SHELTER FROM THE NORM

Collaborative Liars

Found online from Renaissance Lawyer:

"A Collaborative Lawyer will not tolerate dishonesty or lack of principle in a client."

Well gosh darn, golly, gee. Who are these people that write things like that? I can't tell if they actually believe these statements, or they are marketing to us, or think we are stupid.

Oh, what the heck! Sales people are everywhere and so is stupid and so is naive.

If you are just arriving at this saga of collaborative failure, ($55,000 POST JUDGMENT and POST APPEAL), go see it all here where Michael Lowy and Ron Romines share the spotlight on who can be the least ethical collaborateur.



 

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. 

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
>
>

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

Michael Lowy, Alternative Justice and Institutional Change

I copied that title from Google.   It links to a class Michael Lowy conducted many years ago. You can listen to it on line.

The phrase "alternative justice" is intriguing.   It is also brutal.

It is what happens to blacks, Hispanics, and women.   It is in fact what happens to anyone, anywhere who doesn't get justice served plain, raw and with no alternatives.

I concur that alternative justice causes institutional change.  Look at the U.S. government.

for more information on attorney Michael Lowy, (Palo Alto, CA)  you can read about him on narcissisticabuse.com/michaellowy.html

Woodside Town Council, Ron Romines, and Ethics

"Are You Tired of ETHICAL MISCONDUCT in the LEGAL PROFESSION?

Are You Tired of  LAWYERS WHO LIE?"

I wrote that so many years ago, I forgot about it.  But data tracking one of my websites today,  I found a father's rights group linked to it.  (Sometimes they like me because I call for oversight.)

I also found on there a quote I still like:

Mark Perlmutter, attorney and author, Why Lawyers (And the Rest
of Us) Lie              

                "...one of the systemic influences on lying in the legal
                system is that lying is a norm. It's an insidious
                development. We lawyers start by justifying it in
                circumstances in which 'everybody does it'. Then, once
                on the slippery slope of justification, we find it
                easy to rationalize lying in more and more
                circumstances. Eventually, it becomes so commonplace
                that we're now unconscious of it."

"...lying is a norm."  And this blog is named Shelter From The Norm.

Ok, cut to the chase. Ron Romines, Town Council Member for Woodside, CA is running for office again.  Ron represented my ex husband in a post trial, post appeal collaborative law disaster. There is a bar complaint pending for various ethical violations.

Engage your mirror neurons and come along with me for a ride on one of those ethical violations. You have hired an attorney at $350.00 per hour, two hour meeting each time. You pay for two attorneys at this price. Both attorneys engage you in a process based on honesty, transparency, and full disclosure. Should one of the clients fail in any of these,  they are thrown out of the process.  The attorneys are not expected to engage in deception and the emphasis is not on their actions.

But this process has no oversight.  Behind closed doors there is no court reporter. No digital recorder. No technology - we move backwards in time. While earning his $350.00+ an hour, the attorneys take turns being stenographers. They are multitasking while representing a client. These handwritten notes are typed up by a secretary and this becomes the "official record".   Should you not rebut each and every mistake,  they use your words against you. But I digress. There is no oversight.

In any situation devoid of oversight, corruption creeps in.

From the office of Attorney Ron Romines to  Attorney Michael Lowy:

Michael,

There is a series of emails that I am forwarding to you pursuant to Ron's discussion with you before he left on vacation. There are 9 emails.

Laura
Assistant to Ron Romines

Attorney-client privilege has a such high regard in law that breaking it by sharing client emails with opposing counsel is reason for disbarrment.

If a lawyer cares so little about following the law, about breaking ethics violations, can this same lawyer really be the model for the citizens of Woodside?

What would the rest of the country think of a Mayor Pro Tem who can't follow the laws?

Back to local citizens.

Does Woodside pride itself on its woodsy, horsy, small town with big bucks, cozy, we're all friends atmosphere?  Oh a few tiffs over bike riding, parked cars and Steve Jobs, but yes, it is a tight knit community. Just like the collaborative law community.  And do they police themselves? They do not.

Coverups may not seem so important in small town, have a venture capitalist over for Sunday brunch kinda town, but that's the point.  Corruption anywhere, whether in the academic air of Stanford University and cancer cures (that's another story, playing out in divorce court in Santa Clara County now), or Zimbardo's prison experiment, or a small meeting room with a very small amount of money at stake, but two monstrously evil attorneys, harming the clients paying them.

Do you think "monstrously evil" is over the top?  Ask:  Is there "baby evil?"

