Police Harassment Suit Amended

October 22, 2012

Features, News

The federal civil rights lawsuit brought by the Southern Nevada Confederation of Clubs and numerous individual complainants against various Las Vegas area police departments including the notorious Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the North Las Vegas Police Department has grown.

The lawsuit now lists 32 separate “claims for relief.” Each claim, by an individual, seeks a “sum in excess of $75,000 for damages” and a similar amount in punitive damages plus a “a reasonable sum as attorneys’ fees, costs of suit and interest.” So it is now a $5 million lawsuit and unless Southern Nevada police stop singling out motorcycle club members for harassment the amount sought will grow.

The complainants are represented by Las Vegas lawyer Stephen P. Stubbs. The suit alleges that “Plaintiffs were willfully, maliciously, and intentionally prevented from associating and/or assembling without justification or compelling state interest as a result of their status as a motorcycle club or motorcycle club member.”

The original suit, brought last June, alleged two serious incidents of harassment against the Mongols Motorcycle Club; an incident involving the Vagos Motorcycle Club; illegal persecution of the Stray Cats Motorcycle Club; and incidents involving members of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club named Joseph Pitka and Stuart Cantara. You can read The Aging Rebel’s original report on the lawsuit here.

The amended complaint cites additional incidents involving members of the Mongols, Bandidos and Down & Dirty Motorcycle Clubs. The suit is reinforced by documents that seem to prove that police and politicians in Boulder City, Nevada intended to deprive visitors during the Mongols National Run last June of their constitutional rights.

Police Make The Law

For example, the suit cites an email written by Boulder City, Nevada “Intel/Gang/Graffiti Crimes Detective Scott Pastore” that closes with the words, “The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.”

In that email dated June 27 Pastore writes: “Just wanted to say thank you to all of you for a job well done. Everyone made an impact on keeping our city free of OMG rallies such as these. Will OMG bikers come to BC, yes. But, only as they normally do in packs of three or four. I don’t anticipate another rally based on the results. However if they do then we will welcome them the same way we did this year. In all it was a great learning experience for all of us in dealing with OMG groups.” It is unconstitutional for a policeman to enforce a self-authored decree that his city will be “free” of any lawfully assembling group. It is also rare for a cop to be so feeble-minded as to make such a statement in writing

An email written a few days earlier by Boulder City Police Chief Thomas W. Finn to two other officers of the court clearly illustrates that officials who are supposed to uphold the law conspired to break it in order harass motorcycle club members out of town. Finn writes Municipal Court Judge Victor Miller and City Attorney Dave Olsen: “There will be several dozen law enforcement agencies working in BC this weekend for the Mongols event. We are taking a zero tolerance approach with them and all the agencies will be citing them into our municipal court ofr ordinance violations, traffic violations and other misdemeanors. Is there a specific date you want us to use for a court appearance?

“Also, as part of our zero tolerance approach, all the law enforcement agencies have asked if our court and prosecutor would consider ‘no deals’ when the misdemeanors are adjudicated. Doing so would make it clear to the ‘Mongol Miscreants’ that Boulder City does not tolerate bad behavior.”

Quit Bitching

According to the suit: “During the (national run) event, on three separate occasions, officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department entered the Boulder Inn and Suites (the Mongols hotel) without a warrant or probable cause, despite clear notice to law enforcement that the property was closed to the public and requests that they leave the property. Attorney Stephen Stubbs and the owner of the Boulder Inn Suites went to the Boulder City Police Department to register a complaint in connection with these activities but were ignored and ultimately left without filing their complaint. Attorney Stephen Stubbs later reached Chief Finn by telephone to report the trespass and Chief Finn told Attorney Stubbs to ‘quit bitching.’ Chief Finn refused to let Attorney Stubbs document the trespass complaint.

The suit also alleges: “Mongols member, Rafael Garcia Espinoza, and his fiancée, paralegal and law school graduate, Lynn Vilpondo, were also in attendance that weekend. Ms. Vilpondo was stopped by Las Vegas Metro officers while walking down the street for allegedly appearing to look like someone Metro was looking for. Ms. Vilpondo identified herself and was subsequently detained by Las Vegas Metro officers without cause. Mr. Garcia expressed his frustration over Ms. Vilpondo’s detention, and was subsequently cited by Las Vegas Metro for allegedly using profanity while protesting.”

