John Eastman
Attorney, Trump Advisor
Former Chapman University School of Law Dean John C. Eastman—who is facing disbarment proceedings over telling protesters in the District of Columbia on Jan. 6, 2021, that irregularities skewed the results of the 2020 presidential election and that then-Vice President Mike Pence should delay a certification of the results—will receive aid from former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. She is among seven persons designated by Eastman on March 22 as experts who have agreed to testify for him.
Brown served on the state’s high court from 1996 to 2005, then as a judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 2005 to 2017. She is now a lecturer and senior fellow at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
“Judge Rogers Brown is expected to testify regarding her opinion that the California State Bar seems to be moving into unchartered territory with seeking to discipline an attorney on one side of a contentious legal fight,” a declaration from Randall A. Miller, an attorney for Eastman, says. It notes she will be paid $1,200 per hour.
Among others designated as expert witnesses is John C. Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley. Miller’s declaration says:
“Mr. Yoo is expected to testify regarding the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and his legal interpretation of same as a constitutional law scholar. Mr. Yoo is also expected to testify regarding the good faith legal arguments a lawyer can advocate regarding the constitutional interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment.”
The Twelfth Amendment sets forth the process for electing the president and vice president.
Other expert witnesses listed are statistician S. Stanley Young, computer programmer John “Jay” Valentine, certified public accountant Joseph N. Fried, New York Law School Professor Rebecca Roiphe, and attorney Kurt Olsen.
The State Bar on March 20 disclosed that its expert witnesses will be:
IMatthew Seligman, described as “a lawyer and a Fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School” whose “legal scholarship primarily focuses on election law and disputed presidential elections” and
IJustin Grimmer, termed “a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution” whose “academic research primarily involves Congress, representation, and political methodology which includes statistics, econometrics, and the scientific study of politics.”
The State Bar of California’s chief trial counsel, George Cardona, announced on Jan. 26 that disbarment of Eastman is being sought based on his participation in an effort to block Joseph Biden from taking office as president of the United States through allegations of election fraud. The notice of charges cites his speech in the District of Columbia at the “Save America March” in which he asserted that Vice President Mike Pence had the legal authority to delay certification of the Electoral College results while alleged irregularities were probed. Eastman is blamed, in part for the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol by throngs of supporters of then-President Donald Trump.
The notice of charges says:
“By telling the crowd of protestors, from a position of authority as a professor and purported ‘preeminent constitutional scholar,’ that fraud had occurred in the election, that dead people had voted, that electronic voting machines had been used to fraudulently alter the election results, that Pence had authority to delay the counting of votes, and that Pence did not deserve to be in office if he did not delay the counting of votes, respondent made false and misleading statements that contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol in an effort to intimidate Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding, when such harm was foreseeable, and thereby committed an act of moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.”
Cardona commented:
“There is nothing more sacrosanct to our American democracy than free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. For California attorneys, adherence to the U.S. and California Constitutions is their highest legal duty. The Notice of Disciplinary Charges alleges that Mr. Eastman violated this duty in furtherance of an attempt to usurp the will of the American people and overturn election results for the highest office in the land—an egregious and unprecedented attack on our democracy—for which he must be held accountable.”
Miller and attorney Zachary Mayer on Feb. 15 responded to the charges on Eastman’s behalf, asserting that the State Bar has misquoted their client and are going after him based on an exercise of his First Amendment rights. The response says, in part:
“Respondent DENIES that he made any statement to the crowd about Vice President Pence's authority. Respondent DENIES that he told the assembled crowd that ‘Pence did not deserve to be in office if he did not delay the counting of votes.’ Rather, as the transcript of his remarks demonstrates, he stated that ‘anybody that is not willing to stand up to’ get to the bottom of whether acknowledged illegality and fraud in the conduct of the election had affected the election results ‘does not deserve to be in the office.’ ‘Anybody’ would include not just Vice President Pence, but other members of Congress as well as the members of the several state legislatures who were being asked to investigate the acknowledged illegality and fraud and to assess whether that affected the election results.”
