banking service chronicle january 2019 pdf

 banking service chronicle january 2019 pdf 

banking service chronicle january 2019 pdf  Published this article page no   A blowbyblow report of the California State Bars attempt to disbar me all the while perpetrating the same conduct of which it complains. Includes serious legal analysis. The California State Bars Office of the Chief Trial Counsel was awestruck and panicstricken when it lost its motion for entry of default in a direct test of its legal position against me the pro se respondent in Case No. 05R04605 et. al. I start the account in the middle with the outrageous misconduct of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel through Deputy Trial Counsel Melanie K. Lawrence Esq. The forum is the State Bar Courts Hearing Department presided over by the Hon. Richard A. Honn. Todays story is merely the beginning of the extensive coverage and analytic commentary I seek to provide regarding In the Matter of Stephen R. Diamond No. 183617 A Member of the State Bar an action in which I am obviously an interested party. What follows today is a small but revealing part of the story. If you thought the State Bar Court is simply a court like many others think again. 1. I filed a motion to reconsider after the court denied my motion to dismiss the notice of Disciplinary Charges. That day a Tuesday I had brought my intent to move for reconsideration to the courts attention at an inperson status conference where the court confirmed that this motion was a proper and timely responsive pleading. 2. I served a copy to the Deputy Trial Counsel. Then I delivered two copies to the filing clerk to whose window other clerks had directed me. She took my motion to reconsider inspected it carefully and stamped my conformed copy Received. 3. Although I filed it Tuesday the motion was not due until the following Monday. On that Monday the Deputy Trial Attorney emailed me. In her words At this point you have failed to properly file any responsive document. So I intend to ask the Court to enter your default. 4. The Deputy Trial Counsel lacked any awareness of the egregiousness of her misconduct. She admitted being served with the actual signed document Tuesday waited till Monday to point out the oversight and attempted to exploit it to take a default in a quasicriminal proceeding while refusing even to supply documentation. 5. In my opposition I argued beyond a due process matter concerning notice the obvious issue but one fraught with procedural uncertainties. More fundamentally and effectively I challenged the courts jurisdiction to reject a document for filing after the clerk had accepted it for filing. The Clerk accepted respondents motion for filing on September 4 and the court lacked jurisdiction to reject the same document on September 10. I stated of the motion to enter default The State Bars motion to dismiss is frivolous malicious and outrageous. 6. The Hearing Department of the State Bar Court denied the Deputy Trial Counsels motion to dismiss as shocking as this outcome was to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. The State Bar Courts stance during the hearing however showed enough bias to discredit it. The court ignored the misconduct of the Deputy Trial Counsel and focused its attention on my failure to recover some mail in my transit. The court declared that I now am on a short leash. Courts have used the phrase on a short leash to mean maintaining tight management of a case. No neutral court would put such a general onus on a party to an action. The court did not acknowledge that the documents acceptance by the clerk was dispositive of its status as filed and distinguished between Received and Filed. The court claimed that the whole court system made this distinction a purported observation that the court thought sufficient justification. On its own initiative the court effectively took judicial notice of this fact without briefing on either its accuracy or relevance. More than my case I am concerned with general issues. The State Bars method is to make outrageous charges without evidence and then seek evidence through undisciplined discovery. I intend to challenge its methods of work. I am convinced State Bar misconduct is standard. In future installments I will tell more of this story its background and its unfolding. I can afford to be principled because I dont fear the State Bar partly because my livelihood derives from contracting with lawyers to prepare legal briefs and devise legal theories. This ongoing account contains the legal theory guiding my case before the State Bar. banking service chronicle january 2019 pdf