for their damages.

Not even the State Bar alleges that I committed fraud. I have never been contacted by the Attorney General's Office or the police. Kim, the perpetrator of the fraud, apparently was arrested about a year ago. It looks like a plea bargain occurred. If clients wanted to sue, they should have done so before the statute of limitations expired, and I invited them to do so whenever they subsequently contacted me, informing them they might have a colorable civil action for negligent supervision. None did, for negligent supervision, legal malpractice, fraud, or anything else, because they would have actually had to prove their allegations under proper rules of evidence in such an action. I do not believe they would even show up for the State Bar Court hearing on the merits, had it occurred. They have too much to hide and would not hold up on cross- examination. Information about these ostensibly defrauded individuals, who were NEVER my clients, can be found at:
http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2007/10/kanbaroo-court-3rd-installment-c...

Both you and your former firm may be sued.
Were you insured when this mess occured? Is the AG
still investigating? Does it seem likely that you will face criminal
prosecution for this scheme that occured at the firm.

At least I'd be in a real court. But very unlikely. No evidence of fraud by me has been presented or even so claimed by anyone. Not that the State Bar Investigators didn't try. They initially believed I had perpertrated a massive fraud. They were first frustrated they couldn't prove it, then resigned to my actual non-involvement, probably after the perpetrator, Kim, gave his police statement. Their demand that I be disbarred was framed on the assumption I had committed fraud. But the State Bar never gives up a position without losing a tenacious fight, and not even then. Nothing changed in their recommendations after they drastically revised their assessment of my role.

Good luck

Let's not be hypocritical. You grant all the Bar's assumptions, including that defrauded persons were my clients. You would have to be depraved to wish me good luck.

ADDED January 9, 2007, same thread:

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:25:40 -0800, David L. Martel

wrote:
> If, as you say, you get a de novo trial I don't see any reason to assume
> that the Supremes will like you or your case any more than the lower
> court.They'll examine the evidence on it's merits.

Interpreted one way, that is a ridiculous comment. Interpreted another, it is what makes me think you are convinced my case is ill-founded. And if so, your "good luck" would indeed be hypocritical. If you disagree, we are making different value judgments about the weight of social propriety versus sincerity. I suspect yours falls considerably "right" of the norm and mine to the "left," and a middle of the roader would characterize _each_ of us as sophomoric. But then, this is a newsgroup, not a court. I think I understand the corresponding proprieties, but you may not.

Anyway, back to your ridiculous comment - or simply uninformed, in which case I apologize in advance. Have you not understood that this judge has refused even to comment on evidence of criminal conduct by the Deputy Trial Counsel (DTC)? That it has become clear that the judge is in truth collaborating with the DTC, and that the Review Department is in on it? Have you not surmised that this whole Bar Court business is a gigantic sham, that I'm not the first respondent that is a victim of these acts of fraud, but it is a regular practice in the State Bar, endorsed by the judges and unchallenged by respondents, because they lacked either the courage, the proof, or usually both?

If that message hasn't gotten through to even a casual blog reader like yourself, then I have been grossly ineffective in presenting the case. My response to that feedback would not be to conclude that I should get representation but that I should get out of law. If I cannot even make my own position clear, I have no business doing what I'm attempting or even being in the profession. On the other hand, if you understood the case but simply believe that the judge is acting in good faith, then I definitely disagree that social convention excuses hypocrisy of that degree. Again, a value judgment, but not a mere application of social formalities. If I condemn the DTC as a criminal obstructor of justice and the judge as her accomplice, and you think they are right--at least procedurally--wishing me luck is excessively inauthentic. Ultimately, however, this is a matter of taste.

There is another possibility, that I'm right about the judge but you are still right about the Supreme Court. That would mean that this form of corruption is tolerated at the highest level in the State. Then my success would depend partly on having the resources to take the case to the federal level. But it would also depend on whether I had any wish to remain an attorney and work under the tyranny of a corrupt State Bar, where the state's Supreme Court looks the other way.