Walk on the slippery slope, and it doesn't matter.  Baby evil turns into monster evil.

Would you hire an attorney that lies about you?

Would you hire Ron Romines who wrote an email to opposing counsel agreeing to an ethics violation that harmed the collaborative people he promised to help? And then lie about it?

Is this what you want as Mayor Pro Tem of small, bucolic Woodside?

Only if you justify it:

                "...one of the systemic influences on lying in the legal
                system is that lying is a norm. It's an insidious
                development. We lawyers start by justifying it in
                circumstances in which 'everybody does it'. Then, once
                on the slippery slope of justification, we find it
                easy to rationalize lying in more and more
                circumstances. Eventually, it becomes so commonplace
                that we're now unconscious of it."

The Bar complaint will be posted on divorceandlawyers.com within a week.

Ron Romines as Mayor Pro Tem of Woodside and the citizens therein are no better than those who rationalize  "everybody does it."  From there, larger and larger lies become easier and easier to justify.

And one day, the monsters are running the town, the city and the country.

Crawford Texas is a small town with horses too.

The Town Council is the legislative body of the Town of Woodside, with all the regulatory and corporate powers provided under California  state law. The Town Council provides the policy direction that guides the operation of the Town, adopts ordinances and resolutions that constitute the legislative intent of the Town, and sets the Town's priorities through the adoption  of an annual budget and the provision of direction to the Town Manager. The Town Council represents the Town's residents  through these actions and through the conveyance of constituent  requests and concerns to the Town staff. The Town Council also appoints all members to all advisory committees, the  Planning Commission, and the Architectural and Site Review  Board.

 

 

Little Piggies, Family Law, and Law.com

This article from Law.com is about a very controversial blog

STOP! What does all this legal stuff have to do with positive psychology and happiness? Stay tuned..answers coming to a blog post near you.

The Law.com article describes how some lawyers in Florida are blogging about the lack of ethics of certain judges. YES! THEY ARE CREATING OVERSIGHT! Congratulations to the lawyers who take risks in outing these judges.

Naturally the judges don't like it. Naturally. It's better that no one tells on you if you are corrupt.

I am disgusted with judges, lawyers and others (whores of the court) in family law. Anyone who knows me knows I have been fighting and outing corruption. These con artists get away with too much and hurt too many innocent victims, especially the most powerless.

My pages on Judge Susan Rankin in Dallas Texas helped to get her off the bench. I spoke to the new Judge's mother on election night - she thanked me for helping to get rid of Susan to make way for her daughter. I didn't do it for Lynn Cherry, but that was the result and a good one it was. I like Lynn and am happy to see a good person become a good judge.

Then I put some pages on Judge Marilea Lewis up when she would not recuse herself in a custody case. Again, the pages did their job and when my website was brought up in court, Marilea recused herself. But not before having the FBI look at my pages! I guess they decided I was only helping them doing their job, shrugged and went away.

Then there are the pages about Michael Lowy, Ron Romines and their ethics violations. Mike was my attorney in collaborative law - one of the boutique cancers of the law existing in the no mans land of no judges, no reporters, no BRAINS, and full of broken laws, raped clients, and idiots smirking about the cash cow they created. Perhaps the biggest con artist in law today is Pauline Tesler who has managed to allow her jungian archetype discredited nonsense to energize her mission. Never have I seen a legal cult - Tesler gave it to us. See Pauline Tesler, Shamans, Oy Vay!

Private Judging rivals collaborative law for its corruption - and of course the HUGE denials of the ones who runs these slot machines for themselves. Take Neville Spadafore - please.

Today he finds out we know he isn't so clean. Guess that one little oversight place for half assed judges like him (only in CA can a non judge, judge) finally got a whif of his stink and ASKED for him to be reported!

I love it...like when the Collaborative Law group I told about Mike and Ron asked me to report them. Yea, yea, the victim has to do cleanup. No time, no time, but the burden is on us.

I am releasing the page I did on Spadafore a while ago. On it is another story too. Watch for the transcript coming up. EX PARTE CUSTODY HEARING! The mother does not know she is to be in court, the judge knows it is the wrong time and he holds it anyway.

The inmates are running the show.

I give you Neville Spadafore, Jack Peth, and Hugh Jackson in The Little Piggy Show

Private Judges in Family Law

There's nothing positive about Private Judges. Unchecked, unwatched, they hide in the corners of the law and take advantage of power imbalances, no oversight, and the old boy network. I'm watching one right now in California. I'm watching who is feeding him business. I'm watching him.

See latest and updated post about this topic. May 11 Piggies, Family Law and Law.com