SHELTER FROM THE NORM

Optimism, Lawyers , California State Bar and Action

Quoting from the last post on optimism sites in the brain:

"Having our brains wired to optimism is generally a good thing because "if you were pessimistic about the future you would not be motivated to take a lot of action," Phelps said."

Learned helplessness is your belief that nothing you do matters.  Change your belief, change the outcome. There is always something in your environment you can control.

I am an optimist. I take action.  Does it work?

Last week I received notice that a bar complaint I wrote for someone resulted in her receiving over $100K from her former attorney. She would have lost her house if this had not come through.  What did he do wrong? No discovery, failure to inform her of the status of her case, forcing her to settle in a matter with the threat, "If you don't sign this, I will quit." There were other issues also, but these were the main ones.

I read the letter from the California Bar. I am always interested in their train of thought. I am also interested in how attorneys react to having a bar complaint filed against them. Do they change their behavior?

Jeffrey Kaufman did.  Was the behavior change lasting? I doubt it because they let him off the hook saying that since he stated he would assist his client in fraud  in a settlement conference IT DID NOT MATTER. (arguing that anything said there is ok.)

I do not believe they are correct - an attorney may never state he is about to commit a crime - but when I got the letter from them I was too tired to do anything about it.

Michael Lowy has no incentive to change his behavior since the bar complaint against him has not yet been filed.  I understand that - both he and Ron Romines can only wonder and eventually ignore threats that never take place.

I have had to write another bar complaint recently - this time against opposing counsel for conflict of interest: he represented the wife during the marriage and is now representing the husband in the divorce.  In the previous matter he instructed the wife how to reduce husband's income so the first wife got less child support. Now he is financially marginalizing wife number 2!

I see so much corruption and arrogance and no remorse in the legal arena I continue to provide oversight. If everyone does nothing, nothing gets done.  Those of us who provide information and oversight live in two worlds: to the people we help we are heros. To the majority of attorneys we are despised.

Family law is like a sewer. That's a quote from a Santa Clara County attorney.

Bar complaints are the Roto_Rooters. 

Positive Psychology, Optimism and the Brain

another data point on the path to understanding optimists

Scientists narrow optimism area in brain

 

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science WriterWed Oct 24,  4:23 PM ET

A person's optimism in the future seems to be controlled by a small front part of the mid-brain, according to a study that used brain imaging.

That area deep behind the eyes activates when people think good thoughts about what might happen in the future. The more optimistic a person is, the brighter the area showed up in brain scans, the scientists reported in a small study published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

That same part of the brain, called the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC), seems to malfunction in people suffering depression, said the study co-authors, Elizabeth Phelps of New York University and Tali Sharot of University College London.

Researchers gave 15 people functional magnetic resonance imaging scans while they thought about future possibilities. When the participants thought about good events both the rACC and amygdala, which is involved in emotional responses including fear, were activated. But the correlation with optimism was biggest with the cingulate cortex.

The same study also found that people tended to think that happier events were closer in time and more vivid than the bad ones, even if they had no reason to believe it, Phelps said.

Psychologists have long known people have an "optimism bias," but the new study offers new details.

When researchers asked the subjects to think about 80 different future events that could be good, bad or neutral, they had a hard time getting people to think negatively, or even neutrally, about the future. For example, when people were asked to ponder a future haircut, they imagined getting the best haircut of their lives, instead of just an ordinary trim, Phelps said.

The study makes sense and pulls together new and different parts of research on optimism and the brain, said Dan Schacter, a professor of psychology at Harvard University who wasn't part of the research.

Having our brains wired to optimism is generally a good thing because "if you were pessimistic about the future you would not be motivated to take a lot of action," Phelps said.

___

On the Net:

http://www.nature.com/nature

   

Ron Romines and Kathee Tyson and Smart Voter

Despite the fact the Smart Voter website says:

"Smart Voter offers extensive background information on candidates in participating counties..."

and despite the fact my site is not opinion but fact, it seems that ethics violations are A-OK for government officials and not newsworthy.  But we knew that already didn't we?

Kathee Tyson responded to my input with this email:

Dear Ms. Bradley,

  Thank you for your interest in SmartVoter.  However,
the link you suggested is not the type of piece we
post on SmartVoter.  It is our established policy to
only link to news articles, not op/ed pieces or
outside web sites.