Stephen Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com

PS. It isn't a de novo *trial*. There has been NO trial. I will be
petitioning for review of the *order* for the clerk to enter default.

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

This might provide some additional sense for why I insist on handling the case my way. Quite apart from any personal significance, this case, as I've developed it, *tests* the integrity of the system. My curiosity is too great _not_ to see what happens.

(The fact is, you, David, are curious too. But you are conflicted between curiosity and morality.)

Stephen Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com

kanBARoo Court. 22nd Installment. Can you tell victory from defeat?

Notice of entry of default was served on me yesterday, a result almost all correspondents, including some sympathetic and smart lawyers, consider a legal disaster. In similar vein, sympathetic readers criticize this blog as self-defeatingly defiant. They attribute entry of default to this defiance — correctly, now that I know the harsh result's antecedents. For the first time, prosecutrix Melanie J. Lawrence — the evening before the OSC hearing — downloaded my blog. Lawrence read the installments systematically from first to last, spending three to five minutes per installment. Adding to the data tracking the prosecutrix, her chief witness, Scott A. Meyers, Esq., read my blog the next day for more than an hour.

These events accomplish my tactical purpose, ignored by critics, their analytic blind spots my expository shortcomings. I may be partly forgiven because enemy anticipation allows some tactics less effect. The hidden tactic plays to an adversary's irrationalities, a well-known principle of warfare originating with Sun Tzu, who said if the enemy is quick to anger, provoke him. I learned the State Bar was quick to anger after I responded to State Bar Investigator Thomas Layton's advice to resign by informing him he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The State Bar is accustomed to malleable respondents expressing actual guilt or feigned remorse, and frustrating the State Bar's expectations provokes its wrath. Sun Tzu's insight inspired me to shower the State Bar with provocative writings.

Another undermentioned strategic premise concerns probable source of relief, unlikely from any quarter below the California Supreme Court, destination of my notice of the NDC's insufficiency. Prevailing on that issue wouldn't end the case, as might the review portending, since the leading issue has changed to wrongful entry of default, a favorable change this sequence shows:

1. I move for an immediate stay and reconsideration of the Order to Show Case (OSC).
 

I mail this motion personally to the judge, including proof that Lawrence twice perpetrated fraud on the court and might continue her criminal misconduct.

2. The State Bar moves for sanctions, entry of default; it opposes my motion for reconsideration and request for a stay.

In its papers, the State Bar complains about my "waging a campaign against DTC Lawrence," but it admits that Lawrence received an unsigned proof of service. Lawrence fails to state that she can produce it, proving my allegations by the omissions rule.

3. I don't file oppositions to the State Bar's motions.
 

I contend the judge violated my federal and state due process rights by not acting against fraud and that I can't rely on the clerk's office while disputing its reliability. On the facts presented, moreover, the court is unjustified in concluding that I failed to file the motions, because it is as likely that oppositions were subjected to tampering after their actual reception by the State Bar Court clerk. The judge ignored this obvious likelihood.

4. The Review Department denies my petition for review in formulaic terms, while first granting my motion for relief for late filing.
 

Entitled to apply for a stay, I was denied this opportunity because the Review Department didn't inform me it was considering the papers, and instead of mailing a notice of filing, the court clerk mailed a rejection for filing, informing my secretary of the papers' disposal.

5. The judge orders the clerk to enter my default for not answering the notice of disciplinary charges, putting me out of court in the Hearing Department and Review Department.
 

The judge denies my motion for reconsideration of the OSC and request for a stay — at the OSC itself, weeks after I made them. While the main basis for the stay and the reconsideration concerned the criminal misconduct of Deputy Trial Counsel Lawrence, the Court doesn't mention these allegations in its orders and announces no findings of fact. The Hearing Department doesn't want me to take these facts to the Supreme Court. These oppressive, irascible bureaucrats were provoked by my blog — newly discovered on the eve of the OSC —allowing me to build a petition for review on denial of due process of 5th-and-14th-Amendment proportion, Supervising Judge Honn participating in the coverup.