Russell Weiner

Document Sample
Russell Weiner Powered By Docstoc
					Phil Stimac
1105 Shady Creek Pl.     Danville, CA 94526     775 742 4961

                         April 1, 2010

Russell Weiner
Assistant Acting Chief Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015

    Re: State Bar Complaint

    Member: Howard Miller [No. 31392]

    Violations: Rule 1-120 [Assisting, Soliciting, or
                Inducing Violations of State Bar Rules]

                   Rule 2-400 [Prohibited Discriminatory

                   Rule 3-110 [Failing To Act Competently]

                   Rule 3-210 [Advising The Violation Of Law]

                   Rule 5-220 [Suppression of Evidence], and

                   Title 18 United States Code, Section
                   1951, et. seq [Predicate Acts Of Federal

Dear Mr. Weiner:



     Please find my complaint against the above-named
attorney. Upon his election as President of the State Bar
of California, I began writing Mr. Miller in a good faith
attempt to compel a full and fair investigation of a bogus
disbarment case put on me.

     After ignoring my heartfelt letters which included
undeniable evidence of ethical violations and criminal
wrongdoing by State Bar officials, I was informed by
Assistant Executive Director Robert Hawley that I was to
direct all correspondence to Mr. Miller [and the Board of
Governors] to him.

     As a citizen of the United States of America, I have a
fundamental right to exercise my First Amendment rights
through my blog “”. The First
Amendment also gives me the right to publish information
about the Bar, serve as CEO of the Elite Lawyers and Judges
Whistleblower Network of America and petition my government
and the State Bar for redress of grievances through its
attorney re-in-statement process which is set forth in
State Bar Rule 660.

     Mr. Miller is a person acting under color of state law
and can not deny me due process or equal protection in my
attempts to seek re-instatment.

     In addition to refusing to meet with me, Mr. Hawley
refused to provide the name of the individual who put the
bogus disbarment case on me. Nor would he show me the
complaint, if in fact there is one and my case wasn’t put
together over drinks or on the golf course. Mr. Hawley also
refused to produce documents which will undeniably show
that more that a dozen State Bar complaints I filed against
government and politically-connected State Bar members were
tampered with and dismissed without any investigation. One
such member is Paul Grossman [State Bar No. 98390]. Through
the course of my bogus disbarment, I have filed four com-
plaints against Grossman which were dismissed without any

     This in itself is very revealing as in addition to
being my opposing counsel and federal defendant, Grossman
was the State Bar’s chief witness against me. Notwith-
standing the technical arguments Mr. Hawley [and Assistant
General Counsel Richard Vanassi] made about the Bar’s
exemption from the California Public Records Act, due
process, especially in the face of allegations of a State
Bar conspiracy, clearly demand than an aggrieved member be
provided with the most basic documents which gave rise to
the proceeding against him. Such callousness towards this
fundamental constitutional right reflects the bias of State
Bar Judge Nancy Lonsdale who also denied me the most basic
documents from which I could defend the charges against me
by granting the Bar’s discovery protective order. The
record clearly shows that Judge Lonsdale called opposing
counsel by her first name on the record.

     Mr. Hawley’s obvious cover-up under the direction of
Mr. Miller, resulted in my filing of a State Bar complaint
against him. Further inquiry into discipline irregularities
which are being made public as more State Bar member,
employee and official whistleblowers are coming forward,
including those set forth in the Addington Report clearly
suggest that acts and omissions of Mr. Hawley play a major
role in the ongoing corruption and attempts by the State
Bar to systematically dismantle the United States Con-

     When Mr. Hawley continued to thwart by lawful attempts
to obtain the documents necessary for my Rule 660 re-
instatement, I again attempted to obtain them through Mr.
Miller. Among the many letters he ignored was one which
line-by-line showed him how and why my disbarment summary
in the California Bar Journal and California Lawyer Mag-
azine falsified the facts, law and records of the federal

     As of today’s date, I have also posted more than 140
individual posts on my blog which clearly impose on any
attorney, especially one in Mr. Miller’s position, a duty
to make full and fair inquiry. The fact that instead of
choosing to act like a gentleman and responsible lawyer, he
tried to hide behind Mr. Hawley’s arrogance and incompe-
tence only aggravates his liability exposure.