Also that weekend: “While attending the Mongols national gathering in Boulder City, Mongols member, George Olivo, crossed Nevada Way on foot when he was suddenly detained by Las Vegas Metro officers. Nevada Way had just been repaved and did not yet have any lines painted on the roadway. The reason given for the detention was suspicion of jaywalking. Mr. Olivo was asked for his name, which Mr. Olivo provided.

“Shortly thereafter, a second officer, Detective Woosnam, approached Mr. Olivo and likewise asked for his name, to which Mr. Olivo responded that he had already provided this information to the other officer. Detective Woosnam then arrested Mr. Olivo for obstruction of a police officer, violation of NRS 171.123, (failure to identify oneself), and public drunkenness pursuant to a Boulder City ordinance that has been preempted by NRS 458.260, which provides that it not unlawful to be intoxicated in public. Detective Woosman did not conduct a sobriety test or otherwise obtain any evidence whatsoever of Mr. Olivo’s allegedly state of intoxication. Mr. Olivo was released on bail 24-hours after his arrest.

“Shortly after Mr. Olivo was arrested, his wife, Nancy Laura, was traveling to Boulder City for the event in a truck with a non-operational motorcycle in the back. Ms. Laura was pulled over by Detective Woosnam for no apparent reason, without a warrant or probable cause. Detective Woosnam threatened to confiscate a motorcycle in Ms. Laura’s vehicle, but ultimately did not after the owner of the motorcycle returned from California (barely beating the tow truck) and demonstrated necessary documentation for the parts on the motorcycle. Before leaving, Detective Woosnam informed Ms. Laura that Mr. Olivo was too drunk to stand at the time of his arrest, which assertion is contrary to the evidence.”

No Steenking Fifth Amendment

In another example of police contempt for the law the amended suit cites “Mongols member, Charles Christopher Gulas,” who “attended the 2012 Laughlin River Run held April 25 – 29, 2012.

“During the event, Mr. Gulas was detained for openly carrying a buck knife on his person. Following his detention, Mr. Gulas gave the detaining officer a business card identifying Stephen Stubbs, Esq. as his attorney. This business card contains writing asserting Mr. Gulas’s Constitutional rights on the back, including his Constitutional right to remain silent and to his 5th Amendment right to counsel.

“The detaining officer read the back of the card and returned the business card to Mr. Gulas. Mr. Gulas in turn promptly handed the card to the officer once again, which was again refused. The officer then attempted a custodial interrogation of Mr. Gulas, completely ignoring Mr. Gulas’s assertions of his Constitutional rights. The officer threatened Mr. Gulas with arrest if Mr, Gulas did not surrender the Buck knife, even though Mr. Gulas was lawfully open-carrying the knife. The officer confiscated the Buck knife.”

Cops Can Go Anywhere

Earlier that month, “On or about April 14, 2012, the Bandidos Motorcycle Club held an event at the Eagles Lodge in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Eagles Lodge has a private, fenced parking area where the attending members parked their motorcycles while attending the event. There is a second parking area (inside of the first parking area) that is has additional fencing and a clearly posted sign that states ‘Members Only.’ James Gear, Jeff Ohm, and Dan Berstead, stood by the entrance to the second parking area, limiting admission to invitees and assisting with parking.

“Las Vegas Metro Officer Quinteros, badge #P9755, unlawfully entered the private parking area in a grey Honda Accord with California license plate number 3UOG418, breaking through the yellow taped barrier, ignoring the ‘Members Only’ sign, and despite being signaled to stop at the entrance. Officer Quinteros admitted that he entered the area notwithstanding the Club’s refusal to admit him, nearly running down Mr. Gear, Mr. Ohm and Mr. Berstead in the process.

“Officer Quinteros was followed by Officers Yatomi, badge #4602; Fink, badge #8904; Tripp, badge #6731; and Doughly, badge #13358. The officers did not have a warrant or probable cause to enter the private parking area. The officers were asked to leave by Attorney Stephen Stubbs, two Eagles Lodge trustees, and the Eagles Lodge president, James Kimsey. The officers responded that they have a right to go anywhere they want on the property, and only left after taking down the license plate numbers of all the vehicles within the private parking area.”

Jerald Murillo

The suit also tells the tale of Jerald Murillo who, “traveled to Laughlin on or about the weekend of May 1, 2011, to hang around the Mongols Motorcycle Club, to meet with family, and attend the motorcycle run held there that weekend.