The response continues:
“Respondent DENIES that his statements were false and misleading, or that he knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing at the time that they were false and misleading. Respondent DENIES that his statements provoked or ‘contributed to provoking the crowd to assault and breach the Capitol in an effort to intimidate Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.’ On the contrary, Respondent made no statement provoking or inciting the crowd to violence of any kind, much less inciting it to ''imminent" violence as the Supreme Court has held to be required for speech to be unprotected under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)….Respondent DENIES that the assault and breach of the Capitol was a foreseeable response to his brief speech, particularly since the President himself, who spoke after Respondent.”
One affirmative defense is:
“The California Bar lacks jurisdiction over the conduct of the Respondent referred to in the Charges because the First Amendment and its California counterpart provide absolute protection for political speech and legal opinion given in good faith on a matter of public importance. Respondent also cannot be penalized for his political affiliations, associations, or speech.”
Another affirmative defense sets forth:
“Respondent lacks fair notice that the conduct alleged in the Charges constituted a violation of the California Bar Rules. Until the spate of complaints filed against lawyers involved in the 2020 election challenges, there was no case like these in the annals of ethical decisions in California or in any State in the Nation. No licensed lawyer in December 2020 to January 2021 could possibly have rationally expected that the local ethics rules would be deemed to be violated for bringing challenges to election irregularities of the sort that are commonplace in the wake of contested elections. As such, the Charges violate the Due Process Clause's requirement of fair notice.”
A status conference was held on Feb. 27 before State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland. She set a settlement conference for next Tuesday before Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, though settlement is improbable given Cardona’s announcement of the State Bar’s desired outcome of proceedings.
A pretrial conference is set for May 1.
Thomas V. Girardi
Criminal defendant, former lawyer (disbarred)
The State Bar on March 10 released a report prepared by an outside law firm detailing how staff members—including then-Executive Director Joe Dunn and then-Interim Executive Director Bob Hawley—acted to shield Tom Girardi from discipline. It tells of gifts to a then-State investigator, Tom Layton, and Layton’s wife exceeding $1 million.
Board of Trustees Chair Ruben Duran said in an email to State Bar licensees that the Zachary employees’ conduct was “frankly shocking.” He noted that the report indicates that “Girardi intentionally cultivated relationships at the State Bar and it spotlights nine individuals at all levels who accepted his largesse and failed to report it, creating conflicts of interest.”
He noted “none of the staff whose unethical…behavior is described in the…report are still at the State Bar, and most of the concerning conduct occurred before 2018.”
Girardi on Feb. 1 was indicted by federal grand juries in the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois on multiple felony counts arising from allegedly cheating clients out of millions of dollars in settlements.
However, a question looms as to whether the 83-year-old disbarred lawyer is competent to stand trial, having been diagnosed in March 2021 as being afflicted with dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease. District Court Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson of the Central District of California on Feb. 6 entered a not-guilty plea on behalf of Girardi and ordered a mental evaluation of him.
The indictment in Illinois stemmed from the former lawyer purportedly pocketing 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 family members.
Also indicted were Los Angeles attorney David Lira, Girardi’s son-in-law, and Christopher Kamon, who was head of accounting and finance for Girardi|Keese, the now-defunct firm Girardi founded and owned. The three face eight counts of wire fraud and four counts of criminal contempt of court.
The indictment in Los Angeles is against Girardi and Kamon. It alleges five counts of wire fraud.
According to the true bill, that five clients were cumulatively cheated out of “in excess of” $15 million.
Once a superstar among California’s personal injury attorneys, Girardi was monied and resided in a Pasadena mansion with his trophy wife, singer/TV personality Erika Jayne. He’s now disbarred and news accounts commonly precede his name with the adjective, “disgraced.” He’s in bankruptcy and is a conservatee.
Although Jayne filed for a dissolution of marriage, she recently said she won’t follow through because she could wind up having to pay the penniless Girardi spousal support.
Over the decades, complaints by clients to the State Bar of his perfidy, many complaints, went unheeded. He had connections at the State Bar—which included a then-investigator there, Tom Layton, who acted as his errand boy. Allegations against him in State Bar proceedings included the theft of “at least $1,985,615.15” in settlement proceeds that should have gone to children whose parents died in an air crash. He was disbarred after he failed to respond to the allegations.
Max Huntsman
Los Angeles County Inspecter General
State Attorney General Rob Bonta announced in a Sept. 20 press release that the Department of Justice will look into “whether any individuals committed a crime by allegedly giving advance warning” to then-Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl and another who were subjects of a search warrant. The person who allegedly provided the tip-off is Max Huntsman, who was hired by the county as “inspector general” to unveil official misconduct.
There have been no public progress reports. However, Jennifer Van Laar, managing editor of RedState, an online publication, said in a March 23 article (focusing on a figure other than Huntsman) that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has related that Bonta’s office advised that the investigation is “ongoing” and “is months from being completed.”
Appearances are that Huntsman, a former deputy district attorney, interfered with a law enforcement investigation into possible political corruption by causing Kuehl, indirectly, to be alerted to an impending exploration of her home by sheriff’s deputies, affording her an opportunity to hide or destroy potentially incriminating evidence. Huntsman is mum.
Side questions loom as to whether then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva did actually have adequate cause to suspect wrongdoing on the part of Kuehl in connection with the awarding of a no-bid contract to a nonprofit headed by a friend and financial supporter of hers, Civilian Oversight Commissioner Patricia Goggans, whom Kuehl appointed to the commission. The then-supervisor— who happens to be a member of the board of the nonprofit Goggans heads—disclaims any knowledge of the award by a county department until after a controversy blazed. Also in controversy is whether Villanueva, who lost his reelection bid on Nov. 8, was simply going after political foes, each of whom earlier called for his resignation.
As to Huntsman, there is the matter of whether he should be prosecuted, as the sheriff urges, and/or fired from his county post, and/or disciplined by the State Bar. On Oct. 5, Villanueva said in a letter to the Board of Supervisors:
“Mr. Huntsman will be removed from all access to Department facilities, personnel, and databases effective immediately. This standard is applied to all Department personnel who are named as a suspect in a criminal case involving felony crimes.”
The facts that emerge are that on the morning of the raid by sheriff’s deputies on her Santa Monica home on Sept. 14, Kuehl told reporters:
“I heard from county counsel last night that she got a tip from Max [Huntsman] that this search would happen this morning.”
KFI newsman Steve Gregory has reported that at 11:41 p.m. the day preceding the raid, Acting County Counsel Dawn Harrison texted Kuehl:
“This was the first my team had heard of it. Max called CoCo tonight with his ‘intel.’ Just wanted to make sure you were aware. Should anything come of this in the morning, Cheryl O’Connor is on standby. If you need her, she will be there.”
“CoCo,” Gregory said, stands for “county counsel” and O’Connor is Kuehl’s attorney.
One deputy district attorney comments:
“What Max Huntsman did is egregious. If he warned the supervisor of the impending search warrant, he completely disregarded his 20+ years training and practice as a deputy district attorney. Disclosure is unethical, invites destruction of evidence, and puts officers in danger.
“If this was a gang murder investigation, he would never tip off the suspect, but because he has become a political pawn of the Board of Supervisors who appointed him and ensure his continuing hefty salary, he somehow justified it in his own head.”
The critic terms the alleged conduct “[d]isgusting behavior from an attorney who spent the bulk of his DA career in the Public Integrity Unit, prosecuting elected officials.”
The specific sections of the Penal Code alluded to by Villanueva, a non-attorney, do not appear to have applicability to Huntsman, though the question remains as to whether other sections might be pertinent.
On Nov. 15, Villanueva held a press conference. His office said in the course of a press rambling release:
“The sheriff displayed the letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding Office of Inspector General, Max Huntsman to correct the record based on what he said and what he did. However, the BOS refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Huntsman. He explains that the Board of Supervisors portrayed the sheriff through narrative as being insubordinate against the BOS and created an elaborate system to give a negative impression to the public about the sheriff himself even though all the information was provided to them based on what they were legally entitled. Yet when it came time for Max Huntsman to testify, his testimony was secretive. Huntsman's testimony took place behind closed doors, where he recanted everything said in public, including the identification of gang members.”
Some have questioned whether Harrison acted appropriately. However, Art. VI, §21 of the County Charter provides arguable justification for tipping off Kuehl. It provides:
“The County Counsel shall represent and advise the Board of Supervisors and all County, township and school district officers, in all matters and questions of law pertaining to their duties....”
Brian Kabatech, Mark Gerogos
Attorneys
 
The State Bar, under fire for its dereliction in failing to act on complaints about Thomas V. Girardi (now disbarred) until his dishonesty became manifest and widely reported by the news media, is now going after two celebrity lawyers—former Los Angeles County Bar Association President Brian Kabateck and criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos—in a move that could backfire if the two are exonerated—for a fourth time.
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.
In a Sept. 27 press release, the State Bar said the two are being investigated “in connection with the Armenian Genocide insurance settlement funds from which dispersals were made in the U.S. and France.”
Kabateck and Geragos 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.
They were previously cleared of wrongdoing in two State Bar probes and one by independent investigators.
The State Bar press release quotes Board of Trustees Chair Ruben Duran as saying:
“The State Bar is charged with protecting the public. Confidence in our ability to do so has unfortunately been shaken in recent times by the Girardi matter and what it represents. Restoring and maintaining the public’s trust in the disciplinary apparatus of this agency is imperative.”
He continued:
“To that end, it is important to emphasize that the State Bar investigates possible misconduct wherever it might occur. The status of attorneys, or the size of their practice, cannot and will not impact our decisions to investigate misconduct.”
Geragos—who says 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 responding to complaints about Girardi.
Kabateck asserted:
“This is a political stunt by the State Bar.”
Steven Wilson
U.S. District Court Judge
So far, there is no indication of any investigation having been mounted as to conduct on the part of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California—conduct which, if allegations are true, could warrant disciplinary proceedings and which, arguably, comes under exceptions to judicial immunity.
It is alleged that when Westlake Village attorney Marina Lang 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 be able to scratch her nose. Her being in custody was 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 she indicated like disgruntlement with his, 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 criminal contempt. Lang was told by deputies, when she protested the metal restraints 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 Jan. 24 memorandum opinion affirming a civil contempt fine of $3,510 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, in a trademark dispute , 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.”
She had appealed from the Jan. 26, 2022, civil contempt fine but not from the Nov. 17, 2021, order finding Lang in contempt and ordering that she be taken into custody.
A Feb. 1 METNEWS editorial is titled, “Was a Lawyer Subjected to Barbaric Abuse at a Federal Courthouse?,” with a subtitle, “Allegations of Official Misconduct Must Be Probed.” It urges that Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia, acting pursuant to 28 U.S. Code §351, look into Lang’s allegations and, if they withstand initial scrutiny, the matter be referred, in accordance with §352, to the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council, or that a special committee be appointed to investigate under §353. It also calls for E. Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, and the federal Grand Jury to probe the deputies’ actions.
“Facts must be uncovered, with relevant facts not overlooked or whitewashed,” the editorial asserts, adding:
“A failure on the part of federal authorities to ascertain what occurred on Nov. 17, 2021, would constitute dereliction, and a failure to impose consequences, and severe ones, if Lang was indeed caused the physical pain and dehumanization she describes would be unpardonable.”
It labels Wilson “one slippery hombre” by contending, in his 2022 order finding Lang in civil contempt, that he had not really found her in criminal contempt in 2021 because he had not adhered to the procedures dictated by Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The editorial remarks:
“Oh? A judge has not, in fact, taken an action, though pronounced by the judge, if that action is not authorized by law? Poppycock.”
A link to the editorial was emailed by the METNEWS to Murguia and Estrada on Feb. 2 with a request that action be taken; there has been no response. Whether any action followed is unknown.
On Feb. 6, Lang’s lawyer Dan Lawton filed a petition for a rehearing either by the panel that affirmed the civil contempt fine or by the Ninth Circuit siting en banc. (It cites the editorial, providing no authority for the opinion expressed by a newspaper being cognizable, and quotes it out of context as accepting Lang’s allegations rather than calling for an investigation into them.)
The petition asserts that among the issues presented of “exceptional importance” is “whether a district court in this Circuit may flout the procedure for summary adjudications of criminal contempt mandated by Rule 42 by summarily jailing an attorney without notice or a hearing and then later issuing a false, post hoc ruling declaring the jailing ‘not an actual summary contempt adjudication,’ thus insulating its lawless action from review by this Court.”