                       Factual Background

     Paul Grossman, the Bar’s chief witness against me, is
the Regional Civil Rights Attorney for U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Civil Rights [OCR] in San Francisco.
OCR is the federal watchdog agency for the civil rights of
students and teachers at colleges and universities which
receive federal funds. Its mission is to ensure grievance
procedures involving discrimination based on sex, age,
race, physical and mental disability incorporate federal
due process standards.1

     In addition to being a Legal Writing and Research, and
Personal Injury Instructor at a federal recipient college,
I was, in 1992, the co-founder and lawyer for The American
Teachers Legal Defense Fund [ATLDF]. As a result of an
extensive research project and Freedom of Information Act
requests, I discovered that OCR was a phantom agency which
preyed on the intended beneficiaries of the federal
statutes it was funded to enforce.

     The first evidence my research led me to was OCR’s
first congressional oversight hearing at which famed civil
rights leader Joseph Rauh produced a letter from U.S.
Secretary of Education Terrel Bell to Senator Paul Laxalt.
In it, Bell openly admitted he would not enforce the civil
rights laws Congress had enacted for the benefit of Ameri-
ca’s students and teachers because he was “philosophically”
opposed to them.

     Instead of Mr. Grossman, who has made a career at OCR,
responding to my research in a professional manner, he
immediately developed anger, bitterness and resentfulness
towards me and the work I was trying to do for my clients
and ATLDF members. In response to his attempts to destroy
me and ATLDF, I dubbed his agency Office of Civil Frights
which only seemed to intensify his ill will towards me.

     The next item of evidence I confronted Mr. Grossman,
and eventually Mr. Miller with, was findings from further
congressional investigations which show that OCR employees
were involved in a nation-wide scheme of backdating
compliance documents, misleading judges and failing to
investigate civil rights complaints at all, or in
accordance with Title 34.

     By the time I got ATLDF up and running in 1996, still
another OCR congressional oversight hearing confirmed
Grossman’s agency has no policy, employees did not know
what and where agency policy was and its chief officer

 See generally, Title 34 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, which is discussed extensively in State Bar
Complaint No. 96 -0-0749 filed against Grossman prior to my disbarment. Please note, I will provide
copies of all relevant documents, authorities and transcripts of legislative hearings when we meet as part of
your investigation.
“smeared” the beneficiaries of the federal statutes, and
others who attempted to obtain policy. At the same hearing,
Senator Paul Simon called OCR “a tragedy” and Senator Ted
Kennedy accused it of being “remiss” in it’s enforcement of
the civil rights of students and teachers.


             Miller Is Violating Rule 5-220 By
                    Suppressing Evidence

     “The right to practice law is a valuable one which
should not be taken away or cancelled under circumstances
that have even the slightest tendency to suggest any
possible unfairness or disadvantage therein to the attorney
whose right to remain in his profession is challenged.”
[Neblett vs. State Bar [1941] 17 Cal 2d. 77, 81].

     Any obligation Miller has to protect the reputation of
the State Bar and defend it from litigation is pre-empted
by his own obligations as a State Bar member under the
Rules of Professional Conduct and the rights of members
under the U.S. Constitution.