“While there, he was detained by an officer of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and ultimately arrested. Mr. Murillo asked the officer why he was being arrested and what he was being charged with, which resulted in his being told to shut up, then violently slammed against a police car by the arresting officer and handcuffed.

“After some time passed, the officer allowed Mr. Murillo to exit the police car and asked Mr. Murillo to sign a paper before he would be released. Mr. Murillo did not have his reading glasses and refused to sign something he could not read. Mr. Murillo requested that the officer allow him to retrieve his reading glasses. At that point, the officer told Mr. Murillo that he was being arrested and proceeded to put Mr. Murillo back in the police car. In addition to sustaining a cut to his face from earlier entering the police car, the officer pushed Mr. Murillo into the police car the second time and purposefully slammed the door on Mr. Murillo’s foot, resulting in a fracture, bruising and swelling which required treatment.”

Down And Dirty Sexual Assault

Another incident added to the original complaint occurred on or about May 12, 2012 when Down & Dirty Motorcycle Club members Stacey Frongillo and Michael ‘Mike’ Edwards were planning a charity event held by the Club to benefit St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital. When they left the event location, they were followed by Las Vegas Metro officers, among them Officers Fink and T. Pandulo, badge #7884.

“Ms. Frongillo and Mr. Edwards were pulled over by the Las Vegas Metro officers at the intersection of Arville Street and West Russell Road for allegedly failing to signal. Officer Pandulo informed Ms. Frongillo that he intended to pat her down. Ms. Frongillo requested that if a pat-down were necessary, that it be conducted by a female officer. Officer Pandulo denied Ms. Frongillo’s request, and refused to even check to see if a female officer was available. Officer Pandulo insisted on conducting the pat-down himself.

“Ms. Frongillo, who was wearing skin tight pants, could not possibly hide a weapon of any kind on her person. Officer Pandulo proceeded with the pat-down, running the back of his hand across s. Frongillo’s crotch areas and down the front of her thighs. Officer Pandillo then ran the palms of his hands down Ms. Frongillo’s buttocks, slowly and firmly pressing against Ms. Frongillo’s buttocks and thighs (which) Ms. Frongillo found extremely offensive. Officer Pandulo took no interest in the pack of cigarettes and lighter showing through Ms. Frongillo’s front pockets.”



, , , , , , ,

169 Responses to “Police Harassment Suit Amended”

  1. Sam Murray Says:

    I sat with wizard for a while. Good dude. These police are the only gang engaging in organized gang activities. I don’t hang with any of these dudes in this lawsuit, but I still hope they see victory in there move against these fucking nazi fascist bastards. We are all in this together when it comes to these MFers. IMHO

  2. littlemike humboldt Says:

    rebel contact me at the above email

  3. Frequent Flyer Says:

    Sieg Says:
    October 29th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    FTF / FTP

    The Constitution has been scrapped, and the Fed Alphabet-Soup Goonies run this Nation for their corrupt masters.

    There is no true freedon anymore, and anyone that attempts to live a truly free life can and will be killed without a second thought, their famiies terrorized, and their homes destroyed.

    It’s gone too far. The only solution is another revolution.

    Sieg, I agree 100%. we have 535 criminals in Congress a a communist as president who probably was re-elected by voter fraud:


    As for the Revolution, yeah it’s coming once our currency collapses. Thats why I’m looking to organize with like minded people.

  4. Smitty Says:

    This entire ledger was amazing. I am still sitting here wondering if everybody who responded were adults. Your phone is personal property, nobody has the right to confiscate it to search its memory, etc without search and seizure documents. Who DOESN’T put a password on their phone? The police have been harrassing red & gold for years. They should just admit it. They harrass all patch holders. Its a truth. And quite frankly if you are going to make the choice to be a patch holder YOU should do some research on what your legal rights are as far as being pulled over, detained, etc…I am certain the Bandidos must have at least one lawyer that can help with answers, or even an old timer who knows.

  5. Junior Says:

    If everyone would use the space between their ears for something besides a hat rack i think you would come to the same conclusion i have: anyone that claims statute supercedes the U.S. Supreme Court and claims the dental professions code as the prof essions code governing lawyers and then claims to be a lawyer is nothing but a fucking liar. The only idiots that would make such a foolish and uneducated statement are kops. Ya’ll keep on thanking shyster and keep heeding his advice. -Junior

  6. Phuquehed Says:

    Glenn is right. Here in the South it’s still ‘who you know’. Years ago I got dragged into jail for ‘public drunk’ when I was 1) On private property that I had permission to be on 2)parked inside the shed 3)Hadn’t yet even finished my third beer 4)The nearest house/person was *over* half a mile away (I was literally in the middle of the woods in an old first home of a good neighbor who was elderly and that I kept kids from partying in and destroying). They also took my brand new $550 Colt .45 out of the cab of my truck – that I had/have a CCL for.