It argues:
“By affirming the lawless and medieval treatment of Ms. Lang which occurred below, the panel at once blesses an inhumane miscarriage of justice and sends this message to every District Judge and lawyer in the Circuit: no attorney, on a bad day or a good one, will be safe from being shackled, frog-marched to jail in front of client, counsel, and jurors, fined, and held in contempt without a hearing or any of the protections provided by Rule 42, should she offend the District Judge with advocacy that is deemed to cross a line.”
The petition does not address Footnote 1 of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion nor otherwise explain the relevance of the asserted “cruelty and inhumanity of a District Judge” on Nov. 17, 2021, to the issue of the correctness of his ruling on Jan. 26, 2022, that monies be paid to the other side in a trademark dispute. The theory behind the fine was that the Nov. 17 brouhaha had necessitated the granting of a new trial in light of the potential effect on jurors and the attorney fees incurred by the defendant connection with the proceeding should be borne by Lang.
Lang does have the option of suing Wilson, testing whether, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Mireles v. Waco, judicial immunity exists—that is, whether the judge’s acts were in aid of jurisdiction or outside of it. However, the lawyer appears disinclined, at least at present, to pursue the matter. She said in a Feb. 2 email to the METNEWS:
“Ultimately, I am trying to move on from this traumatic event, personally and professionally. When Judge Wilson didn’t file a response to my petition (nor did the defendants), I assumed the 9th Circuit would treat the silence as an admission of the harsh, inhuman and degrading incident detailed in my appellate brief. But Judge Wilson’s needlessly cruel behavior was left wholly unaddressed by the 9th Circuit. I am disappointed in their lack of action. But at least I am free.”
Although the prospect exists that Lang will be granted a rehearing by the three-judge panel or by the court, sitting en banc—so that the matter is not dead—what remains subject to resuscitation is the issue of whether Lang’s conduct warranted an order that she pay to the other side the attorney fees it incurred on Nov. 17, 2021, and not whether Wilson committed misconduct in ordering her taken into custody on that date. The prospect of further proceedings relating to the imposition of a civil fine would not appear to preclude an investigation into Wilson’s actions in treating Lang as criminal.
Although Murguia has taken no action with regard to possible dereliction on the part of Wilson, the Ninth Circuit announced in a Feb. 28 news release that allegations of misconduct on the part of District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California, based on the momentary handcuffing of a 13-year-old girl—as opposed to the alleged hours-long shacking of Lang—are under investigation. Murguia said in an accompanying order that “this order and the fact that I identified a complaint against Judge Benitez are publicly disclosed in order to ‘maintain public confidence in the Judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability.’ ”
The incident concerning Benitez was recounted in a Feb. 23 sentencing memo prepared by attorney Mayra Lopez of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. in connection with a parole violation by a client of hers who had committed drug offenses. At a hearing, the man, Mario Puente, expressed concern that his daughter was keeping bad company which could “lead her into the same path I went down.”
The memo says:
“Several minutes later, Judge Benitez asked a U.S. Marshal, ‘You got cuffs?’ The Marshal continued he did. Judge Benitez then ordered the 13-year-old girl to leave the spectator area, approach the front of the courtroom, and stand next to her father’s lawyer. He told the Marshal to ‘[p]ut cuffs on her.’ The Marshal did so, cuffing the girl’s hands behind her back. As he did so, she was crying. Judge Benitez then instructed the Marshal to ‘put[’] her over there in the jury box for me for just a minute.’ The Marshal complied, placing the girl in the jury box in handcuffs. She continued to cry.
“After a long pause, Judge Benitez released the girl. But he did not allow her to immediately return to her seat. Instead he told her, ‘don’t go away. Look at me.’ He asked her how she liked ‘sitting up there’ and ‘the way those cuffs felt on you.’ Still in tears, she responded that she ‘didn’t like it.’ He told her she was ‘an awfully cute young lady’ but that if she didn’t stay away from drugs, she would ‘wind up in cuffs’ and be ‘right back there where I put you a minute ago.’ ”
|
