Lawyers for former Chapman University School of Law Dean John C. Eastman on Nov. 15 scoffed at the contention that the State Bar Court judge who presided over Eastman’s disbarment hearing erred in finding that remarks by the lawyer at the “Save America Rally” in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, were not geared to incite the storming of the Capitol.
The Office of Chief Trial Counsel had charged that Eastman “made false and misleading statements that contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol in an effort to intimidate [then-Vice President Mike] Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.” But in her May 1 decision, State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, while recommending disbarment, rejected that particular allegation.
While Eastman is appealing the call for his disbarment, the State Bar has cross-appealed from the decision not to sustain the incitement count. Opening briefs were filed in the Review Department on Sept. 13.
Attorneys Randall A. Miller, Zachary Mayer, and Jeanette Chu said in their responsive brief that “there is no evidence that Dr. Eastman intended to incite violence with his statements made on the Ellipse,” a park south of the White House. They wrote:
“Dr. Eastman consistently testified that it was not his intention on January 6, 2021 to incite the attendee at the Save America rally to take violent action…and that his only intent was to identify problems with the conduct of the election and to try to have them investigated and to get to the truth of the validity of the election, not to promote doubt in the results….That testimony was unrebutted. The text of Dr. Eastman's speech supports this same conclusion—he was stating the truthful information he had at the time, which could not reasonably be interpreted as calling for violence.”
Responding to Eastman’s opening brief, the State Bar argued, in a brief authored by Supervising Attorney Duncan Calling:
“Eastman conspired with his client, then incumbent candidate Donald Trump, to unlawfully obstruct the counting of electoral votes on January 6. 2021, with a singular result-driven objective—disrupting the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Biden. Eastman used his position and reputation as a constitutional scholar to cloak his unfounded theory that the vice president could reject electoral votes with an air of legitimacy. He further embarked on a campaign to sow seeds of doubt in the integrity of the election by making numerous intentional misrepresentations about outcome-determinative election irregularities and fraud to bolster his baseless assertion that the election was stolen.”
It went to assert:
“There is no historical or legal support for Eastman's contention that Pence had the unilateral authority to resolve ‘disputed’ or ‘contested’ electoral votes—when the states had submitted only one certified slate of electors, courts had uniformly rejected claims of fraud or illegality, and no state legislature had challenged the certified slate—and Eastman knew it. Eastman's proposal that Pence reject or delay the vote count was a contrived measure in his strategy to stop Biden from being certified as President, despite the fact that Trump had lost the election.”
Sentencing of disbarred lawyer Thomas Vincent Girardi—who was convicted on four counts of wire fraud by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 27, after a 13-day trial—has been postponed from Dec. 6 to Dec. 20.
Judge Josephine Staton on Nov. 15 acceded to a defense motion for a short delay based on one of Girardi’s lawyers, Alejandro Barrientos, having left the Office of Federal Public Defender for the district.
Girardi, 85, faces a possible sentence of 80 years in prison. Although the actual sentence is expected to be substantially less than that, the prospect of a prison term that would still, in reality, amount to a life sentence has prompted prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois, where Girardi has also been indicted, to indicate they might drop charges against him there.
Girardi is said in proceedings here to have embezzled more than $15 million from clients.
Staton on Jan. 2 found Girardi competent to stand trial, rejecting his contrary contention based on his affliction with Alzheimer's disease. The defendant’s lawyers subsequently indicated a present disinclination to challenge the competency ruling.
A March 21 stipulation for a continuance recites:
“Counsel for defendant Girardi… represents that they are seeking a continuance for the purpose of preparing for trial, not as additional time to reinitiate competency proceedings.”
In seeking a continuance of the trial date last July 13, a lawyer for Girardi said in a declaration:
“…I want to emphasize that we are not seeking this continuance for the purpose of reopening competency proceedings. Barring some significant and unforeseen material change in Girardi's condition, we have every expectation and intention of proceeding to trial in this matter, as reflected by our diligence to date. Before and during trial, we intend to ask the Court to make ongoing inquiries and findings to assure itself that Girardi remains capable of proceeding. But we do not intend to reinstitute formal proceedings in advance of trial and are not seeking delay for that purpose.”