    Miller is suppressing the following evidence:

    1] No client or ATLDF member filed a complaint which
       set my disbarment proceedings in motion;

    2] There is a written complaint, notes of a phone
       message, or perhaps scribbling on the back of a
       golf scorecard which is evidence of the initiation
       of the bogus case against me;

    3] Some evidence exists that either the judge I sued
       under RICO for letting the government steal my in-
       criminating pleadings from the courthouse or other
       identifiable person initiated my disbarment pro-

    4] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
       other evidence of the secret meetings and communi-
       cations which had to have taken place for Office of
       Trial Counsel to have been able to put their case
       against me together;
 5] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
    cations between Miller and Office of Trial Counsel
    since Miller’s term as State Bar President began;

 6] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
    cations between Miller, State Bar officials, at-
    torneys and employees AND members of the Board of
    Governors and other past and present Bar officals
    since Miller’s term as State Bar President began;

 7] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
    cations between Miller, State Bar officials, at-
    torneys and employees AND state agencies, em-
    ployees and officials, including the Office of the
    State Attorney General since Miller’s term as State
    Bar President began;

 8] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
    cations between Miller, State Bar officials, at-
    torneys and employees AND federal agencies, em-
    ployees and officials, including the Office of the
    U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Calif-
    ornia since Miller’s term as State Bar President

 9] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
    cations between Miller, State Bar officials, at-
    torneys AND city and county agencies, employees and
    officials, including the Office of San Jose Mayor
    Chuck Reed and Office of Santa Clara County Counsel
    since Miller’s term as State Bar President began;

10] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
    cations between Miller, State Bar officials, at-
    torneys AND employees, agents and officers of
    California Bar Journal, The Daily Journal, Inc.,
    and David Houston.

11] Memos, notes, phone records, correspondence and
    other evidence of secret meetings and communi-
   cations between Miller, State Bar officials, at-
   torneys AND any other individual or entity about,
   concerning or mentioning “Phil Stimac,”
   “theeliteones” or “The Elite Lawyers and Judges
   Whistleblower Network of America”;

12] State Bar Court case records which would be rel-
    evant under the Federal Rules of Evidence to show
    it is the habit, custom and business practice of
    the State Bar Court and/or Office of Trial Counsel
    to discriminate against, deny due process and
    equal protection or put bogus discipline cases on
    solo and small firm State Bar members;

13] Any document in the custody and control of the
    State Bar of California which names or references
    The Addington Report or would be relevant in any
    federal court proceeding to show that former State
    Bar employees, officers and lawyers have or are in
    the process of blowing the whistle on corruption,
    ex parte communications, overcharging and the
    fixing of cases in the State Bar Court.

13] Any document in the custody and control of the
    State Bar of California which would be relevant in
    any federal court proceeding to show that State
    Bar Court officials including Hon. Lucy Armendariz
    and Prosecutor Jeff Dal Cerro have engaged in ex
    parte communications with State Bar lawyers out-
    side the presence of State Bar members being dis-

14] Any document in the custody and control of the
    State Bar of California which would be relevant in
    any federal court proceeding to show that State
    Bar Judge Jack Platel worked on one discipline
    case both as prosecutor and judge;

15] Various complaints and correspondence from me
    concerning my bogus disbarment which were never
    investigated nor responded to by the State Bar.

16] It will be necessary for me to amend this list
    prior to the issuance of your final ruling.

             Miller Is Violating Rule 1-120 By
            Assisting, Soliciting, And Inducing
              Violations of State Bar Rules By
           Hawley, Vanassi And Others He Is And
            Has Been Communicating With As Part
                Of The Conspiracy Against Me

     Rule 1-120 provides that a member shall not knowingly
assist in, solicit, or induce any violation of these rules
or the State Bar Act.

     As discussed in State Bar Complaint 96-0-07049,
Grossman was mandated by Title 34 to follow the federal
grievance procedures. In addition to the other findings of
dereliction against OCR, Grossman’s San Francisco office
had signed off California Community Colleges for submitting
their annual civil rights reports when none had been filed.

     Because he knew he would be the fall guy in the U.S.
Department of Education, he devised a scheme to destroy me
and ATLDF by sending a low level attorney to my college to
smear me. Then he sabotaged the case of every ATLDF member
and conspired with Office of Trial Counsel to put the bogus
disbarment case on me. I reviewed my file at the Bar’s Los
Angeles headquarters on March 29, 2010 and these facts are
clear from Complaint No. 96-0-07049.