Kathee Tyson
SmartVoter Project
--- annbradley@gmail.com wrote:

> |:-------------------------- SmartVoter Feedback
> |Ref:
> http://www.smartvoter.org/2007/11/06/ca/sm/race/32
>
|Referrer:http://www.smartvoter.org/2007/11/06/ca/sm/race/32/
> |From:    Ann <annbradley@gmail.com>
> |Date:    Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:08:13 PDT
> |Received at: e2.smartvoter.org
> |Zip:     94301
> |County:  Santa Clara County, CA
>
> |Comment:
> also see
> http://www.narcissisticabuse.com/ronromines.html
>
> Ron brings nothing to the table intellectually or
> ethically. Being an attorney in violation of basic
> ethics codes does not bode well for government.
> Isn't there enough corruption there already? Surely
> Woodside can find someone who can do his job within
> the regulations and rules required. Romines cannot.
> Bar complaint in process.
>
> |:--------------------------- Suggested Link Info
> |Location:
> http://www.smartvoter.org/2007/11/06/ca/sm/race/32
> |Note....: Town Council Member; Town of Woodside;
> District 1
> |Author..: Ann Bradley
> |Date....:
> |Type....: News
> |Heading.: News and Analysis
>
> |:--------------------------- Cut-Paste-and-Modify
> this:
>
> Ethics Violation
>
http://www.narcissisticabuse.com/collaborativelaw.html
> - Ron Romines is in violation of CA State Bar ethics
> - he sent privileged client information to opposing
> counsel. Bar complaint in process.
>
> |:--------------------------- End of Comment
>
>

My Life: Versions One and Two

TELL ME YOUR STORY

We all have a story.

Mine is this:  Mom and Dad gave me away when I was a baby and I never saw them again.  I did not go to a happy home. It was a big house and  we had lots of money.   Dad was a doctor and Mom was the doctor's wife who gave lavish dinner parties.   I had summers in Europe.  I married a guy from Penn law,  we moved to Vermont, he became a drug dealer and I grabbed the kids and ran to the west coast.  No child support and I worked several jobs to support them as I put myself through graduate school at Stanford.  I worked in the computer industry and then married again and had another child.  We divorced and he stole my inheritance, left us with no money for food and took up with a prostitute and spent child support on her,  defrauded me and the IRS and took me to the Court of Appeals where he lost.

That's the bad news story.

I also have this story.  As a child I got an amazing education at a Quaker school, then at Penn, Goddard, Antioch and Stanford.  I met interesting people all the time.  I've written books, published in academic journals, founded a non-profit, lectured at Stanford, worked as an editor, had some amazing relationships, have wonderful friends, a sense of adventure and curiosity  and fall in love with the world and all its lessons over and over.  My work brings people to me from all over the world and I admire and respect them  for their courage and strength.  I study happiness and call it to my heart so I can live without complaints on the things that matter.   I am grateful for the messiness of life and embrace it.

"....yes I said yes I will Yes." - Molly Bloom, Ulysses

-  yes to choices, intuition, kids, ourselves, to give permission for something,  to make mistakes, to be a failure and to be a success.  Yes, to speaking my mind, having voice and giving it to others. Yes,  I will do this, yes, there are risks, yes, I am a risk taker, yes I will go forth yes I will be hurt, yes I will be loved for the same things I am hated for.  Yes, I am.

No's are for special occasions: "No, I am not a  doormat. No, you may not abuse me, steal from me and lie about me." Yes, I mean that.

Attorney Client Privilege

Confidences and Privilege: Clients and Attorneys

In California,

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE -

California law (including Section 6068(e) of the Business and Professions Code) forbids the attorney from disclosing any information obtained in confidence from the client. No implied common law duties or rules of professional conduct promulgated in other jurisdictions apply to allow even a limited disclosure.     

DISCUSSION

Historically,  the maintenance of client confidences has been one of the  highest duties of an attorney. Society originally derived this duty, in part, from Roman law, see Redin, The Privilege     of Confidential Communications Between Lawyer and Client,  16 Cal.L.Rev. 487, 488 (1928), and carried it forward through  common law and legislative promulgation.                    

In California,  two independent legislative schemes establish the duty to maintain client confidences. First, Section 6068(e) of the  Business and Professions Act provides:

It is the duty of an attorney to do all the following:                    . .                       .                   

(e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril  to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or  her client.

A related  codification of this duty can be found in the statutes relating to the attorney-client privilege collected in the Evidence  Code. Specifically, Section 954 (1)   provides:

 

Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing,  a confidential communication between client and lawyer if  the privilege is claimed by:                    

(a)                       The holder of the privilege . . .

