1 PATRICIA J.

BARRY, MICHELE FOTINOS, RACHEL FOTINOS

634 S. Spring St., Ste 823
2 Los Angeles, Ca 90014
Tele. (213) 995-0734
3 Fax (213) 995-0735
[email protected]
4 Plaintiffs pro se
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 PATRICIA J. BARRY, RACHEL CASE NO.
10 FOTINOS, MICHELE FOTINOS,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
11 Plaintiffs, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF, AND ATTORNEY FEES
12 v. AND COSTS

13 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

VICTORIA HENLEY in her official 1. Anti-Trust Violations (Secs. 1
14 capacity as DIRECTOR, and 2, Sherman Act)
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
15 PERFORMANCE; UNNAMED
UNKNOWN MEMBER OF
16 CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL,
(in her/his individual capacity)
17 UNNAMED UNKNOWN STATE
BAR EMPLOYEE (in her/his
18 individual capacity), JAMES FOX (in
his individual capacity), BRANDON
19 TADY (in his individual capacity),
ERIN JOYCE (in her individual
20 capacity), LUCY ARMENDARIZ (in
her individual capacity),JAIME
21 SAUCEDO (in his individual capacity),
JOSEPH DUNN (in his individual
22 capacity), MUNGER, TOLLES, &
OLSON, A LAW FIRM, MIRIAM
23 KRINSKY (in her individual capacity),
JOHN FOTINOS, ROBERT FOILES
24 (in his individual capacity), BONNIE
MILLER, STEVE WAGSTAFFE (in
25 his individual capacity), STEPHEN
MONTALVO, PATRICIA ROMA,
26 BETSY KIMBALL, DOES 1 - 10,

27 Defendants.

28

1
 1 2. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -
Conspiracy Based on Free
2 Speech Retaliation; Denial of
Access to Court
3
3. 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 - Violation
4 of Free Speech per Keller v.
State Bar of California
5
4. 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 - Fourteenth
6 Amendment - Commission on
Judicial Performance’s Denial of
7 Due Process
8 5. California Constitution
(Cal. Const. Art. I, sec. 7) -
9 Commission on Judicial
Performance’s Denial of Due
10 Process
11 6. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -Fourteenth
Amendment due process - Denial
12 of Attorney Right to Practice
Law and Denial of Right of
13 Client to Attorney
Representation
14
7. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -Fourteenth
15 Amendment due process - Denial
of Right to Bodily and Emotional
16 Integrity
17 8. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -Fourteenth
Amendment due process -
18 “stigma-plus” defamation
19 9. Violation of Article 1, Sec.28(b)
& ( c), Crime Victims Bill of
20 Rights, California Constitution
21 10. Fraud
22 11. Child abuse (assault and battery,
intentional infliction of emotional
23 distress, stalking, harassment)
24 JURY DEMAND
25
26
27
28

2
 1 PARTIES

2 12. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA is a public corporation operating under the laws

3 of California, in particular the State Bar Act. The Bar is sued for repeated violations of the anti-
4 trust laws, in particular, the Sherman anti-trust Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs 1 and 2, for violation of
5 Barry’s First Amendment rights in accordance with Keller v. State Bar of California, and for a
6 declaratory judgment also under the First Amendment for violating the free speech rights of all
7 three plaintiffs. The Bar is sued for repeated misappropriation of Bar dues. The Bar is also sued
8 for its illegal relationship with the San Mateo Defendants. All claims are based upon a common
9 nucleus of operative facts, and the entire action constitutes a single case that would ordinarily be
10 tried in one judicial proceeding.
11 13. DEFENDANT VICTORIA HENLEY is sued in her official capacity per Ex Parte

12 Young seeking injunctive relief against the CJP for its failure to prosecute J. Karesh when
13 Michele’s complaint with the CJP established a prima facie case that J. Karesh and J. Freeman had
14 engaged in criminal obstruction of justice.
15 14. UNNAMED UNKNOWN STATE BAR EMPLOYEE who drafted and placed on

16 Barry’s internet Bar Profile a description of the discipline related to the Elwood matter is sued in
17 her individual capacity in the course and scope of her employment for violating Barry’s due
18 process rights by committing defamation resulting in stigma plus.
19 15. Fox is the president of the Bar Board of Trustees who is sued in his individual

20 capacity for damages for violating Barry’s, Michele’s, and Rachel’s right to free speech. He is
21 also sued for misappropriating dues of the members to hire Alfred Giannini his former deputy
22 prosecutor assumedly on a no bid contract when he knew Giannini was guilty of repeated
23 prosecutorial misconduct
24 16. Barry also seeks a declaratory judgment that given Fox’s misconduct as a

25 prosecutor, he is unfit to serve in any position with the Bar. The declaratory judgment is the only
26 remedy available to those who want him removed from the Bar. The Bar misappropriated bar
27 dues to investigate Fox based on a complaint a member of the public filed against him for the sole
28 purpose of covering up his misconduct. Barry seeks reimbursement of member dues from the Bar

3
 1 for the fees related to the sham investigation of Fox.
2 17. BRANDON TADY is the bar prosecutor on the Elwood matter. Barry sues Tady

3 in his individual capacity for damages and for a declaratory judgment.

4 18. JOYCE is also sued in her individual capacity for a declaratory judgment for Barry

5 to present to the Bar so that Joyce will be prosecuted for unethically pursuing a case she knew she
6 could not prevail on. She is also sued for damages.
7 19. J. Armendariz is sued in her individual capacity for forcing Barry to attend the trial

8 rather than continue it when Armendariz knew that Barry was ill and in her 70's. She did not set a
9 realistic trial date knowing Barry’s circumstances. She is sued for violating Barry’s right to bodily
10 and emotional integrity.
11 20. Dunn is sued in his former individual capacity as the former Executive Director.

12 According to a “confidential” report which the Los Angeles Times obtained and made public,
13 Dunn spent $5,600 of the members dues on a dinner at the restaurant owned by Mark Geragos,
14 his attorney. Barry seeks reimbursement of the $5,600 plus interest from Dunn.
15 21. Dunn’s misconduct and other scandals of the Bar has caused Golden Gate

16 University law professor Peter Keane to remark, “‘The bar is just further descending into a banana
17 republic,.... It is totally dysfunctional and should be unraveled.’" Los Angeles Times internet
18 article dated December 6, 2014 written by Maura Nolan entitled “Accusations Fly as State Bar of
19 California Leader Joe Dunn Fights Ouster”.
20 22. MIRIAM KRINSKY is sued in her individual capacity as a former Board of

21 Trustees member. Barry sues her to recover the $300,000 paid by the members to a firm she has
22 ties to, Munger, Tolles, and Olsen plus interest because on information and belief, she sought the
23 firm’s appointment for the purpose of investigating Dunn solely on her recommendation and
24 without competition in violation of anti trust laws. A judge had offered to conduct the
25 investigation pro bono. It is not known without discovery whether Krinsky received a kickback
26 from Munger.
27 23. DEFENDANT MUNGER, TOLLES, AND OLSON (“Munger Tolles”) is sued

28 because it charged an excessive fee to the Bar. On behalf of the members, Barry seeks restitution

4
 1 and reimbursement plus interest of the excessive fee charged by the firm. Three attorneys of the
2 firm charged members $800 an hour. Non attorney professional investigators could have handled
3 the investigation at $200/hr. See First Amended Complaint, Dunn v. State Bar of California,
4 filed April 29, 2015, pp.13-14, paras 52-55.
5 24. Miller is sued for fraud and for violating the rights of Rachel.

6 25. J. Fotinos is the father of Rachel and Austin and the ex-husband of Michele. He is

7 sued first to obtain the restitution owed Michele and Rachel for the crimes, threats of violence,
8 and violence he committed against them pursuant to Article 1, Sec.28(b) & ( c), Crime Victims
9 Bill of Rights, California Constitution. Second, Michele also sues for a judgment for spousal and
10 child support and for the arrearages of spousal support/sanctions which J. Fotinos refuses to pay.
11 Third, he is also sued for the continuing child abuse he had inflicted on Rachel, the last of which
12 was that he stalked her in his truck causing Michele and Rachel to immediately vacate their
13 apartment and go into hiding. They remain in hiding because of their fear that J. Fotinos will kill
14 or cause them grave bodily harm. Finally he is sued for the conspiracy he engaged in with Miller
15 to deprive Rachel of her family relationship with her mother.
16 26. JUDGE ROBERT FOILES (“J. Foiles”) is a San Mateo judge who is sued in his

17 individual capacity for denying Michele and Rachel all access to the San Mateo Court, because he
18 will not rule on Barry’s requests in which she must pretend she is the VL seeking to file court
19 documents on her own behalf when the documents are on behalf of Michele, including for
20 restraining orders against J. Fotinos and Grover, to enforce spousal and child support and the
21 judgment for arrearages in spousal support/sanctions J. Fotinos owes Michele, to obtain a wage
22 garnishment on J. Fotinos’ tax-free pension paid for by the taxpayers. He is also sued for entering
23 into an anti trust conspiracy with Fox and other members of the Bar to harass and disbar Barry
24 and to deny Michele all access to the Court and then put her in prison.
25 27. WAGSTAFFE is sued in his individual capacity as District Attorney of San Mateo

26 for violating the free speech rights of Barry, Michele, and Rachel. He entered into a conspiracy
27 with Fox, J. Foiles, and J. Foiles’ obedient judges (Parsons, Cretan, Mallich, etc.), Fox, and
28 Munks to deprive Barry of her bar card, to deprive Michele and Rachel of all their rights as crime

5
 1 victims, and to put Michele in prison.
2 28. Montalvo is an attorney still practicing in San Mateo. He caused grave harm to

3 Michele and her children because of his legal malpractice. He is sued for his perjury in obtaining a
4 false summary judgment in the lawsuit in which Barry sued him. Montalvo swore that there was a
5 child support order against Michele when he knew that to be false. His perjury in the legal
6 malpractice lawsuit was a continuation of his fraud on Michele in the underlying family law case
7 telling her there was an order of child support entered against her when such an order was never
8 entered until years later, at the trial on division of community property. Plaintiffs also seek a
9 declaratory judgment that Montalvo engaged in ethical violations. His misconduct in the family
10 law case and then in the legal malpractice case tainted and infected the Bar prosecution on his
11 behalf.
12 29. PATRICIA ROMA (“Roma”) is an attorney practicing in San Mateo. She is sued

13 for damages for her perjury in helping Montalvo obtain a false summary judgment in the legal
14 malpractice lawsuit Barry filed against Montalvo. She made the same false claim in the underlying
15 family law case when she represented J. Fotinos, falsely alleging that there was a child support
16 order against Michele when she knew that to be false. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
17 Roma engaged in ethical violations as well as damages. The Bar has ratified her fraud and her
18 perjury. Her misconduct tainted and infected the Bar prosecution on his behalf.
19 30. Kimball is the attorney who defended Montalvo in the malpractice lawsuit, she

20 suborned the perjury of Montalvo and Roma in seeking summary judgment on the issue of
21 whether there was a child support order entered against Michele, she colluded with the bar to
22 bring a malicious prosecution against Barry for nonpayment of discovery sanctions when she had
23 offered to waive the sanctions, when she knew that the judgment of dismissal did not merge the
24 sanctions orders into the judgment and thus were no longer in existence, and when she ceased all
25 enforcement action against Barry after the judgment omitting the sanctions orders was entered.
26 She is sued for damages.
27 31. Kimball, like Montalvo, is a market participant preferred by the Bar over Barry

28 because she is a Bar insider. The Bar appointed her to serve on the legal malpractice insurance

6
 1 committee in 2012. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Kimball engaged in ethical
2 violations.
3 32. UNNAMED UNKNOWN MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL

4 is sued in her/his individual capacity for disseminating the VL list with Michele’s and Barry’s
5 names on it as VL’s when it is factually and legally impossible for Michele and Barry to be VL’s
6 thus defaming them. San Mateo Judge Karesh and Judge Freeman had illegally declared the two
7 women VL’s in November 2012.
8 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times herein

9 mentioned defendants Unnamed Unknown Judicial Council Employee, Unnamed, Unknown State
10 Bar Employee, J. Fotinos, Fox, Wagstaffe, Munks (NOT sued), J. Foiles, Grover (NOT sued),
11 Miller, Kinney (NOT sued), Karlsten (NOT sued), Aaron Riechert (NOT sued), Kimball,
12 Montalvo, Roma, Saucedo, Joyce, and Tady were the agents of one another.
13 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times herein

14 defendants Unnamed, Unknown State Bar Employee, Fox, Joyce, Tady, J. Armendariz, Saucedo,
15 Krinsky, and Dunn were employees or officials of the Bar, and in doing the things herein alleged,
16 were acting within the scope of his/her agency and/or employment with the Bar.
17 35. Defendants DOE 1 through DOE 10, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious

18 names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs. When their true names and
19 capacities are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and
20 capacities herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each of the
21 fictitiously-named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged,
22 and that Plaintiffs' damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those unnamed,
23 unknown Doe defendants.
24
25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Applies to Barry, Michele, Rachel and to
26 Bar, Tady, Joyce, Saucedo, Fox, Wagstaffe, J. Foiles, J. Fotinos, Kimball,
Dunn, Krinsky, Munger, Tolles, & Olson, – Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs 1 &
27 2
36. Plaintiffs incorporate into this First Cause of Action paras 1 - 815 as if fully
28
incorporated herein.

7
 1 A. The Failure of the Supreme Court to Supervise the Bar.
37. The purpose of the Sherman anti-trust Act is to insure that there is no restraint of
2
trade, to maintain competition in business and commerce, and to prohibit monopolies. It was also
3
enacted because the trusts and monopolies which had sprung up at the time (and expanded so that
4
today corporate power is greater than it has ever been, with corporations claiming they hold
5
religious beliefs of the kind that deprive women and LGBT members their civil rights) “...fanned
6
into renewed flame a traditional U.S. fear and hatred of unchecked power, whether political or
7
economic, and particularly of monopolies that ended or threatened equal opportunity for all
8
businesses.” Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Legal- dictionary. thefreedictionary.com
9
38. The Bar engages in interstate commerce in that it has prosecuted attorneys based
10
on their ethical violations committed in other states. The Bar refuses to prosecute Robert Singer
11
who practices law without a license which also affects interstate commerce and competition in
12
several states because he has offices in Nevada and Arizona in addition to California.
13
39. The Bar has become an unrestrained monopoly with no supervision or
14
accountability. There is no question that its mission – protection of the public from dishonest and
15
unethical attorneys – is a legitimate mission. There is no question that it exists as a Government
16
corporation exercising a state monopoly over attorney discipline.
17
40. However, the Bar has morphed into an out-of-control Tammany Hall protecting
18
Bar Insiders no matter how unethical or dishonest they are, and prosecuting ethical and honest
19
attorneys. The Bar routinely enters into agreements with attorneys like Miller, Kinney, Kimball,
20
Montalvo, Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon and judges like J. Anello and J. Foiles to harass and/or
21
prosecute those attorneys’ opposing counsel to eliminate the opposing counsel from competition.
22
The Bar routinely supports misconduct which the State has declared to be illegal, including
23
racism, sexism, pedophilia, and other child abuse.
24
41. The California Supreme Court is supposed to control both admissions and attorney
25
discipline (including suspension and disbarment).Saleeby v. State Bar (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 557-
26
58 The Court’s control over these issues is supposed to be absolute. (Ibid.)The State Bar of
27
California is supposed to act as the Court’s administrative arm for purposes of admission,
28
discipline, and regulation of attorneys. [Citations]. The State Bar Court does not actually impose

8
 1 any discipline. [Citations.] Its recommendations are subject to review by this Court, which makes
2 the actual and final disciplinary decision. (Id. at pp. 443-45.) Bar’s Opening Brief, Barry v. State
3 Bar of California, Case No.S214058, pp.4-5.
4 42. The Court has repeatedly failed to intervene and stop the illegal practices of the

5 Bar, including anti-competitive practices. The Bar’s illegal practices have repeatedly resulted in
6 harm to the public. There is no government agency supervising the attorneys running the bar
7 including those who are not employees like Girardi, Falk, and Brosnahan to name a few.
8 B. General Anti Competition Activities Including Investigating and Prosecuting
Attorneys on Behalf of Other Attorneys, Thus Using Member Dues to
9 Reduce Competition.
43. The Bar’s officials and employees have repeatedly endangered the public by
10
engaging in an anti-competitive practice of favoring certain market participants.
11
44. The Bar harms competition among market participants and has caused grave harm
12
to the public by excluding the class of minors counsel from investigation and discipline, excusing
13
them from having to follow the rules of professional responsibility and obeying the State Bar Act
14
while forcing other market participants – not all – to submit to discipline and to obey rules of
15
ethics and the State Bar Act.
16
45. By specifically refusing to discipline Miller, LaFlamme, Lawrence, and Acevedo
17
the Bar caused severe harm to the children these attorneys were representing. Other minors
18
counsel who have caused harm to mothers and children are Steven Dragna (Kirsten Cook case);
19
Molly Nealson (Jennifer Hebert case); Dwanna Willis (Yolanda Cuesta case); Lucila Chairez
20
(Chan Park case).
21
46. The Bar engages in anti competition by favoring unethical attorneys to the
22
detriment of ethical members including LaFlamme, Lawrence, Miller, and Acevedo, Girardi, Lack,
23
Sternberg (nominal discipline), Krause, Henning (nominal discipline), Drescher, Lauzon, Zide,
24
Keck (eventually disbarred but only years later after his misconduct) who are all a danger to the
25
public. The Bar prosecutes attorneys like Fine, Kay, Barry, Martin, Lustman, and others who are
26
ethical, and who further the public interest, not endanger it.
27
47. By allowing Singer to practice law without a license the Bar is engaging in a
28
prohibited anti competition practice, is ratifying Singer’s repeated violation of the UPL statute

9
 1 and is thus acting against the public interest, resulting in harm to attorneys and to the public in
2 California, Nevada, and Arizona.
3 48. The Bar refuses to apply the statutory law regarding judgments such as Code of

4 Civ Proced Secs 1904 (definition of judicial record); 1908 (effect of a judgment); 1908.5
5 (conclusive judgment can be alleged in pleading or as evidence); 1911 (only what appears in
6 judgment deemed to have been adjudged); 1916 (impeaching a record); 1917 (need jurisdiction
7 over cause, parties, and the thing); doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and real case
8 law to benefit Bar Insiders like Girardi, Lack, Krause, Acevedo, Henning, and Drescher and to
9 harm Bar Outsiders like Martin, Kay, Barry, Fine, and others.
10 49. The Bar has harmed the public, in particular parents and children, by maintaining

11 the secrecy of the JNE Commission, controlling the appointments of those who rate attorneys,
12 and recommending attorneys not because they are exceptionally well qualified but because they
13 are Bar Insiders, for example, Towery, Fujie, Dufficy, Adams, Persky, Karesh, Cunningham.
14 These seven attorneys went on as judges to cause grave harm to mothers, sometimes fathers, and
15 children.
16 JUDGE POLITICAL CONNECTIONS
17 JAMES TOWERY White male, corporate attorney - Hoge,
Fenton, Appel, (e.g., defends employers
18 against workers.); Bar president; Bar Counsel
19 HOLLY FUJIE Asian female, corporate attorney - Buchalter/
Nemer, (e.g., defends employers against
20 workers.); Bar president
MICHAEL DUFFICY White male, comes from extremely wealthy
21 family, practiced many years in Marin and
active in Marin bar associations, worked two
22 years as a Marin prosecutor; bought his
appointment to the bench by making large
23 donations to Deukmejian campaign after he
tried twice to be elected to the bench and
24 failed.
25
26
27
28

10

10
 1 VERNA ADAMS White female, close friend of Dufficy,
notorious reputation as corrupt family law
2 attorney in Marin who always won her cases
before her good friend Dufficy in part because
3 she hired Dufficy’s wife to work in her law
office which neither Dufficy nor Adams
4 disclosed to opposing attorney and her client.
On information and belief, Adams was
5 appointed to the bench due to Dufficy’s
influence with the Commission.
6
JONATHAN KARESH White male, son of a superior court judge,
7 corporate attorney (brief period), prosecutor
(most of his career). Fox, then San Mateo
8 District Attorney and Karesh’s boss, made
sure to get himself appointed to a local
9 committee recommending attorneys for
appointment to the bench. Thus, it was Fox
10 who put Karesh on the bench.
11 DAVID CUNNINGHAM Black male. Came from a wealthy, politically
connected family. His father had served as a
12 Los Angeles City Councilperson. Only
appointee with civil rights background as
13 attorney which he promptly forgot when he
took the bench.
14 AARON PERSKY White male. Could not get elected to the
bench. Prosecutor and also worked as
15 corporate attorney, Morrison & Foerster,
(Craig who prosecuted Barry also a M&F
16 partner.) So, Persky called in his M&F
connections to the Bar and the Bar put him on
17 the bench where he continues to inflict harm
on female and child victims of sexual and
18 domestic violence.
19 50. Two of the seven, or twenty-nine percent were Bar officials. Fifty-six percent of

20 these political appointees had worked as corporate attorneys; fifty-six percent had been
21 prosecutors; and fifty-six percent were white males. Eighty-six percent had no legal experience
22 in plaintiffs civil rights cases (Assumedly J. Cunningham filed civil rights lawsuits as U.S.
23 Attorney in U.S. DOJ civil rights division). All seven of them have badly mistreated victims of
24 domestic violence and their abused children. J. Cunningham also refused to remedy the virulent
25 race/national origin discrimination Farraj experienced resulting in limited supervised visitation for
26 him and his children.
27 51. This sample proves that the JNE Commission favors a certain kind of attorney for

28 the bench, 56% of the time a white male corporate attorney or prosecutor. This particular group

11

11
 1 appears to be the most dangerous to victims of domestic violence and their abused children. The
2 Commission is unconstitutional because it is not serving the public but only Bar Insiders.
3 52. By choosing to prosecute Fine, Kay, Martin, and Barry, the Bar chose to champion

4 the interests of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges receiving illegal payments from the County
5 thus robbing the public fisc and endangering the public in the Fine case; the interests of a judge
6 and Ralph’s corporate attorneys in the Kay case, the interests of the corrupt white attorney
7 Michael Keck in the Martin case, and the interests of a corrupt judge, J. Adams, of violent men,
8 Magers, Morin, and J. Fotinos, of an illegally appointed public member on the Board of
9 Governors, Chick, and of two unethical attorneys Drescher and Montalvo in Barry’s case.
10 53. The Bar also illegally worked with the San Mateo cabal to disbar Barry and

11 prosecute Michele. To carry out this conspiracy, the Bar/Fox agreed not to prosecute San Mateo
12 attorneys, including Montalvo, Miller, Karlsten and her law firm, Aaron Reichert, Wagstaffe, and
13 McKowan, despite all of them engaging in gross acts of unethical misconduct against Michele, her
14 children, and Michele’s mother with the exclusion of McKowan who harmed children other than
15 Rachel and Austin in child sex abuse cases she was supposed to prosecute.
16 54. When Saucedo forced Barry to defend two frivolous complaints filed by the

17 violent felon, J. Fotinos, the first one based on the flier which resulted in getting J. Fotinos
18 arrested and his arsenal of weapons and fire power confiscated, and the second, the illegal, void,
19 and unconstitutional order of J. Karesh and J. Freeman making Michele and Barry VL’s the Bar
20 caused severe harm to Barry, Michele, Austin, Rachel, and Esther, Michele’s mother. The Bar
21 also endangers the public because J. Fotinos is a violent felon who had hidden a huge number of
22 guns and ammo in his wife’s storage locker and involved his children in hiding them. J. Fotinos
23 remains a threat to the safety of residents in the Bay Area given his history of instability, his
24 access to guns, and the support the Bar and the San Mateo judiciary, District Attorney, and
25 Sheriffs (both Munks and Bolanos) give to him signaling to him he can continue to commit crime.
26 For the Bar to spend money on Saucedo’s and other Bar employees’ salaries to support J. Fotinos
27 creates a danger to the public and violates California public policy.
28 55. The Bar committed additional anti trust violations spending dues on investigating

12

12
 1 the complaints of unethical attorneys Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon, all white males, and who all
2 pose a danger to the public, to taxpayers, to consumers preyed on by a parasitic corporation, and
3 to Arab muslims.
4 56. The Bar has engaged in a pattern of racism in the following ways:

5 A. 21 of 27 bar presidents in the last 27 years have all been white males, many

6 of them in corporate law firms.

7 B. Four of the seven Trial Counsel were white males including Scott Drexel

8 and Towery and the two men who preceded Judy Johnson. Judy Johnson

9 is either a black female or white. Nisperos is assumedly a Latino male.

10 Barry contends he was put there by a wealthy white male bar Insider,

11 Girardi and did his bidding. Barry contends that Kim, an Asian female, was

12 heavily influenced by Fox, a white male. Fox survived the purge (the

13 uproar over Dunn termination) but Kim, the Asian female, is gone.

14 C. The Board of Trustees is 81% white at this time since the right of attorneys

15 to vote for members has been significantly reduced. Attorneys support

16 diversity more than the Court, the governor, and legislators do.

17 D. The Bar has been paying attorney fees in a no-bid contract to

18 Kerr/Wagstaffe law firm for many years, thus subsidizing an all white,

19 male-dominated law firm. The Kerr/Wagstaffe firm is also thwarting the

20 public will by filing a lawsuit to bar the State Auditor from reviewing

21 complaints against judges, another reason why members should not be

22 forced to pay fees to the firm.

23 E. The Bar hired, and the Court appointed, Fox to positions giving him

24 control over Bar discipline. He supported two prosecutors, Wagstaffe and

25 Giannini who engaged in racial discrimination against potential black

26 jurors, and as a result, the jury verdicts were reversed. Wagstaffe may

27 have also discriminated against a black criminal defendant by engaging in

28 adverse pretrial publicity while under Fox’s supervision. Wagstaffe

13

13
 1 received a private reproval for this misconduct. Giannini is considered by

2 the former director of Northern California Innocence Project as the poster

3 boy for prosecutorial misconduct. Fox rewarded Giannini by using member

4 dues to “train” Bar prosecutors. Further, Fox is protecting San Mateo

5 attorneys Kinney, Miller, Montalvo, Wagstaffe, McKowan, Karlsten,

6 and Aaron Reichert from Bar prosecution and discipline.

7 F. Danielle Lee, an attorney for the Bar has twice defended the right of the

8 Bar in court filings to use the racial epithet, “Nigger” against Martin, a

9 black attorney, claiming that since the racial epithet was uttered during a

10 disciplinary proceeding (It was not, but even if it were, Lee’s position is

11 racist), the Bar is protected by the free speech clause of the First

12 Amendment. Besides, Lee argued, the racist epithet has long been

13 tolerated in our society. Furthermore, Lee argued, Martin must pay

14 attorney fees to the Bar for suing the Bar for calling him the “N” word,

15 although the epithet is historically associated with violence and torture

16 against, and murder of, black people including a child, Emmett Till.

17 G. The Bar and J. Armendariz disbarred Martin, the black attorney who was

18 trying to help Perez, the Latina client, rather than the white attorney

19 Michael Keck who had been stealing from Perez and other clients.

20 H. The Bar through Saucedo engaged in anti-Muslim prejudice by 1) harassing

21 Barry and making her defend a false complaint filed by Lauzon, a white

22 attorney, who alleged that Barry’s motion to strike reports of Harshman, a

23 racist therapist, who openly discriminated against Farraj, an Arab

24 Palestinian Muslim parent, was frivolous.

25 2) protecting and refusing to discipline Lauzon who harassed and made a

26 death threat against Farraj because he was an Arab Palestinian Muslim.

27 57. The Bar has also taken the side of two violent attorneys, Henning who had

28 engaged in violence twice, the second time beating up a rabbi and his friend, and Krause who

14

14
 1 engaged in child abuse. Remke suspended Henning on his second conviction only 60 days,
2 claimed he had not engaged in crimes of moral turpitude, and did not order restitution to his
3 victim. Krause was not disciplined at all.
4 58. Tady engaged in anti competition by forcing Barry to take Ethics School and 4

5 live units of ethics when no other disciplined attorney had to do both based on a review of 60
6 cases before Barry’s discipline and after it. Tady further sabotaged Barry by not informing her
7 that the class he taught, the trust account class, could count for three live ethics units. Tady stated
8 to Bar employees that Barry has a history of filing frivolous complaints or lawsuits demonstrating
9 his ill will and malice towards Barry. Tady committed these malicious acts in order to disbar
10 Barry, thus ridding the market of a competitor on behalf of unethical attorneys like Drescher,
11 Lauzon, Zide, and corporate law firms like Morrison & Foerster and other law firms which defend
12 employers. Tady accomplished his goal. J. Purcell claims Barry should be disbarred because she
13 was late in completing 4 “live” units of ethics.
14 59. Joyce violated anti-competition rules by selecting Barry to prosecute on behalf of

15 Montalvo, the attorney who had caused Barry’s client so much harm, rather than selecting
16 Montalvo to prosecute on behalf of Michele and her children. Joyce also used Barry’s inability to
17 pay sanctions because her clients are not able to pay much in the way of attorney fees to disbar
18 her for failure to pay sanctions.
19 60. Joyce forced all members to subsidize Barry’s prosecution solely for the benefit of

20 just one market participant, Montalvo who caused harm to Michele and her children, even
21 engaging in fraud against Michele. Joyce sought six months of suspension in order to reduce
22 competition against malpracticing and dishonest attorneys like Montalvo. Joyce endangered both
23 Michele and the public.
24 61. Fox, J. Foiles and Wagstaffe made J. Fotinos a member of their conspiracy to

25 disbar Barry and prosecute Barry. Fox’s intermediaries at the Bar encouraged J. Fotinos to make
26 as many complaints against Barry as possible. Either someone at the Bar or in San Mateo
27 informed J. Fotinos 8 months ahead that Barry and Michele would be made VL’s, two years
28 ahead that Barry would be disbarred and that Wagstaffe would be putting Michele in jail.

15

15
 1 62. Saucedo forced Barry to respond to J. Fotinos’ two false complaints, the flier and

2 being made a VL. J. Foiles and J. Cretan supported J. Fotinos in returning to his old ways, pre-J.
3 Franchi, calling Michele names in emails, threatening her, denying and interfering with her
4 visitation with Austin, resuming his practice of alienation, this time of only Austin, not paying the
5 spousal support/sanctions arrearages, not paying monthly spousal and child support of $1,000 a
6 month which have climbed to over $18,000 and $6,000 plus interest respectively.
7 63. J. Fotinos sent an email to a Bar employee stating that he would call every two

8 hours until the Bitch is disbarred. The Bar no doubt will defend J. Fotinos’ right to call Barry a
9 bitch and Michele a bitch, fuck you Michele, a cunt, because as Trump dramatically established,
10 men have been getting away with calling women names for centuries. The Bar and Lee will argue
11 government agencies like the Bar and people like J. Fotinos have a right to call black people the
12 “N” word [J. Fotinos also hates black people as he does women] and to call women all kinds of
13 names.
14 64. J. Foiles threatened Barry with contempt on January 6, 2012 and on February 17,

15 2012 although she remained respectful, and apologized for interrupting him. J. Foiles complained
16 about Barry’s lawyering, on January 6, January 20, and February 17, 2012. On the other hand, J.
17 Foiles will not allow her to complete arguments, a violation of judicial ethics. On February 17,
18 2012, he stated on the record how he is controlling himself although Barry was only making oral
19 argument On February 17, 2012, J. Foiles hinted he may go to the Bar on Barry. Despite his
20 obvious hatred for Barry, he did not recuse himself from Michel’s family law case.
21 65. On information and belief, J. Foiles, Wagstaffe, Munks, and other San Mateo

22 operatives have been in contact with Fox about Barry and Michele. Barry believes that with
23 production of electronic discovery, telephone and fax records, letters, internal memos, etc she will
24 establish ongoing contact between the Bar and San Mateo – unless the Bar destroys the
25 paper/electronic trail.
26 66. Kimball engaged in anti-competitive conduct with the Bar by

27 * First refusing to appear for the December 2013 hearing on the sanctions,

28 * Next by failing to obtain a judgment on the order of summary judgment

16

16
 1 technically an act of malpractice against her own client and very unusual.

2 She did not because she knew Barry could then appeal the orders of

3 sanctions. She acting in concert with Bar/San Mateo wanted to harass

4 Barry further. Eventually it backfired on her.

5 * Scheduling hearings on the sanctions after Barry and Michele had appeared

6 twice for scheduled hearings for the sanctions and they did not occur and

7 when she knew Barry and Michele had no money and J. Fotinos was on the

8 loose with no restraining order against him.

9 * After Barry left a message on J. Buchwald’s courtroom phone, saying he

10 lacked the courage to stand up to the tyranny of J. Foiles, J. Buchwald filed

11 a judgment of dismissal for failure to prosecute and did not incorporate the

12 sanctions orders into the judgment, awarding Montalvo only costs of suit.

13 Kimball and J. Buchwald ceased all enforcement action against Barry.

14 Kimball was the star witness for the prosecution at the Bar, knowing the

15 sanctions orders were no longer viable. Notably, J. Armendariz stated on

16 the record Kimball was no help to her.

17 67. The Bar has misappropriated dues to pay a stipend of $30,000 to Bar Presidents

18 without approval, justification, or accounting.

19 68. Krinsky breached her fiduciary duty by recommending and hiring the

20 Munger/Tolles firm to investigate Kim’s allegations of wrongdoing against Dunn on information

21 and belief without putting out a bid. Krinsky is good friends with Munger/Tolles partner(s)
22 according to Dunn complaint. Without discovery it is not known whether she received a
23 “referral” (i.e., kickback) fee. If the contract was a no bid contact, Krinsky and the Bar violated
24 the rights of all members to compete for the contract.
25 69. The Bar paid Munger/Tolles $300,000.00 clearly excessive when a judge would

26 have done the investigation pro bono, when other members could not compete for the contract,
27 and when an investigation of wrongdoing is not worth three attorneys each charging $800/hr. On
28 information and belief, the $300,000 only netted the Bar and the members a finding that Dunn

17

17
 1 misused dues in the amount of $5,600.00. The fees are clearly excessive.
2 70. Dunn misappropriated $5,600 of the members dues to pay his personal attorney,

3 Geragos, supposedly for a meal at his restaurant clearly unrelated to improvement of legal
4 services or discipline. This is a violation of competition since other attorneys who own
5 restaurants did not have an opportunity to compete to serve the meal for less. Further, it violated
6 the First Amendment rights of all other members because the payment was based on Dunn’s
7 personal preference and for the sole purpose of keeping the attorney happy now prosecuting his
8 unjust termination case against the Bar. It may have served as payment towards Dunn’s personal
9 attorney fees owed Geragos for representing him in his wrongful termination action against the
10 Bar.
11 71. The Bat has committed repeated anti-trust violations by allowing cronyism to

12 permeate the Bar resulting in hiring unqualified judges like J. Armendariz and J. Remke, and
13 unethical individuals like Nisperos, Dunn, Kim, and Fox.
14 72. The Bar allowed Fox to bring in Giannini who had engaged in racial discrimination

15 when he supervised him and paid him a stipend to train bar prosecutors cutting off competition for
16 the contract to other members and violating the rights of members who do not want their dues to
17 be used to pay a prosecutor who engaged in racial prosecution and other misconduct.
18 73. The bar paid for Lee’s salary while she advocated that calling a black attorney the

19 “N” word is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute because she claimed it occurred during the black
20 attorney’s disciplinary procedure and is therefore “free speech” and besides racist invective has
21 long been tolerated by American society. This violated the free speech rights of members who
22 opposed their dues being spent on such an odious racist defense.
23 74. The Bar violated rights of members by appointing white male corporate attorneys

24 as prosecutors to protect bar insiders and to punish bar outsiders.

25 75. Bar prosecutors habitually prosecute members without probable cause. Bar

26 prosecutors habitually refuse to provide exculpatory evidence to the attorney and the bar judge.
27 Bar prosecutors file Notices of Disciplinary Action ("NDC's") against litigation attorneys often
28 falsifying what actually occurred in the underlying litigation.

18

18
 1 76. These anti-trust violations have resulted in causing emotional distress, pain, and

2 suffering to Barry, Michele, and Rachel for which they seek damages, including compensatory,
3 out of pocket, and treble damages or alternatively, punitive damages.
4 77. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment against the bar that the above-described

5 practices violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 -Conspiracy Based on Free Speech Retaliation; Denial of Access to
7 Court- Applies to Barry, Michele, Rachel and to Fox, Joyce, Saucedo, J. Fotinos, J. Foiles,
Wagstaffe, Kimball
8 78. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Second Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as if fully

9 incorporated herein
10 79. The actions of J. Fotinos, J. Foiles, and Wagstaffe constitute violation of Michele’s

11 right to access to the Court under the First Amendment. The actions of all the above-named
12 defendants constitute free speech retaliation against the three plaintiffs based on the following:
13 1. For persuading J. Franchi to remove Miller as minors counsel and for

14 Michele reporting Miller to the Bar.

15 2. For J. Franchi’s statements from the bench including that San Mateo had

16 done a lot of wrong things in the case, that the Santa Cruz police officers

17 should never have taken the children from Michele in 2003, that J. Fotinos

18 had been alienating the children for a long time; that J. Fotinos had

19 committed perjury,

20 3 For J. Franchi awarding Michele substantial spousal support/sanctions as a

21 remedy for J. Fotinos’ perjury, and for J. Franchi referring J. Fotinos to the

22 D.A. for possible prosecution;

23 4. For Rachel blowing the whistle on J. Fotinos’ felony child abuse which

24 reflected on all the San Mateo judges who kept custody with J. Fotinos for

25 years, on Munks for refusing to seek an Emergency Protective Order

26 against J. Fotinos and Grover for Rachel, Austin, and their mother, and on

27 Munks and Wagstaffe for letting a violent felon possess weapons for five

28 years;

19

19
 1 5. For filing the federal lawsuit against San Mateo defendants and seeking an

2 injunction against Kim to make her do her job and discipline Kinney and

3 Miller;

4 6. For suing Montalvo.

5 7. For Michele and Barry picketing and passing out the flier exposing the

6 courts, the San Mateo judiciary, Wagstaffe, and Munks in not arresting and

7 prosecuting J. Fotinos, seizing his guns, and for denying a restraining order

8 to Michele and her children.

9 8. For Barry reporting to the Ninth Circuit that Fox’s good friend Munks is a

10 pedophile.

11 9. For complaining about Fox during oral argument before J. Purcell on

12 September 15, 2016.

13 80. The coordination between the Bar and San Mateo are as follows:

14 DATE EVENT
15 September 2010 BAR
On information and belief, Board of
16 Governors’ Operation Committee discussed
Barry and Kay cases. Michele files Bar
17 complaint against Miller which Bar President
Howard Miller or Hebert and Bar Counsel
18 Towery refused to accept.
19
September 2010 SAN MATEO
20 On information and belief, Miller complains to
J. Foiles and J. Freeman about J. Franchi
21 removing her as minors counsel in August
2010. Discovery may uncover contact
22 between bar president and/or bar counsel and
J. Foiles or J. Freeman about Michele's
23 complaint against Miller.
August 2011 BAR
24 Barry begins 60 day suspension in connection
with Elwood matter.
25 Kim becomes Bar Counsel and Fox is her
“consultant” to help her reduce backlog of
26 complaints against attorneys.
27
28

20

20
 1 October 2011 SAN MATEO
Kinney files unethical, insulting, sanctionable
2 document demanding that J. Franchi recuse
himself from Fotinos case.
3
November 2011 SAN MATEO
4 J. Franchi cancels hearing on Michele’s
motion to modify support and custody and
5 recuses himself
6 December 2011 - June 2012 SAN MATEO
Rachel flees J. Fotinos’ home unable to
7 endure his and Grover’s abuse any longer.
Belmont police officer and Munks’ deputies
8 repeatedly refused to seek emergency
protective order for Rachel and Michele.
9 Barry and Michele go to Munks and
Wagstaffe offices begging them to arrest J.
10 Fotinos. They do nothing.
January 2012 SAN MATEO
11 J. Foiles appoints himself to the Fotinos case
although he lacks the required judicial
12 education for a family law case. J. Foiles
threatened Barry with contempt on
13 January 6, expressing irrational hostility
towards Barry and Michele neither of whom
14 had ever appeared before him. He
complained about Barry’s lawyering, on
15 January 6, and January 20, He denied
DVPA restraining order two or three times
16 between January and February. He undoes
everything J. Franchi has accomplished. He
17 ratifies and encourages J. Fotinos’ conduct of
alienating Austin from his mother and to
18 return to his old ways pre-J. Franchi.
19 February 17, 2012 SAN MATEO
J. Foiles threatened Barry again with
20 contempt and will not allow her to complete
arguments. He stated he can barely control
21 himself but does not recuse himself. He
hinted he may go to the Bar on Barry. On
22 information and belief, he did, and was in
contact with Fox and/others at the Bar.
23
February 24, 2012 SAN MATEO
24 Barry filed federal lawsuit against San Mateo
defendants.
25
26
27
28

21

21
 1 March 2012 SAN MATEO AND BAR
1.Barry files amended federal lawsuit and
2 seeks injunction against Kim to investigate
Miller and Kinney.
3 2. Barry serves Montalvo with a legal
malpractice lawsuit.
4 3. The Bar appoints Kimball to its
malpractice insurance committee.
5 4. J. Fotinos sends email to Michele stating
that Barry and Michele will be made VL’s. At
6 this point the only case in which Michele was
in pro per was her mother’s conservatorship
7 case. She had hardly filed any documents in
that case in March 2012.
8
June 28, 2012 SAN MATEO
9 J. Foiles reluctantly issues DVPA restraining
orders against J. Fotinos and Grover, knowing
10 criminal prosecution will go on for more than
a year against J. Fotinos; will not award
11 custody of Rachel although restraining order
prohibits J. Fotinos and Grover coming near
12 her or her school; will not award custody of
Austin to Michele. Will not award support.
13
April through August 2012 BAR
14 Probation requirements must be completed by
July 29, 2012. Barry begins active searching
15 for 4 “live” ethics in April, contacts Farfan
and Tady for assistance and they are no help.
16 Later, Farfan lets her know that she can take
Attorney trust account school for 3 units of
17 “live” ethics.
August 1, 2012 later refiled in Review Court. BAR
18 Barry filed motion to extend time to complete
Ethics School, 4 “live” units of ethics, and
19 pass MPRE, documenting her efforts since
April 2012 to do so. Provided evidence of
20 number of phone call contacts with Michele
because of fear they will be killed by J.
21 Fotinos. Motion denied. Did complete all
requirements.
22
July 2012 SAN MATEO
23 J. Swope evicts Michele and Rachel from
Esther’s home making Esther’s daughter and
24 granddaughter homeless.
25 July - November 2012 SAN MATEO
Sells and Karlsten rush to sell Esther’s home
26 below market value. Michele objects, and
Karlsten goes after her to shut her up, by
27 making her a VL.
28

22

22
 1 October 2012 SAN MATEO
At hearing, J. Cretan criticizes Barry and
2 Michele for passing out flier Claims Michele
and Rachel have no credibility. Repeatedly
3 encourages J. Fotinos to return to his pre-
J.Franchi ways: alienating Austin, threatening
4 and intimidating both Michele and Rachel,
calling Michele names, depriving her of
5 visitation, being repeatedly late on paying
support and then quitting altogether. Support
6 woefully insufficient.
7 November 2012 SAN MATEO
As coconspirator J. Fotinos predicted eight
8 months before, J. Karesh and J. Freeman
make Barry and Michele VL’s.
9
February 2013 BAR
10 J. Fotinos files bar complaint against Barry
concerning flier she passed out in San
11 Francisco in June 2012 getting him arrested
and his guns and ammo confiscated. Saucedo
12 makes Barry defend the flier.
March 2013 BAR
13 J. Fotinos files complaint against Barry for
filling frivolous filings in conservatorship
14 action (she had written Motion for Change of
Venue for Michele to file in pro per) and for
15 being declared a VL. He also complains that
Barry did not pay $600 in sanctions to
16 Kinney. The Bar does not have jurisdiction of
sanctions less than $1,000.00 Saucedo makes
17 her defend the complaint.
18 May 2013 SAN MATEO
1. Kimball files motion to compel in the
19 Montalvo case re: rogs and RRD’s and setting
date for Michele’s deposition.
20 BAR
2. May 6, J. Fotinos predicts Barry will be
21 disbarred.
22 June 2013 SAN MATEO
Barry serves objection to rogs and responses
23 to req for docs. Begins producing thousands
of pages of discovery to Kimball. Barry
24 contacts courtroom of J. Buchwald on date of
hearing June 26 and J. Buchwald agrees to
25 continue hearing so Barry can argue motions
to compel (rogs, RFD, deposition of Michele).
26 J. Cretan denies renewal of DVPA
restraining orders against J. Fotinos and
27 Grover.
28

23

23
 1 July 10, 2013 BAR
J Fotinos sends email to Kinney with copy to
2 Michele stating that he contacted the bar and
“...they want me to send in a complaint
3 against Barry they will add it to the other 32
complaints for vexatious litigant.”
4
July 24, 2013 SAN MATEO
5 On information and belief, J. Foiles steers
hearing on motions to compel from law and
6 motion judge, J. Buchwald, to J. Bergeron.
He denies oral argument and awards sanctions
7 against Barry.
8 September 2013 BAR
Barry’s probation period ended.
9 October 2013 SAN MATEO
Traveled to San Mateo for hearing on
10 sanctions. J. Buchwald wanted parties to
meet and discuss issues. and hearing did not
11 go forward. Which Barry, Kimball, and
Michele did – discussed issues -- for most of
12 the day.
13 December 2013 SAN MATEO
Traveled for hearing on sanctions. Kimball
14 refuses to appear and notifies Barry day
before she is not appearing. Hearing did not
15 go forward.
16 February through May 2014 SAN MATEO
Hearings scheduled on Barry’s failure to pay
17 sanctions. Barry does not appear.
18 Sometime prior to Feb. 19, 2014 BAR
Kimball notified Bar Barry not paid sanctions.
19
March 2014 SAN MATEO
20 Sentencing hearing - J. Fotinos. Collusive
deal worked out where J. Fotinos is held not
21 accountable for his crimes.
J. Cretan awards custody of Austin to Grover,
22 which J. Cretan had promised Michele a year
prior he would never do, and claims Michele a
23 detriment to Austin. Barry on phone in Los
Angeles and Michele out of courtroom. No
24 hearing, a la San Mateo style.
May 2014 SAN MATEO
25 Barry leaves message on court telephone of J.
Buchwald that he lacks the courage to stand
26 up to the tyranny of J. Foiles, etc.
27
28

24

24
 1 May 19, 2014 SAN MATEO
After phone call, J. Buchwald enters judgment
2 for failure to prosecute omitting orders of
discovery and judicial sanctions. J. Buchwald
3 and Kimball cease all enforcement action
against Barry. Barry believed that was the end
4 of the harassment about the sanctions.
5 August 2014 BAR
Bar notifies Barry it will disbar her for being
6 late filing reports and completing terms of
probation one month after filing pleading in
7 Ninth Circuit that Fox’s good friend Munks is
a probable pedophile. The Bar failed to
8 suspend or disbar Barry in August 2012, two
years prior, when she was late completing the
9 requirements.
10 September 2014 BAR
J. Fotinos once more notifies Michele by
11 email that Barry will be disbarred
although the above Bar notification not
12 public knowledge.
April 2015 BAR
13 Knowing that trying to disbar Barry for being
late on reports and completing probation
14 requirements by itself would not stick, Joyce
files second charge, resurrecting failure to pay
15 sanctions to Montalvo per order of August
2013 and sanctions to San Mateo per order of
16 April 2014 when Barry understood that J.
Buchwald had eliminated the orders.
17
April 2015 SAN MATEO
18 Rachel sees J. Fotinos’ truck following her on
two occasions. Rachel and Michele pack up
19 and go into hiding.
20 September 15, 2016 BAR
For the first time since Joyce filed the second
21 Notice of Discipline, J. Purcell brings up
disbarment after Barry complained about Fox
22 at oral argument.
23 December 2016 SAN MATEO
Wagstaffe wants Michele to surrender based
24 on false and malicious complaint in a tit-for-
tat prosecution for perjury and grand theft.
25 81. Saucedo engaged in a continuing pattern of retaliation for free speech by forcing
26 Barry to defend Lauzon’s malicious complaint that Barry’s Motion to Strike Harshman Reports
27 was frivolous.
28 82. Tady is sued for damages first, for imposing four live units on Barry when no other

25

25
 1 attorney in 60 cases Barry reviewed ever had to attend ethics school and take 4 live units of
2 ethics. He is also sued for damages by not informing her when she asked him for help in locating 4
3 live ethics units that she could obtain 3 units by taking his trust account class. J. Purcell
4 recommended disbarment in part based on being late in taking these units.
5 83. Because J. Purcell resurrected the Elwood discipline as a basis to disbar Barry,

6 Barry seeks a declaratory judgment that Tady violated his ethical duty when he failed to seek
7 dismissal of the Elwood prosecution when he knew he lacked probable cause and so admitted to
8 Barry.
9 84. Barry, Michele, and Rachel seek a declaratory judgment against J. Foiles that the

10 acts he committed against them constitute a violation of free speech and denial of access to the
11 court.
12 85. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, out of pocket, and punitive damages against the

13 defendants except as stated above.

14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 - Violation of Free Speech per Keller v. State Bar of California - Applies
15 to Barry and to Bar
86. Plaintiffs incorporate into this Third Cause of Action paras 1 - 855 as if fully
16
incorporated herein.
17
87. The acts alleged in this complaint violate Barry’s right to free speech and often
18
violate state law. Barry cannot possibly be required to continue paying dues to a government
19
corporation which lobbied against a bill which would have protected parents, primarily mothers,
20
and children by barring unscientific theories like PAS in family/juvenile court, which puts an
21
individual like Fox in charge of it, given his shameful career of institutionalizing racism and
22
protecting pedophiles, whose attorney argues that a government corporation has the right to call a
23
black attorney the “N” word in the course of disciplining him, for encouraging and ratifying J.
24
Fotinos who calls Barry a female civil rights attorney a bitch, for spending bar dues championing
25
violent, racist, homophobic, child batterers, like J. Fotinos and Morin, for refusing to prosecute
26
minors counsel many of whom harm their clients who are children, like LaFlamme, Miller,
27
Lawrence, and Acevedo, for protecting attorneys like Krause who abused his own child and
28
Henning who beat up people, which allows Kamansky, a man with a notorious history of raping

26

26
 1 children to teach ethics classes to attorneys, and which champions unethical attorneys like
2 Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon the latter of whom discriminated against an Arab Palestinian Muslim
3 father in family court.
4 88. Barry seeks a declaratory judgment against the Bar as set out in the Prayer for

5 Relief.
6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7 Wherefore Barry, Michele, and Rachel pray for relief as follows:

8 1. Compensatory, punitive, and out of pocket damages for each cause of action

9 where indicated;

10 2. Declaratory judgments as follows:

11 A. That Busi & Prof C. Sec.6079.1 is unconstitutional for three reasons: it

12 denies the right of the public to have input into the selection of bar judges;

13 it legalizes a spoils system for selection of bar judges; and it allows

14 unqualified attorneys to be appointed as judges because it requires being

15 licensed as an attorney for only five years.

16 B. That Govt. C. Sec.12011.5 is unconstitutional because it permits the JNE

17 Commission which rates attorneys who seek a bench appointment to do the

18 rating secretly, thus enabling the raters to skew the ratings, raters are

19 selected without regard to inclusion of true members of the public, and the

20 process appears to be skewed towards selection of white male corporate

21 attorneys and/or prosecutors for bench appointments.

22 C. The Bar’s hiring of outside counsel on no bid contracts is anti-competitive

23 in that it denies all market participants an opportunity to compete for the

24 contract and the long time retention of the all white, male dominated

25 Kerr/Wagstaffe firm is a violation of the Bar’s duty to seek out law firms

26 which practice diversity in hiring. Paying bar dues to the Kerr/Wagstaffe

27 firm violates the free speech rights of members who want the state auditor

28 to investigate CJP’s failure to prosecute corrupt judges. Kerr/Wagstaffe is

27

27
 1 frustrating the will of the people in prosecuting a lawsuit on behalf of CJP

2 to deny the auditor access to the complaints against the judges.

3 D. That Kimball, Roma, and Montalvo engaged in fraudulent misconduct

4 which tainted the Bar proceedings against Barry in violation of State Bar

5 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause;

6 E. That Tady violated his duty as a prosecutor when he failed to seek

7 dismissal of the Elwood matter when he knew he lacked probable cause;

8 F. That Tady violated Barry’s right to equal protection and due process and

9 committed fraud when he imposed on Barry sanctions – Ethics School and

10 4 “live” ethics units – no other attorney was subjected to, based on Barry’s

11 review of 60 cases before she was sanctioned and after. That Tady further

12 violated Barry’s rights by not informing her when she sought his help in

13 locating 4 “live” ethics units that she could attend attorney trust account

14 school he was teaching as a direct result of which J. Purcell recommended

15 Barry’s disbarment in part because she was late in completing the 4 live

16 ethics units. There also was no rational basis for demanding that the

17 additional ethics be “live” (rather than computer classes). The “live” (brick

18 and mortar) requirement was added only to make it as difficult as possible

19 for Barry to fulfill the requirement.

20 G. That the Bar’s appointment of market participants like Falk and Craig to

21 serve as “special prosecutors” is unconstitutional and a violation of the

22 State Bar Act.

23 H. That appointment of any elected official to the Board of Trustees as a

24 public member is a violation of the spirit and intent of the statute requiring

25 public members on the Board.

26 I. That the three disciplinary proceedings against Barry are unconstitutional

27 as a matter of law for the following reasons:

28 1. The Mardeusz Matter.

28

28
 1 a. Appointment of Craig, a fellow market participant and a

2 peer of Barry, as the prosecutor of Barry, another market

3 participant, is unconstitutional because of the desire on the

4 part of Craig to eliminate competition by suspending or

5 disbarring his peer. Craig’s appointment was inherently

6 unconstitutional because Barry is a plaintiff civil

7 rights/employment attorney and Craig’s law firm, M&F,

8 specializes in employer defense.

9 b. Craig engaged in unethical misconduct by not disclosing

10 that his firm had been retained by Cytodyn which Barry had

11 represented and the defense had won a summary judgment

12 in that case. The Bar and Craig also failed to disclose to

13 Barry that he had a conversation covered by the attorney-

14 client privilege with Irene Jensen, whom Barry had briefly

15 represented. Craig unethically threatened Barry solely

16 because she had represented Jensen, a fac Craig had

17 probably learned from the privileged conversation with

18 Jensen giving him what he clearly believed was a litigation

19 advantage over Barry which was that Barry had provided

20 some legal representation to Jensen. The fact that Craig

21 believed he could threaten an attorney with discipline solely

22 because she engaged in the very activity lawyers engage in,

23 provide representation to litigants is inherently

24 unconstitutional. It is more evidence of the Bar’s and

25 Craig’s bad motive to threaten, intimidate, and disbar

26 attorneys who represent protective parents trying to regain

27 custody from the sex abusing parent.

28 2. The Elwood matter.

29

29
 1 a. Tady repeatedly informed Barry she would probably prevail

2 several times. Tady violated his ethical duty as a prosecutor

3 to dismiss because he knew he could not prove that at the

4 time Barry filed the Elwood lawsuits she knew some of the

5 causes of action were frivolous.

6 b. Tady and the Bar disregarded the fact that ten federal

7 judges who reviewed Barry’s pleadings declined to

8 discipline her. Tady and the Bar disregarded the reported

9 decision of the Ninth Circuit reversing three of the fee

10 awards based on frivolous findings. Even after the Bar

11 imposed discipline on Barry, both the Ninth Circuit and the

12 Central District of California where the cases were litigated

13 declined to impose reciprocal discipline on Barry.

14 c. The Bar illegally appointed Chick as a public member

15 although she was an elected official to the Board of

16 Governors based solely on cronyism. She had a personal

17 interest in making sure that Barry was disciplined because

18 Barry had filed lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles

19 (DWP) alleging in part that Chick refused to audit the

20 Empire janitorial supplies contract. Barry won a reported

21 decision in the Ninth Circuit which was indirectly a reproach

22 of Chick’s negligence as City Controller in not auditing the

23 contract one month before Barry signed the stipulation for

24 discipline. Chick and her good friend, corporate

25 attorney/Bar President Sloan who got her appointed to the

26 Board had financial conflicts of interest with Fine when he

27 was prosecuted and disbarred by the Bar.

28 3. The Montalvo matter.

30

30
 1 a. Joyce pursued the prosecution of Barry for failure to pay

2 discovery sanctions to Montalvo when she knew Barry

3 lacked the ability to pay the sanctions purposely ignoring

4 case law which requires proof of Barry’s ability to pay the

5 sanctions.

6 b. Joyce ignored the judgment entered by J. Buchwald based

7 on Michele’s failure to prosecute which did not include the

8 orders of discovery and judicial sanctions. She knew that

9 both J. Buchwald and Kimball ceased all enforcement action

10 against Barry once the judgment was entered.

11 c. Joyce ignored the case law, both California and federal, that

12 judgments based on failure to prosecute do not merge

13 interim sanctions orders into the judgment.

14 d. Joyce failed to obtain exculpatory evidence, namely, the

15 Bergeron transcript and the recording of Barry’s voice mail

16 to J. Buchwald and its transcript although she had an

17 affirmative obligation to present all exculpatory evidence to

18 the court and to the attorney.

19 e. Joyce declined to prosecute Montalvo although she knew

20 Montalvo had not only committed gross acts of malpractice

21 against Michele but had committed fraud against her.

22 f. Both Joyce and J. Armendariz recommended suspension.

23 Only after Barry complained about Fox during oral

24 argument on September 15, 2016, did J. Purcell for the first

25 time in two years of prosecution suggest disbarment.

26 J. That the acts of J. Foiles are a violation of Michele’s and Rachel’s right to

27 due process and equal protection.

28 K. That J. Armendariz’s denial of a later trial date and of the continuance of

31

31
 1 trial based on Barry’s law practice demands, exhaustion, and illness

2 violated Barry’s due process right to bodily and emotional integrity in that

3 Barry ended up with tendonitis eventually leading to rupture of the

4 posterior tibial tendon of the left leg.

