Related posts

• Who arranged those leniency letters, anyway? (2)
• Watch what you tell your hairdresser, cont’d (5)
• Update: Florida suspends ticketing for speed-trap light-flashing (0)
• Update: Florida Supreme Court rejects “false light” theory (0)
• Update: appeals court tosses $18M Gannett verdict (1)

More: Via a commenter, this is said to be the official statement released by the office of Philip Edward Kay:

“This decision admits it used default, as punishment, in violation of Business & Professions Code §6068(i), because I asserted constitutional and statutory rights of attorney client privilege and work product before answering questions, and demanded the right to have these issues heard and determined by an article VI court of general jurisdiction to determine whether the questions sought privileged information, pursuant to State Bar Rules. The State Bar Court did this knowingly to allow the Office of Chief Trial Counsel the ability to lie about what the Superior Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found in their orders and opinions regarding these important civil rights cases.

In these matters, only after the trial judges were reversed on appeal and disqualified, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§170, et seq., did they claim misconduct. So, either these judges lied in their orders denying misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §657(1) – “irregularities in the proceedings,” OR they lied in their testimony in the State Bar trial. This will create an uncertain and chilling effect by allowing unfit and disgruntled judges to lie about the record and impugn lawfully obtained civil rights verdicts, which have been upheld by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The State Bar Court has allowed these disqualified judges to attack and undermine the very verdicts, which, they could not touch in the trial court under statutory and case law in California.”

Related posts

• “I have never, ever seen an attorney more rude and disrespectful on so many levels.” (3)
• “It’s for – what’s it called?” “Pain and suffering” (0)
• Yale adopts submissive posture in Title-IX-vs.-speech case (2)
• Worker’s comp: trauma over visitor’s remark (0)
• What it takes to get disbarred in Vermont (1)

Related posts

• Welcome Shane Warner listeners (0)
• Update: Madison County (2)
• Update: FDA backs off raw oyster ban (6)
• Unclear on the concept (29)
• Judge: Clients have no right to learn how much their lawyer got (1)

Related posts

• Illegal fee-splitting, “outrageous” courtroom behavior (1)
• “It’s for – what’s it called?” “Pain and suffering” (0)
• Yale adopts submissive posture in Title-IX-vs.-speech case (2)
• Worker’s comp: trauma over visitor’s remark (0)
• What it takes to get disbarred in Vermont (1)

Related posts

• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• Welcome KTRH listeners (0)
• Update: Dallas Observer doesn’t owe $1 billion (2)
• Texas: another case for payee notification (10)
• Texas: “Public left in dark on accused attorneys” (2)

Related posts

• Pellicano trial begins (0)
• May 28 roundup (1)
• Los Angeles: Where Even the Prosecutors Are in Show Biz (4)
• Lawyers and p.i.’s: no more “Just find it”? (0)
• FBI probing top Hollywood lawyers (0)