The only arguably relevant exception to the Evidence Code provisions  dealing with the attorney-client privilege is Section 956,  the so-called "crime-fraud" exception. This section          provides: There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.                    

 

and

1.6:200   Professional   Duty of Confidentiality

¥ Primary California References:   CRPC 3-310, B&PC   ¤ 6068, Evid. Code 950-955
  ¥ Background References: ABA   Model Rule 1.6, Other Jurisdictions
  ¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 55:101, ALI-LGL ¤¤ 111-117A,   Wolfram ¤¤ 6.1, 6.7

The attorney-client relationship is one of strict fiduciality   and confidentiality. See Zador Corp. N.V. v. C.K. Kwan (6th   Dist. 1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1293, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 (an attorney   and a client have a fiduciary relationship of the very highest character, requiring   the attorney to respect his or her clientÕs confidences); McClure   v. Donovan (2nd Dist. 1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 664, 666, 186 P.2d 718 (the   attorney-client relationship is sacred and confidential). The integrity of the   legal profession requires at all times the protection of a client who depends   upon and confides in the attorney. See C.O.P.R.A.C. Op. 1981-58   (1981). The duty of confidentiality arises whenever a lawyer-client relationship   exists and protects all information regarding the representation, regardless   of the source of the information. See Commercial Standard   Title Co., Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (4th Dist. 1979) 92 Cal.App.3d   934, 155 Cal.Rptr. 393. The broad duty of confidentiality should not   be confused with the narrower attorney-client privilege. See Wolfram   ¤ 6.7.3; See also C.O.P.R.A.C. Op. 1993-133   (duty to maintain client confidences and secrets inviolate is broader in scope   than the privilege); L.A. Op. 436 (1985) (ÒconfidenceÓ   and ÒsecretsÓ under B&PC ¤ 6068(e) is far broader   than the attorney-client privilege). The attorney-client privilege only protects   client communications made to a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.   See Id.; See also Geoffrey C. Hazard,   Jr., et al., The Law and Ethics of Lawyering, at 220-349 (2d ed. 1994).  

The following comments on B&PC   ¤ 6068(e) are taken from Karpman & Margolis pages   171 and 174:

Privileged communications do not become discoverable solely   because they are related to issues raised in litigation. However, a lawyer may   divulge confidential client communications to defend against actions brought   against the lawyer by the client. Schlumberger, Ltd. v. Superior   Court (2nd Dist. 1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 386, 392-393, 171 Cal.Rptr. 413.

Does Corruption Matter?

Why talk about Pauline Tesler, Michael Lowy, Jeff Kaufman, Ron Romines,  former Judge Susan Rankin and others?  Why bother?

Because it matters.  It is as simple and complex as that, because when injustice and lies explode in your gut and you do nothing and when they see fees where you see laws, the moral imperative to police the corrupt is in play.


Philosopher Julian Baggini, writing in BBC news said :

"Revealing simple truths about simplistic falsehoods is not just a

minor philosophical task, like doing the dishes at Descartes' Diner

while the real geniuses cook up the main courses. For when it comes to

the relevance of philosophy to real life, all the commitments we make

on the big issues are determined by considerations which are

ultimately quite straightforward... Any individual or group is shown

to be ridiculous when only their pathetic and partial view of the

world is taken to be everything."

Michael Lowy: You Got a Lot of Nerve

Michael Lowy:

You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning

I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd
You're in with 

 Lyrics by Bob Dylan

Ann Bradley <ann.bradley@gmail.com>	Mon, Feb 5, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Reply-To: annbradley@gmail.com To: Michael Lowy <lowylaw@yahoo.com>
MIchael I received your letter stating that according to your records you sent the year 2005 forwarded emails to me. No, you did not.  If I had them, I would not have asked for them. They arrived today. And why would you have sent them to me ?   They are evidence of collaboration with opposing counsel in an ethics violation.  According to the documents.... left in my file, you and Ron Romines agreed to read client emails and Ron forwarded them to you.   You know that is an ethics violation, yet you willingly agreed to participate in it. These emails were sent to you in 2005.  You never told me you had them. The entire tone of the collaborative process changed after that. Go read the michael lowy page online which has excerpts from emails to you such as "It has been seven months and you still haven't responded to me."   When I flew up from L.A.,  Mr. Romines attacked me verbally at the end of the meeting. You neglected to defend me, advocate for me or even make a call to me.  It was always about Jim and his house. Always. My issues were ignored... I told you the process was a conflict of interest and it certainly proved to be. Even your continued misunderstanding about buying a house together with Jim was failure to protect me.  It was never my idea to help him buy his house. My idea, presented to you, BEFORE we found out about his property, was to remodel a house NOT OWNED by him, but to do one as an investment....... You neglected to tell me you were receiving those emails, so I was the only one there who didn't know they had been forwarded to Ron Romines. .......This is a formal request for a refund of all monies paid for your services due to fraud, breach of contract, failure to properly represent me, neglect, legal misconduct, and knowingly engaging in an ethics violation and failure to inform me of it. ADDED: OCTOBER 2007 (It has been 8 months and the above has not been responded to) This is a follow up  request for a return of fees paid for the collaborative sessions. The following reasons are provided: ethics violation: reading Jim's emails (without permission) which were written  to make me look bad and enhance his position in the collaborative process. You agreed to read these emails and this was memorialized in an email from opposing counsel.  This violates collaborative process as well as CA State Bar Ethics Code. lying delay refusal to communicate vial email or phone for seven months failure to advocate (admitted by you in email) failure to do discovery failure to do address continued fraud despite repeated requests neglect of case assisting opposing party with fraud allowing my financial condition to deteriorate which forced me to live in motels for 4 months and caused permanent health problems

Michael Lowy:

You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning

I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd
You're in with 

 Lyrics by Bob Dylan

Ann Bradley <ann.bradley@gmail.com>	Mon, Feb 5, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Reply-To: annbradley@gmail.com To: Michael Lowy <lowylaw@yahoo.com>
MIchael I received your letter stating that according to your records you sent the year 2005 forwarded emails to me. No, you did not.  If I had them, I would not have asked for them. They arrived today. And why would you have sent them to me ?   They are evidence of collaboration with opposing counsel in an ethics violation.  According to the documents.... left in my file, you and Ron Romines agreed to read client emails and Ron forwarded them to you.   You know that is an ethics violation, yet you willingly agreed to participate in it. These emails were sent to you in 2005.  You never told me you had them. The entire tone of the collaborative process changed after that. Go read the michael lowy page online which has excerpts from emails to you such as "It has been seven months and you still haven't responded to me."   When I flew up from L.A.,  Mr. Romines attacked me verbally at the end of the meeting. You neglected to defend me, advocate for me or even make a call to me.  It was always about Jim and his house. Always. My issues were ignored... I told you the process was a conflict of interest and it certainly proved to be. Even your continued misunderstanding about buying a house together with Jim was failure to protect me.  It was never my idea to help him buy his house. My idea, presented to you, BEFORE we found out about his property, was to remodel a house NOT OWNED by him, but to do one as an investment....... You neglected to tell me you were receiving those emails, so I was the only one there who didn't know they had been forwarded to Ron Romines. .......This is a formal request for a refund of all monies paid for your services due to fraud, breach of contract, failure to properly represent me, neglect, legal misconduct, and knowingly engaging in an ethics violation and failure to inform me of it. ADDED: OCTOBER 2007 (It has been 8 months and the above has not been responded to) This is a follow up  request for a return of fees paid for the collaborative sessions. The following reasons are provided: ethics violation: reading Jim's emails (without permission) which were written  to make me look bad and enhance his position in the collaborative process. You agreed to read these emails and this was memorialized in an email from opposing counsel.  This violates collaborative process as well as CA State Bar Ethics Code. lying delay refusal to communicate vial email or phone for seven months failure to advocate (admitted by you in email) failure to do discovery failure to do address continued fraud despite repeated requests neglect of case assisting opposing party with fraud allowing my financial condition to deteriorate which forced me to live in motels for 4 months and caused permanent health problems

iThinkSteveJobsShouldDoThis

Here's a little history of the Palo Alto Apple Store. (451 University Ave.)  It may be the ipod store to many, but it is also  where Jerry Garcia used to teach guitar and borrowed instruments in another time.   I think the music gods must live there.. why doesn't Steve Jobs have a little plaque honoring the Dead?  iTunes, iPod, Iwasonceamusicstoreandamagain.

originally from an online source:
"More and more, the band began borrowing their instruments from Swain's House of Music. Pauline Swain, who still works in the music store at 451 University Ave., says she and her husband, Robert, lent instruments to the band "because we liked to help young musicians." Sometimes the band would practice in the store. Other times, they would take the instruments up to La Honda, where they would hang out with Kesey and his Merry Pranksters. More often than not, "when the instruments were returned, they came back looking like they had been in a pig pen," says Swain, making reference to McKernan's nickname."
Swain, who keeps a file of newspaper clippings on the Dead, also remembers when Garcia asked her secretary how to spell "grateful." He didn't know if the word was "greatful" or "grateful."

