Attorney Discipline

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:21:22 -0800
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" gmail.com>
Subject: CA State Bar Act imposes DUTY of reporting of any INFORMATION charging a FELONY against the Bar member

Subject:
California State Bar Act imposes a DUTY of reporting of any INFORMATION
charging a FELONY against the Bar member


> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm

[begin excerpt]

(o) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing,
within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following: ...

(4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney.

[NB: This VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
formally alleges multiple State and Federal felonies by all 200,000+
past and present members of The State Bar of California:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm
e.g. California Penal Code section 182; 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1962 ]
...
(10) This subdivision is only intended to provide that
the failure to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline.

[end excerpt]


p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2008 2:05 PM
Subject: More Re: My Analysis of "9. Summary and Conclusions, Point 1."



> Those "duties" are itemized at CBPC section 6068:

> http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=06001-07000&file=6060-6069

6068. It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.

(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.

(f) To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

(i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against himself or herself. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not be construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that requires him or her to waive any constitutional or statutory privilege or to comply with a request for information or other matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time constraints of the attorney's practice. Any exercise by an attorney of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used against the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding against him or her.

(j) To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1.

(k) To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the attorney.

(l) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline.

(m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal services.

(n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which the board shall adopt.

(o) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any of the following:

(1) The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct committed in a professional capacity.

(2) The entry of judgment against the attorney in any civil action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity.

(3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney.

(5) The conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of any felony, or any misdemeanor committed in the course of the practice of law, or in any manner in which a client of the attorney was the victim, or a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of the misdemeanor, involves improper conduct of an attorney, including dishonesty or other moral turpitude, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a felony or any misdemeanor of that type.

(6) The imposition of discipline against the attorney by any professional or occupational disciplinary agency or licensing board, whether in California or elsewhere.

(7) Reversal of judgment in a proceeding based in whole or in part upon misconduct, grossly incompetent representation, or willful misrepresentation by an attorney.

(8) As used in this subdivision, "against the attorney" includes claims and proceedings against any firm of attorneys for the practice of law in which the attorney was a partner at the time of the conduct complained of and any law corporation in which the attorney was a shareholder at the time of the conduct complained of unless the matter has to the attorney's knowledge already been reported by the law firm or corporation.

(9) The State Bar may develop a prescribed form for the making of reports required by this section, usage of which it may require by rule or regulation.

(10) This subdivision is only intended to provide that the failure to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline.

[end excerpt]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: My Analysis of "9. Summary and Conclusions, Point 1." (see .jpg file attached)


> 9. Summary and Conclusions
> Based on the foregoing analysis and legally admissible evidence,
> we can safely conclude the following:
> 1. There is no such thing legally defined anywhere in any
> enactment of any government that is specifically called a
> "license to practice law". [emphases added]
[end quote]


OBJECTION: section 6067 in the California Business and
Professions Code mandates very specific requirements
with which a "license" to practice law must comply, to wit:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6067.htm

Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law
to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

[end excerpt]


Repeating two detailed analyses that I have already written:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/refuse.aguirre.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm


Note well: as a matter of substance (not "form"), the required oath
must bind the Bar member to support two (2) Constitutions.

Those 2 Constitutions are rather significant bodies of fundamental Law!

And, in addition to supporting those 2 Constitutions,
the required oath also binds all Bar members to discharge
all "duties" of an attorney, to the best of their knowledge
and ability.

Those "duties" are itemized at CBPC section 6068:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/6068.htm

... one of which duties is to support all laws of this
(California) State: section 6067 is one of those laws!

Moreover, a "certificate" has a very specific meaning in law:
it necessitates a "writing" -- NOT a verbal certification.

There is no such thing as a "verbal certificate" in point of fact.

("Oh, Highway Patrol Officer, I don't need a physical driver's license:
I have VERBAL PERMISSION from the DMV to operate this motor vehicle!"
SOUNDS PRETTY STUPID, DOESN'T IT??)