In moving for a new trial on Oct. 8, Girardi said, through his lawyers:
“[B]ecause Girardi was and is not competent to stand trial, and the information brought to the Court’s attention during trial triggered its obligation to further inquire into competency. The Court should therefore vacate the verdict and, if Girardi can regain competency, order a new trial.”
On Nov. 5, the government responded:
“Despite repeated assertions that he would not seek to reopen competency proceedings, defendant's motion for a new trial…is a clear attempt to do just that. In support of the Motion, defense counsel attaches his previously rejected declaration regarding defendant's decision to testify at trial and another declaration from defendant's driver and caretaker. These submissions contain various anecdotal references to defendant's failing memory and problems with personal hygiene. Both issues represent well-worn territory in the Court's assessment of defendant's mental abilities and contain no bona fide, legitimate reason to revisit the Court's previous determination that defendant was able to understand the nature of the proceedings and assist in his own defense, should he choose to do so.”
It added:
“[T]throughout trial defendant exhibited behavior that supported his understanding of the proceedings and willingness to assist in his defense. For example, in a voice that could be overheard at government's counsel table, defendant on multiple occasions during trial asked his counsel when it was his turn to testify and also told his counsel that it was his ‘ass on the line’….These comments show that defendant was acutely aware of the proceedings against him and eagerly awaited his opportunity to assist in his defense by testifying.”
Girardi replied on Nov. 19 that “the government resorts to superficial analysis that glosses over the law and the facts.”
It is set forth in a footnote:
“The government incorrectly asserts that the defense previously stated that it ‘would not seek to reopen competency proceedings.’…To the contrary, the defense made a narrower promise, which it kept, in connection with a stipulation to continue trial, specifically that the defense was ‘seeking a continuance for the purpose of preparing for trial, not as additional time to re-initiate competency proceedings.’… Consistent with that promise, the defense did not re-initiate competency proceedings before trial.”
At his trial, Girardi sought to place all blame on Christopher Kamon, who was chief financial officer for the now-defunct firm of Girardi|Keese. On Oct. 8. Kamon entered into a plea bargain under which he pled guilty on Oct. 11 to two counts of wire fraud, with other counts dropped, and will forfeit $3.1 million.
Once a monied and highly influential lawyer, Girardi is now disgraced and impecunious. A former superstar among California’s personal injury attorneys, Girardi resided in a Pasadena mansion with his trophy wife, “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star Erika Jayne, who, although she filed for a dissolution of marriage, has said she won’t follow through with the divorce because she could wind up having to pay Girardi spousal support.
The indictment in Illinois stems from the former lawyer purportedly stealing about $3 million that was due family members of persons who were in the Lion Air Flight 610 crash in Indonesia on Oct. 29, 2018, killing all 189 who were aboard. Boeing had manufactured the aircraft, and agreed to pay $500 million to the survivors.
Also indicted there were Los Angeles attorney David Lira, Girardi’s son-in-law, and Kamon. The three face eight counts of wire fraud and four counts of criminal contempt of court, if the trial there, scheduled for March 3, 2025, takes place.
Over the decades, complaints by clients to the State Bar of his perfidy, many complaints, went unheeded. Girardi had connections at the State Bar—which included a then-investigator there, Tom Layton, who acted as his boy-Friday.
More than two years have passed since the State Bar said in a Sept. 27, 2022 news release:
"The State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees Chair Ruben Duran announced today that the State Bar is investigating attorneys Mark John Geragos (State Bar No. 108325) and Brian Stephen Kabateck (State Bar No. 152054) in connection with the Armenian Genocide insurance settlement funds from which dispersals were made in the U.S. and France."
Under fire for its dereliction in failing to act on complaints about Girardi until his dishonesty became manifest and widely reported by the news media, the announcement was made, possibly for sake of publicity. The move could backfire if the two are exonerated for a fourth time—or what would possibly be a fifth time as to Geragos.
The State Bar will not comment on what progress has been made. A spokesperson said on May 30, in response to a METNEWS inquiry:
“At this time, we can provide no update beyond what was stated in our earlier September 27, 2022 release.”
Kabateck has attained multi-million dollar judgments and settlements; Geragos is a criminal defense lawyer whose clients have included Whitewater defendant Susan McDougal, former Rep. Gary Condit, actress Winona Ryder, and entertainer Michael Jackson.