     By passing my case on to subordinates and conspiring
with others, Miller is assisting, soliciting and inducing
violations of Title 34, my 1st and 5th Amendment rights
discussed supra, and the Rules of the State Bar Court and
the RICO and other federal statutes.

     Like his defense in his partner Tom Girardi’s banana
case, Miller can’t, after gaining knowledge and failing to
act on wrongdoing, skirt responsibility under Rule 1-120 by
claiming lack of knowledge.

             Miller Is Violating Rule 3-210 By
               Advising Violation Of The Law

     Rule 3-210 provides that a member “shall not advise
the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal
unless the member believes in good faith that such law,
rule, or ruling is invalid.”

     It is well established that liability under civil,
criminal and administrative laws arises from omissions as
well as overt acts. After reviewing the evidence of a far-
reaching conspiracy running up and down the organizational
structure of the corporation he heads up, Miller passed it
down to Hawley and Vanassi. Their attempts to bury it not
only backfired, but have made it necessary for the appoint-
ment of a Special Counsel to investigate their alleged
violations of Rules of Professional Conduct.

     But for the fact that Miller’s alleged co-conspirator
U.S. Joseph Russoniello has a State Bar complaint pending
against him for his dereliction, the U.S. Department of
Justice is balking on a full and fair investigation.

     This case is not unlike Miller’s alleged attempt to
pin his banana case liability on a first year lawyer. No
matter how hard he tries however, the incriminating posts
on my blog, coupled with the almost daily emails and other
correspondence I have sent him make him liable under Rule


           Miller Is Failing To Act Competently
                     Under Rule 3-110

    The competence standard under Rule 3-110 is defined as

         1) diligence,
         2) learning and skill, and
         3) mental, emotional, and physical ability.
     It would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest
that Howard Miller has not personally handled enough legal
files not to be able to smell one that reeks with cor-

     Let’s assume for the sake of analysis he knows nothing
about the bias and corruption in the State Bar; the special
treatment given to elite lawyers like himself and Tom
Girardi; the fact that State Bar members have rights to due
process and equal protection and to make fair criticism of
his policies and management, that these rights apply to the
re-instatement process; he can’t distinguish between a
client complaint against a bad attorney and the ambush of a
good one by a team of rogue opposing counsel with pending
Bar complaints against them arising from the same litiga-
tion; he honestly believes the public is being protected by
letting government lawyers steal pleadings from the court-
house or throwing Richard Fine in the slammer for taking
the type of cases he and other “Super Lawyers” run away
from, sneaks bills through the Legislature which per-
petuates the fraud he oversees; can bury truckloads of
complaints against elite, government and politically-
connected State Bar members or thinks he has the absolute
right to destroy lives, families and careers as he is doing
with so many State Bar members.

     Rule 3-110 would still require him to study, associate
competent professionals or withdraw from the case.


           Miller Is Engaging In Discriminatory
           Practices In Violation Of Rule 2-400

     Howard Miller is an attorney employed in a corporation
which employs members to practice law. Under Rule 2-400, he
may not knowingly permit, ie. fail to advocate corrective
action when he knows of a discriminatory policy or practice
which results in unlawful discrimination.

     Through my bogus disbarment, thousands of senior and
disabled students and teachers suffered loss of jobs and
impairments of their health. Afro-Americans in Santa Clara
County were framed to cover up police and prosecutorial
corruption [see The George Kennedy Papers on my blog].
     Now a decade after my disbarment, Miller is actively
resisting my rights to be re-instated through discrimina-
tory policies, practices and retroactive enactments which
violate the Americans With Disabilities Act and other
federal statutes.



     The nature and scope of Mr. Miller’s malicious and
egregious fraud and failures demand we meet in person so I
can present additional documents, including medical
evidence which substantiates the ongoing effects a bogus
disbarment has on the health of a good lawyer trying to do
good things in the type of evil system Mr. Miller oversees.

                              Very truly yours,


                              PHIL STIMAC

Shared By: