A sitting judge took the witness stand on Thursday and faced an unusual adversary — his former political opponent, who is now facing ethics charges and possible discipline over his campaign tactics.
On Day 3 of the State Bar of California’s trial against Clinton Parish, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Daniel Maguire testified for the bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel that Parish’s 2012 judicial campaign had spread false allegations through mailers and a campaign website.
Senior Trial Counsel Sherrie McLetchie, who is prosecuting the case, argues that Parish, then a Yolo County deputy DA, violated the bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct during his campaign to unseat Maguire. Provisions governing campaigns for judicial offices prohibit a candidate from “knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, [misrepresenting] the identity, qualifications, present position or any other fact concerning the candidate or his or her opponent.”
Parish, who is representing himself, has argued that the First Amendment protects the political speech at issue. He also contends that he had little involvement with the fliers, which he entrusted to campaign staffers.
Before cross-examining his former opponent, Parish offered an awkward apology.
“I’ve never handled shame before. And I do apologize,” he said. “Having said that, I have to cross-examine you.”
Judge Patrice McElroy, who is presiding over the case, frequently interrupted Parish’s line of questioning, citing a lack of relevance. The trial was expected to end after Thursday’s testimony.
See complete article @:
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202611560067
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TLR’s coverage of matter of Parish, below:
![]()
(Image: courtesy of DAVISVANGUARD.ORG)
The Leslie Brodie Report has learned that the State Bar of California seeks to impose professional discipline on former Yolo County Assistant District Attorney Clint Parish.
![Clint Parish]()
Clinton E. Parish, 41, is accused of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent — Judge Dan Maguire — in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.
Acccording to the State Bar of California, “Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience.”
![Robert A. Hawley]()
Mr. Robert Hawley, California State Bar Deputy Executive Director and an adjunct ethics professor at McGeorge School of Law, stated to the Sacramento Bee: “This is a serious charge…If the allegations are proved true, Parish could face penalties that range from a reprimand to disbarment.”
According to the Bee, “The State Bar’s disciplinary filing is rare. Just 28 such misconduct cases – including the one against Parish – have been filed by the bar since 2000, say State Bar officials. Of those, 21 cases were closed without an investigation. The Parish case is one of only two since 2000 to proceed to a hearing.”
![]()
California Judicial Council members Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (“best friend” of Ruthe Ashley of financial scheme CaliforniaALL), Yolo County Superior Court PJ Dave Rosenberg, UC Irvine Foundation’s Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson (confederate of Cal Bar executive director Joe Dunn of UC Irvine Foundation / Voice of OC / CaliforniaALL ), Assistant US Attorney Angela Davis. Subsequent to an allegedly inaccurate mailer sent by Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clinton Parish , who was running for Yolo Superior Court judge against incumbent Judge Dan Maguire, Judge Dave Rosenberg issued the following veil threat against Parish: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.” (image:courtesy photos)
State Bar’s spokeswoman Laura Ernde stated to The Davis Enterprise that “the charges arose from a complaint that was filed with the State Bar, but the identity of the complainant is confidential at this point.”
As we mentioned previously, in response to the mailer sent by Parish’s campaign, a highly perturbed Judge Rosenberg launched an unprecedented attack on Parish. This, despite knowing full well that California Canons of Judicial Ethics permit a judicial officers only to “endorse” candidates for judicial office. Specifically, and consistent with his new role, Judge Rosenberg, inappropriately so, resorted to sending a robocall out to many voters “to set the record straight” of what he called, “a nasty political hit piece” which “contains flat out lies and deceptions about a highly respected Judge here in Yolo County, Judge Dan Maguire.” Judge Rosenberg also promised, inappropriately so, to retaliate against Clint Parish and issued a thinly veiled threat against him by stating: “This sort of phlegm tends to backfire. It flies back in the face of the expectorant.”
According to Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”), he is “shocked and disappointed” by the prosecution of Clint Parish and surrounding circumstances.
YR stated: “As a resident of Yolo County, I was exposed to the campaign material of both Parish and Judge Dan Maguire — who is by all accounts, a gentleman.”
“The circulated political propaganda made it very clear that Parish is a prosecutor and not a judge, and as such, I was never led to believe that Parish had prior judicial experience, as the State Bar falsely alleges. Any other unfortunate alleged misstatements concerning Judge Maguire were the fault of Parish’s campaign manager, and once those alleged inaccuracies were brought to the attention of Parish, he immidetly disavowed them,” YR continued.
“At the risk of sounding kitschy, everyone needs to remember that we don’t live in an error-free world, and I call on the person who filed the complaint against Clint Parish with the State Bar of California to withdraw it – be it, as I speculate, Judge Dave Rosenberg or our spineless DA Jeff Reisig,” YR concluded.
Related story, please see HERE
For more about :
Judge Rosenberg, please see HERE and HERE
Judge Dan Maguire, please see HERE
Jeff Reisig, please see HERE
Audio of Yolo County Judge Dave Rosenberg Robo-Call
There’s a lot going on in California in terms of preparation by various parties for fast approaching adversarial legal proceedings involving California State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy.
First, The Leslie Brodie Report has learned that the frivolous and politically motivated prosecution by the State Bar of California against former Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Clint Parish has been assigned to be adjudicated by Judge McElroy.
![Clint Parish]()
Clinton E. Parish, 41, is accused of making misrepresentations about himself and his opponent — Judge Dan Maguire — in the May 2012 election for Yolo County Superior Court.
Case Name: Parish, Clinton Edward
Case Number: 12-O-15242
Member #: 211982
Venue: SF
Status: Open
Case Filed: 02/12/2013
Counsel: Pro Per
Deputy Trial Counsel: Robert A. Henderson
Assigned Judge: Patrice McElroy
Next Scheduled Event: Status Conference 03/25/2013
The State Bar of California maintains that “Parish’s campaign materials falsely asserted, among other things, that his opponent was “involved in a sordid case of corporate fraud that involved payment of bribes in Russia.” Parish’s campaign website erroneously claimed that he had been endorsed by the Winters Police Department and his yard signs gave the false impression that he had judicial experience. “
According to Yolo County-based Rabbi (“YR”), he is “shocked and disappointed” by the prosecution of Clint Parish and surrounding circumstances.
YR stated: “As a resident of Yolo County, I was exposed to the campaign material of both Parish and Judge Dan Maguire — who is by all accounts, a gentleman.”
“The circulated political propaganda made it very clear that Parish is a prosecutor and not a judge, and as such, I was never led to believe that Parish had prior judicial experience, as the State Bar falsely alleges. Any other unfortunate alleged misstatements concerning Judge Maguire were the fault of Parish’s campaign manager, and once those alleged inaccuracies were brought to the attention of Parish, he immidetly disavowed them,” YR continued.
“At the risk of sounding kitschy, everyone needs to remember that we don’t live in an error-free world, and I call on the person who filed the complaint against Clint Parish with the State Bar of California to withdraw it – be it, as I speculate, Judge Dave Rosenberg or our spineless DA Jeff Reisig,” YR concluded.
![State Bar Court Patrice McElroy]()
Pictured above is Judge McElroy, who is either unwilling or unable to recognize the seriousness of her anti-social behaviour. Her involvement in the “Bribing Pat” saga alerted TLR, McElroy’s integrity is amiss. (Photo: Courtesy of Bar Journal.)
Second, at least two (2) other planned adversarial proceedings relating to Judge McElroy’s misconduct as it relates to Ronald Gottschalk – Thomas Girardi’s former co-counsel in class-action litigation and current nemesis – will be addressed in a Kastigar Evidentiary Hearing/ Brady Evidence, as well as a separate civil suit naming Judge McElroy and alleged cousin, Leslie McElroy.
As was previously reported, Mr. Ronald Gottschalk and Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi (husband of singer Erika Jayne aka Erika Girardi) were co-counsel representing plaintiffs in various actions. Once a dispute erupted between Gottschalk and Girardi, the State Bar of California came knocking on Gottschalk’s door.
![Patrice McElroy's Misconduct]()
Gottschalk’s lawyer– Mr. Stanley Arouty– submitted a sworn statement to the California Supreme Court accusing McElroy of intentionally destroying an audio tape which serves as the official court record.
(See excerpts from Arouty’s declaration above)
The State Bar of California, realizing that the evidence against Gottschalk is weak and not credible at the extreme, obtained a default judgment against Gottschalk during a time period which the State Bar knew Mr. Gottschalk was unavailable. Participating in the scheme against Gottschalk were Mr. Paul O’Brien from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and Judge Patrice McElroy.
In another instance, during a hearing presided over by Judge McElroy, she disclosed that Peter G. Keane — who was then Dean of Golden Gate University School of Law and was representing an adverse witness (Ms. Sara E. Raymond) — had been her supervisor when she was previously employed as an assistant Public Defender.
![Clipboa - Copy]()
However, Judge McElroy failed to disclose that at or about the time the hearing in question was taking place, she accepted as a gift from Mr. Keane an overseas trip.
![Clip - Copy]()
![Cl - Copy]()
Even more troubling is the fact that at or about the time the trip took place, Golden Gate University and the student in question were in the midst of litigating a civil case the student had filed in San Francisco Superior Court.
In yet another instance, McElroy’s penchant for destroying the official records of her own courtroom also manifested itself during the proceedings against Respondent Khanna.
Feeling victimized, Mr. Khanna advanced an action against McElroy in federal court. Below is part of an order authored by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen. The order alluded to the alleged destruction of the court official record.
![Khanna]()
In yet another instance of McElroy’s misconduct is the case of William G. Wells. In addition to McElroy’s complete disregard to a specific and detailed order issued by Judge JoAnn Remke– the presiding judge of the court.
McElroy’s was accused of being biased and hostile. Below is an excerpt of pleadings prepared by attorneys from the firm of Christa & Jackson which represents Mr. Wells
![McElroy's Hostility toward Wells]()
THE COURT (McElroy): Okay. My understanding is there was an agreement at the end of the settlement conference, that the parties reached an agreement on all issues, including findings of facts and conclusions of law and a proposed degree of discipline.
MS. MEYERS: That’s my understanding, your Honor.
MR. WELLS: Well, that’s not correct.
THE COURT: Well, my understanding is the specific terms of the agreement between the parties was explicitly placed on the record. Do the parties agree with that?
MR. WELLS: It was not concluded.
MS. MEYERS: That’s my – that’s my understanding.
MR. WELLS: Well, I don’t know where you get your understanding, but it was not concluded. And this-
THE COURT: It’s my understanding it was, and as a result, I’m going to vacate the trial dates. Mr. Wells?
MR. WELLS: I’d like the ruling on my motions.
THE COURT: Your motions are moot.
When Wells inquired how Judge McElroy had developed her understanding of the outcome of the settlement conference which had concluded the previous afternoon, Judge McElroy disclosed that she had spoken to Judge Platel, the judge who had been disqualified from hearing Wells’s matter.
MR. WELLS: Well, your Honor is saying that, based on somebody’s communication to you, that something was put on the record?
THE COURT: No. This – this – it is on the record.
MR. WELLS: You have it?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WELLS: You have a transcript of the verdict?
THE COURT: I don’t need a transcript.
MR. WELLS: What do you have?
THE COURT: The disk.
MR. WELLS: Well, you don’t hear my agreement to it.
THE COURT: And my understanding is, having talked to Judge Platel, that there was -
MR. WELLS: Well-
THE COURT: – an agreement on all the issues, and it was placed on the record.
MR. WELLS: Well, that is not accurate.
Judge McElroy ultimately refused to take any evidence or allow Wells to be heard on the issue of whether a settlement had been reached during the earlier settlement conference:
THE COURT: What is the State Bar’s position on this matter?
MS. MEYERS: The State Bar’s position is the same as your Honor’s position. We believe there was a settlement reached in good faith. It was put on the record, and we believe Mr. Wells should be bound by the settlement reached.
THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Wells, you will be bound by it.
MR. WELLS: Well, you’ve already ruled, I guess, right?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WELLS: Well, I haven’t even filed my motion, and you still ruled.
THE COURT: Well, I’m going to have – issue an order approving the stipulation as to findings of facts.
MR. WELLS: Without even hearing from me, right?
THE COURT: No. I’m going to file an order approving the stipulation.
At the conclusion of the conference, Judge McElroy ordered that the case was settled and vacated the trial date.
Later, over Wells’s objections, Judge Platel sua sponte issued an “Order Approving Stipulation re: Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.”
Wells moved for reconsideration of Judge Platel’s order, which Judge Platel denied. Next, Wells filed a petition with the Review Department to set aside Judge Platel’s order.
The Review Department ruled that Judge Platel had no authority to make binding adjudications at the settlement conference, or any time, due to his disqualification from Wells’s case.
Wells then moved for an order disqualifying Judge McElroy based on her ex parte conversations with Judge Platel about what had occurred during the settlement conference.
Judge McElroy filed a verified answer to Wells’s motion, declining to recuse herself. Specifically, Judge McElroy stated, “The Court has carefully reviewed respondent’s motion to disqualify and the declaration in support thereof, and the court denies each and every allegation of bias, prejudice or other impropriety made against her by respondent.” Judge McElroy ordered: “it is HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s motion is referred to Judge Lucy Armendariz for such further action as she deems appropriate.” The order was signed: “Pat McElroy, Judge of the State Bar Court.”
![]()
![]()
Ms. Lucy Armendariz, a 1997 graduate of Hastings College of the Law. She was appointed to serve as judge in 2007. Prior to her appointment, she was chief of staff to California State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero; worked as an attorney with the law firm Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe; and as an ombudsman with the California’s women’s prisons. At the age of 10, Lucy Armendariz was removed from her parents’ custody and entered California’s crowded foster-care system. According to U.C. Hastings’ Magazine, in 2006, Armendariz was appointed to the state’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care by California Chief Justice Ronald George. The commission’s report, issued in 2008, outlined the need to make foster children’s welfare a top priority. For Lucy Armendariz alleged connection to Antonio Villaraigosa, please see HERE (Photo: courtesy of California Leadership)
Judge Armendariz denied Wells’s motion to disqualify Judge McElroy. Judge Armendariz wrote:
“Based on the documents filed by each party, including the declarations of both parties, the court rejects respondent’s contention that Judge McElroy has or will exhibit bias in her handling of respondent’s matter. As such, respondent has failed to show sufficient cause to warrant the recusal of Judge McElroy.”
Later on, Judge McElroy, without explanation, issued an order recusing herself from Wells’ case. Judge McElroy did not state any grounds for her action. Nonetheless, the State Bar has asserted that Judge McElroy’s orders are valid and enforceable.
This latest development comes in the aftermath of revelations of numerous scandals exposed and reported by TLR involving McElroy which came on the heels of a crisis of confidence in State Bar leadership. Specifically, racial minorities in position of trust are routinely accused of intentional misconduct by failing to fulfill their duties or avoid any and all appearance of, let alone real, improprieties. Most notable of which are “Shakedown Artist” Negroid Gwen Moore, Negroid Judy Johnson, Negroid Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest, Mongoloid Ming Chin, Mongoloid Holly Fujie, Mongoloid Leslie Hatamiya, Mongoloid Madge Watai, Mongoloid Mike Nisperos, Mongoloid Alec Chang, Mongoloid Ruthe Catolico Ashley and her best-friend, Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye.
Filed under:
Uncategorized ![]()