And, "indorse" also has a very specific meaning in law,
as when one "indorses" a standard bank check.

"In dorso" in Latin means "on the back"
as the dorsal fin on a fish is "on the back" of that fish.


Thus, sections 6067 and 6068 together provide more than
enough stated requirements to determine conclusively if a member
of The State Bar of California has a valid "license to practice law"
in the State of California.

Of course, after giving that State Bar plenty of time to answer,
we have now determined that NOT ONE OF THE 200,000+
past and present members of The State Bar of California
has ever complied with sections 6067 and 6068. Hence,
this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm


Conclusion: "Section 1." in "9. Summary and Conclusions"
above (and .jpg attached) is demonstrably incorrect.


p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

---

Author Nancy Lazaryan

Click here: Blogger: A Democracy - Post a Comment YOU GO GIRL Thanks I keep getting bumped of Wireless.....

Nancy Lazaryan said...

I had many, many emails with Bob J. before I decided to delete my comments from the blog.

I told Bob that I was very busy this week and that I would write an article that he could post. Instead, he started this topic.

Below is what I sent Bob, with a few minor edits:

Freedom of Speech
in a Non-Public Forum

In this fast changing internet world of information overload, an issue concerning “Free of Speech” on this blog was hotly debated between Bob Johnson and myself prior to my decision to delete my comments from the ADemocracy blog.

The ADemocracy blog is a non-public forum, a “new” media, as the newspaper, radio and television are medias. I have been an editor of a widely circulated magazine, have published my own newspaper and have had my articles published in various trade magazines.

I am fully aware and in support of Bob Johnson’s authority to censor the content of his blog. The ADemocracy blog is a PRIVATE enterprise, and controlling the comments that are placed upon his blog is his right.

Just as a person does not have the right to yell “Fire” in a theater, when there is no fire (an action of disruptive speech in a private enterprise), people, such as Bill Dahn, do not have the absolute right to disrupt the blog by posting off-topic, seditious comments.

However, I was unaware that any particular person had been specifically censored from posting any comments on the blog, when last week, Bill Dahn responded to a comment I had posted.

The comment Bill Dahn had made was thoughtful and on point. An anonymous poster then immediately responded with an inflammatory comment, making personal attacks upon Bill Dahn. I then commented on how the anonymous person was disrupting the blog. Bob J. deleted these three comments.

The blog now posts the topic: “The following people are banned permanently from using this forum to advance their agendas. Bill Dahn, Sharon Anderson and Nancy Lazaryan.”

Exactly what does this mean?

The comment of Bill Dahn that was deleted was not a comment that was “using the forum to advance his agenda”. I understand that Bill Dahn has used the blog, in the past to advance his own agenda.

When have I used the blog to “advance my agenda”?

I have written my opinions concerning the issues, and backed up my comments, with research and law.

“My agenda” is that the Citizens learn what their rights are, and find a way to work together to stop the abuses being perpetrated upon us by our employees, those who work for us in government.

We are at a very serious crisis in our country. Citizens need to wake up, fast, and put aside certain differences, or we will all be lost.

I do not have the time to argue over petty issues when, very soon, we may be loosing all of our secured rights.

Lawsuits are not the solution, as our courts fall to do their duty to uphold our constitutions.

There is a meeting being scheduled with the Governor, next week I am speaking before the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, many bills that "we" are working on will be introduced this legislative session (including one concerning the grand jury),
I will be traveling across the state for speaking engagements, and then there is the jury trial I need to prepare for because of my arresting Bob Humphrey, not to mention the civil actions that I am involved in.

Personally, I believe there are adult, civil ways that we can work with people like Bill Dahn and Sharon Anderson; not to mention George, Froggy and many anonymous posters that have posted bigoted, vile and foul language.

Regretfully, Bob Johnson and I disagree on this point. And, it is his blog.