5 L. That making the Bar a part of the judicial branch is a violation of

6 separation of powers, since it is an enforcement agency, and it has led to

7 extreme injustices and endangers the public because judges exert undue

8 influence on the Bar to protect unethical attorneys like Miller, LaFlamme,

9 Lawrence, Acevedo, Hales. One of the Bar’s own, former bar

10 president/trial counsel Towery now a judge refused to refer Hales to the

11 Bar and may have intervened to insure he would not be disciplined when he

12 was reported to the bar and found guilty of ethical violations.

13 M. That the failure of Bar prosecutors and Bar judges to apply statutes on

14 judgments, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and

15 relevant case law in prosecutions against attorneys is unconstitutional and

16 has resulted in grave miscarriages of justice as in the Kay and Martin cases.

17 N. That the Defendants engaged in free speech retaliation against the

18 plaintiffs.

19 O. That the CJP is routinely violating separation of powers because it will not

20 refer judges who commit crimes to law enforcement agencies although

21 required by law and CJP rule to do so. The reason why it does not make

22 these referrals is because it, like the Bar, is controlled by judges.

23 P. That the CJP violated Michele’s and Barry’s rights when it refused to refer

24 J. Karesh and J. Freeman to law enforcement agencies for possible

25 prosecution because Michele and Barry had proven a prima facie case of

26 obstruction of justice in their complaint against them to the CJP in

27 November 2012.

28 Q. That the Bar violated the First Amendment rights of all market participants

32

32
 1 when the Bar ordered Lee to argue that Bar officials and employees can

2 call black attorneys the “N” word when they use the racial epithet during

3 disciplinary proceedings.

4 R. That the Bar and J. Armendariz violated the due process rights of Martin

5 and engaged in racial discrimination against him when they made him the

6 scapegoat for the misconduct of Keck, a white attorney, who had caused

7 the harm to Maria Perez, a Latina client.

8 S. That the Bar violated the Sherman Anti Trust Act by refusing to take

9 enforcement action against Singer resulting in violation of the rights of the

10 public, of Arch Cunningham, and of the class of all litigants harmed by the

11 UPL practices of Singer and of the rights of all attorneys in California,

12 Arizona, and Nevada.

13 T. That when the Bar hired Fox as consultant to Kim, and then when the

14 Court appointed him to the Board of Trustees the Bar and the Court

15 endangered the public because of Fox’s history of institutionalizing racism

16 and anti-child bias as a 28 year San Mateo prosecutor. That when Fox, as

17 a Bar official, made an unethical challenge to the report of the Northern

18 California Innocence Project, and then hired his former deputy Giannini to

19 train bar prosecutors knowing Giannini had engaged in racial discrimination

20 and other acts of prosecutorial misconduct, he further endangered the

21 public.

22 U. That the Court and the Bar endangered the public by allowing Kamansky

23 to teach ethics as a MCLE provider when they knew of his notorious

24 reputation for sexually abusing children and using his position as a judge to

25 gain access to them.

26 V. That the Bar’s expenditure of dues on investigating complaints of violent,

27 racist, child batterers, homophobic men like J. Fotinos and Morin and of

28 unethical attorneys like Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon is a violation of the

33

33
 1 Bar’s mission which is to protect the public as its paramount duty. These

2 men and these attorneys are a danger to the public.

3 W. That the Bar’s protection of Miller, Lawrence, LaFlamme, Acevedo,

4 Krause, Henning, and Hales, and all minors counsel is a violation of the

5 Bar’s mission because these attorneys also pose an ongoing danger to the

6 public.

7 X. That Saucedo’s demand that Barry respond to the complaints of J. Fotinos

8 and Lauzon is a violation of Barry’s free speech rights.

9 Y. That Wagstaffe’s errors, omissions, and intentional disregard for the rights

10 of Michele, Rachel, and Austin were a violation of their rights as crime

11 victims of J. Fotinos;

12 Z. That Wagstaffe’s criminal prosecution against Michele is retaliatory and

13 malicious.

14 AA. That the California Supreme Court ruling in the Barry case is a danger to

15 the public because it confers free speech rights on a government agency

16 which violates the free speech rights of the individual suing the agency and

17 because it enables the agency to silence opposition to government agencies,

18 thus chilling free speech rights of the people by also imposing attorney fees

19 on the individuals seeking redress of grievances against the government.

20 Free speech rights were designed to protect the people against the tyranny

21 of the government, not the “tyranny” of the People against the government.

22
23 BB. That Krinsky violated her fiduciary duty to the members when she

24 recommended a crony law firm to investigate Dunn when she knew that a

25 judge was willing to conduct the investigation without fees. That she

26 further violated her fiduciary duty to the members by not advertising the

27 contract and instead insured her good friends at Munger, Tolles received

28 the contract charging exorbitant and excessive fees. It is unknown whether

34

34
 1 she received a referral fee from Munger/ Tolles.

2 CC. That Dunn violated his fiduciary duty to the members by using $5600 of

3 dues to pay his attorney Geragos for a meal at his restaurant.

4 3. For the following prospective injunctive relief as follows:

5 A. Ordering the Bar and the Court to do a reach out and appoint genuine

6 members of the public to the Board of Trustees and the JNE Commission,

7 and insure that attorneys like Cunningham, Barry, Yeamans, Kaufman,

8 Robinson, Salarno-Ashford and members of the public, like Bassi,

9 Sweeny, Lillard, Farraj, Michele, Hanson, Cook, Park, Chavira, Baddour,

10 Allison, and others like them, Catherine Russell, Connie Valentine, Cindy

11 Dumas, and others involved with issues of domestic violence, protection of

12 abused children, or corrupt judges in family and juvenile court serve as

13 public members on the Board and on committees.

14 B. Ordering J. Fotinos to pay all reparations and restitution to Michele and

15 Rachel as permitted under Article 28, California Constitution, “Marsy’s

16 Law”, and supporting Penal Code statutes.

17 C. Ordering a wage garnishment for unpaid arrearages and unpaid spousal and

18 child support with interest on J. Fotinos’ PERS retirement benefits.

19 D. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for the attorney fees spent on

20 pursuing the Barry case in the court of appeals and then in Supreme Court,

21 for paying attorney fees to an all white, male dominated law firm,

22 Kerr/Wagstaffe which also had a personal prejudice against Barry and for

23 spending money on useless appendices containing court documents of all

24 the cases the Bar could locate of lawsuits against the Bar.

25 E. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for the salaries of Farfan, Goldade,

26 Joyce, J. Armendariz, and J Purcell to pursue the claim that Barry should

27 be disbarred because she filed a report two days ahead of its due date with

28 the year “2012" rather than “2013" and losing on the issue and damages to

35

35
 1 Barry for the time she had to spend on the issue.

2 F. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for spending dues on a sham

3 investigation to protect Fox plus interest.

4 G. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for $14,600 to pay for expenses of

5 a foundation as documented in the State Auditor’s Report of May 2016

6 plus interest.

7 H. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for paying the stipend of $30,000

8 to bar presidents from the date this practice began to the date hopefully it

9 has ended plus interest.

10 I. Ordering the Bar to immediately reduce all salaries designated by the state

11 auditor as bloated in her Report of May 2016 plus interest.

12 J. Ordering Fox to reimburse members for the stipend paid to Giannini with

13 interest.

14 K. Ordering Dunn to reimburse members for the $5600 he spent at Geragos

15 restaurant with interest.

16 L. Ordering Munger, Tolles to reimburse the members for the excessive fees

17 the firm charged the Bar to investigate Dunn plus interest.

18 M. Ordering Krinsky to reimburse the members $300,000.00 plus interest for

19 recommending the hiring of Munger/Tolles set off by whatever the court

20 orders Munger/Tolles to reimburse the members.

21 N. Ordering the Bar to reimburse members for pursuing complaints of J.

22 Fotinos, Morin, Drescher, Zide, and Lauzon.

23 O. Ordering the Bar to advertise all contracts for outside counsel on a

24 competitive basis.

25 P. Ordering the Bar to advertise all positions at the Bar on a competitive

26 basis, and prohibiting Bar from considering recommendations of legislators

27 and judges.

28 4. Such other relief as appropriate.

36

36
 1 5. If Barry gets her bar card back, attorney fees.

2 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________

PATRICIA J BARRY PRO SE
3 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
RACHEL FOTINOS PRO SE
4 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
MICHELE FOTINOS PRO SE
5 JURY DEMAND
6 Barry, Michele, and Rachel request a jury trial.

7 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________

PATRICIA J BARRY PRO SE
8 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
RACHEL FOTINOS PRO SE
9 DATED: March 3, 2017 s/_____________________
MICHELE FOTINOS PRO SE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

37

37