>Kabateck and Geragos had obtained a settlement of $37.5 million in separate actions against two insurers who failed to pay claims under life insurance policies issued to persons who were slain in the Armenian genocide. Major attention has been focused in recent Los Angeles Times articles on what happened to proceeds from a $17.5 million settlement with a French insurer in 2005.
Questions have been raised as to whether the two lawyers pocketed any of the funds. While moneys are missing, the lawyers point out they had nothing to do with the distribution of the proceeds.
Geragos—who has said he will be suing the State Bar—remarked that Duran’s mention of Girardi shows that “all they’re trying to do is deflect” attention from the debacle in not responding to complaints about Girardi.
Kabateck asserted:
“This is a political stunt by the State Bar.”
Diana Teran
Assistant District Attorney
Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney Diana Teran, a key aide to outgoing District Attorney George Gascón, had been charged by the Office of Attorney General with 11 counts of unlawfully accessing and, in her prosecutorial role, making use of confidential electronic personnel files on deputy sheriffs. Following pre-trial motions and a four-day preliminary hearing, six counts remain.
Teran was arrested and booked on April 27. She pled not guilty at her arraignment on July 25.
The County Counsel’s Office has disclosed, in response to a Public Records Act request by victim rights attorney Kathleen Cady, a former deputy district attorney, that Teran is being paid—$26,970.03 per month, including benefits—while on leave pending resolution of the charges.
County Civil Service Rule 16.01 provides that “[l]eaves of absence from regular duties, with pay, may be granted only by the appointing power under such conditions and for such periods as established by the board of supervisors, when such leaves are determined to be in the best interests of the service.” Rule 16.02 says that leaves without pay may be granted for reasons that are enumerated “or for such other lawful purposes as are deemed by the appointing power to be in the best interest of the department.”
A former high-level member of the County Counsel’s Office commented:
“It should be noted that ‘appointing power’ would mean department head, here Gascon. Although these rules do not expressly address investigations, my recollection is that a leave would be with pay during an investigation but once charges are filed that the leave is without pay (because the employee is frequently dismissed at that point.)”
Other knowledgeable persons say general county policy is to put employees on an unpaid suspension while criminal charges are pending.
Teran is being prosecuted by the Office of Attorney General.
Steven Wilson
U.S. District Court Judge
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California has come under investigation in connection with alleged misconduct of an extreme nature on Nov. 17, 2021. The probe was revealed in an order by Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kim Wardlaw signed Aug. 23 and made public Aug. 27.
The incident being probed was revealed by METNEWS on Jan. 26 of 2023 and commented on in a Feb. 2 editorial. That conduct was spelled out, under penalty of perjury, by Westlake Village attorney Marina Lang. She recounted that when she got into a squabble with Wilson over his rulings, she was not merely ordered out of his courtroom but was handcuffed and manacled, forced to hobble in the courthouse hallway before onlookers, booked, and was, for hours, chained to a chair in a cold and smelly basement cell, immobilized, unable even to scratch her nose.
Actions toward her were consequent to an express order by Wilson, though the extent of his knowledge as to the precise treatment of Lang has yet to be established.
The record does show that after Wilson expressed, with the jury not present, disgruntlement over her conduct in the closing phases of a trial in a trademark dispute, and Lang indicated like displeasure with his behavior, the judge declared:
“You are in contempt,” and asked:
“Is the Marshal there?”
A deputy marshal was present. Wilson then commanded:
“Take Ms. Lang in custody. She’s in contempt of court.”
The order was treated by deputies as an adjudication of a criminal contempt. Lang was purportedly told by deputies, when she protested the metal restraints, that they were doing what the judge wanted. Later, back in the courtroom, Wilson related to Lang’s co-counsel, who had continued representing the client, and to opposing counsel, that Lang was in a “holding area” and advised: “I’m going to order her released.”
She was eventually freed that night after court hours, according to her declaration, with her car locked in a parking lot.
The facts and the allegations are not alluded to in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s memorandum opinion affirming a civil contempt fine of $3,510 later imposed by Wilson on Lang, and would seem to be irrelevant to the issue before that court. Wilson imposed the fine, to be payable to the other side, and the opinion says in Footnote 1:
“Lang acknowledges that she lacks an appellate remedy for her period of temporary confinement and does not appeal it, so we express no views on that issue.”