I have no right to tell Bob how to manage his media, but I do have the ability to choose whether I will participate.

I choose to work with people that see the value in others, and strive towards working together.

It is my opinion that Bill Dahn and Sharon Anderson have value, and that we should find ways of working together, instead of using our energies to destroy each other.

Nancy Lazaryan

1:16 PM

.........Anything We can do to assist quietly Please let me know

---

Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

Legal Demand City Council mandate Laptop E-Commerce

Fri. Jan.11th,2008 LEGAL NOTICE TO ST. PAUL CITY, EMPLOYEES, ELECTED OFFICIALS ET AL WE THE PEOPLE AFFIANTS SHARON PETERSON-SCARRELLA-ANDERSON www.sharonanderson.org and BILL DAHN www.billdahn.com herewith as Political Candidates, Consumer Activists, Whistleblowers and as Private Attorney Generals herewith DEMAND that to enforce e-commerce, that the council, and or City Attorneys at the TABLE have their Laptops for immediate e-commerce communications. If the council refuses/ or ignorance of e-commerce, is no excuse, then Resignations are herewith demanded,JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal magistrate orders White House to confirm e-mail

Click here: mary vaughan former nun st. paul MN - Google Search

Met this great Lady swimming at the Y..........Mary Vaughan still has her convictions

Really made my day to meet her Sharon has been in Jail but never Federal Prision

Mary had a heartache in Prision. God our country has become bizzare?

www.lesliedavis.org Your show on Money to China very interesting Leslie you may want to interview Mary Vaughan former Nun Mary sure is Feisty

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/2008FacciolaOrder.pdf

Bobby of www.ademocracy.blogspot.com thanks for your forensic research

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 07-1577 (HHK/JMF)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Expedited Discovery Requests and to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference ("Motion"), which was referred to me for resolution by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on November 28, 2007.

a. Background

This case involves a claim by plaintiff, the National Security Archive ("the Archive"), that several million email messages have been improperly deleted from White House computer servers. Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief ("Complaint") at 13-14. In its Complaint, filed on September 5, 2007, the Archive seeks "an order requiring the defendants to recover and restore certain electronic communications created and/or received within the White House." Id. at 1.

On October 18, 2007, the Archive requested a meeting with defendants pursuant to Rule 26(f)1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Memorandum in Support of

1 All references to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to the version that became effective December 1, 2007.

Case 1:07-cv-01577-HHK-JMF Document 31 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 4

public service PS got this laptop trying to reconfigure wireless

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Expedited Discovery Requests and to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference ("NSA Mem.") at 4. That rule requires the parties to meet and confer "as soon as practicable" to:

consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1), (2). Six days later, the Archive filed the instant Motion seeking "an order expediting the commencement of discovery and compelling the parties to meet pursuant to Rule 26(f) as soon as possible." Motion at 1.

b. The Motion

The Archive is primarily focused on obtaining answers to "what back-ups of EOP emails still exist and how their preservation is ensured." NSA Mem. at 7. Judge Kennedy answered the latter question when, in a related case, he ordered defendants to preserve all back-ups in the "possess[ion of EOP] or under their custody or control." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") v. Exec. Office of the President, Civil Action No. 07-1707, Order at 2 (Nov. 12, 2007). Pursuant to that order, defendants must "preserve the media under conditions that will permit their eventual use, if necessary, and shall not transfer said media out of their custody or control without leave of this court." Id.

As to the question of "what back-ups of EOP emails still exist," the Archive seeks to determine whether the back-ups now being preserved pursuant to Judge Kennedy’s order contain the several million email messages it alleges have been improperly deleted from White House computer servers. NSA Mem. at 7-9. If the back-ups do not contain this information, the Archive would likely seek to "recover the missing records from

2 This argument is not without merit, as evidenced by a recent decision in which Judge Richard J. Leon dismissed a similar case after holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to prevent the unlawful removal or destruction of records protected by the Federal Records Act. CREW v. U.S. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., No. 06-883, Slip. Op. at 17-18 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2007).

3 See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 31, 46 n.7-8 (D. Conn. 2002) ("‘Slack space’ is the unused space at the logical end of an active file's data and the physical end of the cluster or clusters that are assigned to an active file. Deleted data, or remnants of deleted data can be found in the slack space . . . until it is overwritten by new data.").

to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints other sources, including individual workstations, or through other forensic means." NSA Mem. at 9. That would not come without a fight, however. Defendants have vigorously challenged the standing of the Archive to seek, and the jurisdiction of this court to compel, restoration of electronic records.2 Defendants’ Consolidated Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motions For Leave To Conduct Expedited Discovery And Motion To Compel Rule 26(F) Conference ("Opp.") at 3 ("[w]hether and how restoration efforts will be undertaken is action committed to the administrative scheme"); Defendants’ Consolidated Motion ("Mot. to Dismiss") at 8-14.

c. Conclusion

To the extent that the missing emails are contained on the back-ups preserved pursuant to Judge Kennedy’s order, there is simply no convincing reason to expedite discovery – particularly where, as here, there is a pending motion to dismiss. If the missing emails are not on those back-ups, however, the relief likely to be requested by the Archive will be beyond the scope of the present Motion – and, indeed, beyond the scope of this referral. The request for that relief will also be time-sensitive: emails that might now be retrievable from email account folders or "slack space"3 on individual workstations are increasingly likely to be deleted or overwritten with the passage of time.

It is thus possible that a small amount of information not currently in the record may have a large affect on the resolution of this Motion and the direction of this lawsuit.

- 3 - Case 1:07-cv-01577-HHK-JMF Document 31 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 3 of 4

4 The answers are to be provided by counsel in a sworn declaration within the next five business days.

5 For purposes of these questions, the word "back-up" refers to media, no matter how described, presently in their possession or under their custody or control, that were created with the intention of preserving

data in the event of its inadvertent destruction, and that are being preserved in accordance with Judge Kennedy’s order.

6 See NSA Mem. at 2 ("The White House acknowledged in two April 2007 press conferences that as

many as 5 million emails may be missing."). Id. at 2 n.2 ("Press Release, White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Gaggle by Dana Perino and Dr. Ali Al-Dabbagh, Spokesman for the Government of Iraq (April 13, 2007) (White House spokesperson quoted as saying, ‘I wouldn’t rule out that there were a potential 5 million emails lost’); Press Release, White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Dana Perino (April 16, 2007) (White House spokesperson quoted as saying, ‘we are aware that there could have been some emails that were not automatically archived because of a technical issue’).").

With that understanding, the court will order the defendants to provide answers4 to the following questions:

1. Are the back-ups5 catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the period of time they cover?

2. Are the back-ups catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the data contained therein?

3. Do the back-ups contain emails written and received between 2003-2005?

4. Do the back-ups contain the emails said to be missing6 that are the subject of this lawsuit?

I will proceed to resolve the Motion after receipt of the defendants’ answers.

SO ORDERED.

Date: January 8, 2008 /s/

JOHN M. FACCIOLA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

If the public thinks I'm crazy We have to be crazy to figure these codes?

http://sharon4council.blogspot.com

Will you help to have the city council laptop PC's online at the Table for Strict Scrunity or our Money OATH OF OFFICE CRIMINALLY VIOLATED??

Saint Paul City Council Inaugural Ceremony 2008
	The Saint Paul City Council Inaugural Ceremony was held on January 2, 2008 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Saint Paul. Former Mayor George Latimer was the MC for the event. Reverend Willie Hudson from the Saint Paul Police Department Chaplain Services offered a prayer before Judge Natalie E. Hudson of the Minnesota Court of Appeals administered the Oath of Office to the seven council members. Mayor Chris Coleman was also there for remarks.
	January 3, 2008	00h 30m	More Info	Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player
More Videos...