Bankruptcy Misconduct - Downloads

Home

Downloads Home

Search document

Downloads

Downloads Home » Bar Filings

DocumentsDate added

Order by : name | date | hits [ ascendent ]

The Appeal of CA Bar Decision: "We don't have standing on attorney Misconduct"

25.06.2008

The California Bar ("CA Bar") flip flopped a few times and ultimately decided that it did not have standing to investigate or prosecute ethical misconduct. This outrageous notion was appealed, but a remarkable set of facts related to the alleged misconduct became apparant in conjunction with a request by the CA Bar for additional backing documents. (BankruptcyMisconduct.com makes no comment as to whether one or more persons within the CA Bar assisted in the efforts to bring the Respondents to justice by drawing attention to the Securities Violations issue.) As described in the Revised Complaint together with communication to the CA Bar and the SEC, the numerous contemporaneous ethics and securities violations were inextricably intertwined with the disclosure failures in the Aureal bankruptcy proceedings. The disclosure failures before the bankruptcy court and in SEC filings are not only criminal, but in furtherance of each other. Thus, for example, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 in certain SEC filings were sustained by a coordinated failure to make parallel mandatory disclosure in the bankruptcy court. We believe that the bankruptcy fraud is inseperable (intertwined) with securities fraud and by numerous statutes (18 U.S.C. §§'s 2,3,4) and case law envelopes all parties tangentially involved in assisting, planning, inducing, protecting, failing to report, or the cover-up.

Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the California State Bar. Like every other state bar organization, the CA Bar gets their money from their lawyer members, and each bar admits that they perceive their role to assist their lawyer members. How convenient then that each of these bar orgs hold monopoloy power over the investigation and prosecution of attorney misconduct complaints. Worse, many of these bar orgs operate under strict secrecy including the complaints (not public in contrast with non-lawyers), their deliberations, and the identities of those making rulings. In any other profession this would be called a conflict of interest. We shouldn't be too surprised that the California Bar did everything they could to get out of prosecuting this Complaint and Revised Complaint against HBD (Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman). They went went so far as to claim, in writting bless their souls, that the CA Bar does not believe it holds jurisdiction to review complaints about attorney ethics and misconduct. An outrageous notion which flies in the face of their stated mission, so we appealed the decision. The brother lawyers sitting on the California State Supreme Court simply ignored the appeal. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we citizens want to transfer supreme rights and powers to lawyers and let them operate above the law, we should expect that they will steal ever greater portions of our moneys, dignity, & freedom. Why should we hold baseball stars to stricter legal standards than lawyers? Consider how many houses thay you own, and pity the bankruptcy lawyer who only owns two.
Perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the California Bar - they decided to move to prosecute this complaint at least twice (in writting bless their souls), before some invisible hand smacked them down. Kind of like a politician who voted against the war before he voted for it. Perhaps the most absurd notion is that we hold political candidates to a higher standard than lawyers. What unseen force keeps the main stream media from reporting on the obvious corruption of our legal system?
Perhaps some lawyers working behind the scenes at the CA Bar should be thanked for directing efforts towards the SEC.

Exhibits to Appeal of CA Bar Decision

17.10.2007

The exhibits to the appeal of the decision against investigation and prosecution of the Revised Compaint. These exhibits include flip flop decisions by the CA Bar, communications with them, additional documentation they requested, as well as the original Complaint and the Revised Complaint. The Complaint (as revised) was against lawyers who filed numerous false declarations in a bankruptcy court, such false declarations as having been in furtherance of numerous SEC Violations whereby a $30+ Billion dollar hedge fund took control of a public company, replaced its directors, and extracted all of the money - sharing none of it with minority stockholders, and failing to disclose in mandatory SEC filings the entire process. The Original Complaint and the Revised Complaint are exhibit entries to the appeal, but these two documents are also available separately on this site in their original form as .pdf files with their internal document navigation links preserved when viewed with an Acrobat compatible reader.
Prominently featured in the Revised Complaint are conflicted clients of the Respondents: Oaktree Capital et al., Argo Partners and PwC a/k/a PriceWaterhouseCoopers. This is a large .pdf document.

CABAURHBD Chart 3

01.05.2007

Color coded chart showing the chronology of Conflicted Representation with hyperlinks into the Revised Complaint. This chart is Exhibit X of the Revised Complaint.

CABAURHBD Chart 2

01.05.2007

Color coded chart showing the chronology of Conflicted Representation with hyperlinks into the Revised Complaint. This chart is Exhibit J of the Revised Complaint.

CABAURHBD Chart 1