"All my secretary could say was, 'Jerry, with a name like that, you'll never go anywhere.'"

Pauline Tesler is Confused: The State Bar has Rules for WHO?

Pauline is confused: morphing from litigator to collaborator, she mixes her gladiator and warrior archetypes  with collaborative, throwing in  CA State Bar Ethics Violations.   Pauline thinks the CA State Bar writes ethics codes for husbands and wives! (will the last sane lawyer turn out the lights?)

Put down the Jung, sort out your gladiator from your warrior archetypes from your solutions and pay attention.  (see Pauline's unusual thought pattterns described here in her own words: Jung and Pauline.) 

Pauline says in the email below that  State Bar forbids divorcing couples with communicating with one another.  No, Pauline: it is ATTORNEYS who may not communicate with a represented party. (time for CLE on ethics? or maybe retirement?)

<>

from that amazing site which explores in depth the chaos and the reality of a collaborative divorce, My Collaborative Law Divorce we see Pauline is not only confused, but controlling and far, far from collaborative which encourages communication between husband and wife.

(Email of January 4, 2007) Tesler writes Seltzer, "As before, [husband] continues to send direct and annoying messages to [wife] via email.   [Husband] seems not to understand State Bar rules regarding communicating directly with a party  represented by counsel, though I know you have advised him not to do that.  Just so you are aware, I've advised [wife] not to respond to any direct communications from [husband] other than to tell him that he should send divorce-related communications only through you.  I've urged her to ignore any direct requests for information, agreement, etc. except  as transmitted through counsel.”

      

Comment: Is this a court case or a collaboration??? Note that this is even after we had agreed on all the terms a month earlier. So apparently Tesler's contention is that the spouses may not communicate AT ALL during a collaboration unless they (the lawyers) are present (at $800/hr), and she provides a basis as if we're in the middle of a litigation. And my wife continued to contact me via email/phone whenever she wanted something. I believe the directive to not communicate occurred early on in the case since wife would not respond to any email about the case, however trivial as early as September 2006. I also believe this was the strategy used to take complete control of the case, increase expenses, and encourage suspicion and conflict, thereby prolonging the case. There is nothing in the Collaborative Law contracts we signed or literature given to us that has the protocol Tesler introduced - where we could not talk at all. In fact, we made the most progress each time we did NOT follow that protocol and talked (such as the agreement to settle in December), but such progress was quickly shut down by what I believe was a reminder by Tesler to wife not to communicate further with me.

      

 

MyCollaborativeLawDivorce.org and Pauline Tesler

"We are the rulers of process; the clients own the  substance.”

That's Queen Pauline yakking away about collaborative law in an email to opposing counsel.

Pauline, Pauline, you don't rule or reign over anything in the legal system.   Who pays the bill?  Who pays those fees - and those of the Queen's court?

Clients pay the way. They own the "process" - and let's make it simple. The "process" isn't whatever you want it to be so you can change the rules or make them up as you go along. No 'supersaturated thinking" or drinking or blinking or winking and especially not your supersaturated ego.

The process is more than patronizing Orwellian linguistic masturbation.  It is divorce - with laws, and codes, and rights and responsibilities.  You don't Rule The Process. The state does. The client does. Everyone except you. You are the least important part of the "process". Invert the pyramid, Pauline, you've got it wrong.

The "process" you ruled was auctioned on eBay.  It's gone. The more people find out what you and Seltzer and Romines and Lowy and all the others are really about, and blog, write, haiku or bar complaint the truth, the more you will "get it." Why you Pauline?  Because you are a hypocrite. Your inner litigator is only a rage moment away. And I have heard about them.  Because you lie, and harm and damage and people complain about you. Because you run all over this country "training" others to Rule The Process. It needs to stop because the damage you do is severe and you have no idea. That sense of entitlement is huge, and when you pass yourself off as kinder and gentler, you are wrong to do so. There is nothing kind or gentle or reasonable or rational about you according to your clients.

Read all about it on MY COLLABORATIVE LAW DIVORCE

more paulinisms:

“Terms are undefined.”

“Nothing  is settled until everything is settled.”

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others." (oh, wait, that's Animal Farm.)