    Went to court and there was a short break and I hadn’t had my turn in line in front of the judge yet. Went out in the hallway to move around a little and lo and behold here’s the judge on a half-flight up of stairs and he’s talking to this black guy. I can hear them fairly well even though they were trying to talk quietly. The judge told the black guy he was gonna give him his gun back on the condition he doesn’t let his kid get his hands on it and go driving around with it in his car anymore.

    Me…I fell into the crack where I hadn’t the money for a lawyer but didn’t quite meet the req’s for a free one. Tried to defend myself, and lost, naturally *and* they took my gun, plus court costs and the fine for PD.

    Called the police a few days later to see if it was possible to buy back my pistol. They had no clue what I was talking about. Said pistol wasn’t anywhere. I called FBI (Memphis) to report it and was told they’d look into it. Never heard a thing back, of course.

    A few days later saw one of the pigs who busted me for such petty bullshit and I ran over to him as he was opening his cruiser door. I asked him if he remembered me and he said he did and I told him I’d have another pistol by the end of that week and I’d be back down at my same drinking hole and he was welcome to come and try and bust me again for such bullshit. Needless to say no pigs ever went there ever again, not even to this day. The only persons who go to that area are hunters and the game warden.

    It’s all who you know around here that keeps you out of jail after 4 DUI’s (this happens relatively often here, those drunk drivers must know how to suck a dick really good or they have the right drugs for the judge) -or- into jail for a PD on private property that you have permission to be on and nobody around. Our asshat judge is also an attorney – wonder how *that’s* allowed to happen! He’s also gotten off of drug charges…another wonder of the world, right?

  7. Junior Says:

    …I’m not angry. The Court cases speak for themselves, and NO shyster statute doesn’t supersede them:

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” PLUMMER V. STATE,136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in John Bad Elk v. U.S. [177u.s.529]

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

  8. Glenn S. Says:

    Desert H-D said: “Junior – Man, did an attorney shit all over you at some point or what? I don’t think any of us will jump up to nominate lawyers as “man of the year”, but damn…”

    I’ve never been to the west coast, but from what I’ve heard, the legal profession is different there than here in SC, where I live and where I think Junior lives also. Here, the legal profession is mainly centered around relationships. Relationships between the defense attorneys, circuit solicitors (prosecutors), judges, cops, assistant US attorneys, etc. determine how cases are handled more than actual guilt or innocence does. Often, the defendant is damn near irrelevant. As one who was once positioned to know, I can say with absolute certainty that the sum of money one pays a lawyer largely determines the consequences one will face for real or accused crimes. Defense attorneys and prosecutors meet and decide amongst themselves who will face heavy time and who will get probation or a fine. Judges are, in essence, politicians, and tend to go along with agreements made by the solicitors and defense attorneys, moderating sentences based on family and business ties of the defendant. Unless one is very wealthy, a defendant cannot afford a paid attorney to defend him during a full blown trial, and is stuck with the public defender, who probably hopes to work for the solicitor’s office soon. Most defendants, guilty or not, plead out because they cannot afford the trial. In the few high profile cases I’ve known about where the defendant was acquitted, here in SC, the defendant has hired an out-of-state defense team, been a member of a minority group represented by a civil rights type lawyer, or been represented by a former judge and paid high six figures.

    I don’t agree with everything Junior has said, but as a fellow South Carolinian with extensive experience with the legal system here, I certainly understand why he has said it. But I also do not think Shyster is the correct target for his anger.

  9. DesertH-D Says:

    Shyster – Yeah, I was pretty sure there isn’t a state-wide requirement as was mentioned. But if you do come across something else please let me know.

    Jim – :-)

  10. Jim666 Says:

    DesertH-D Says:
    November 10th, 2012 at 10:32 am

    I don’t think any of us will jump up to nominate lawyers as “man of the year”, but damn…


  11. Shyster Says:

    Desert HD,

    I don’t think the Nevada guy was correct. Google NRS 171.123.


  12. DesertH-D Says:

    Shyster – I’ll be here… I’m used to waiting on attorneys. haha

    Junior – Man, did an attorney shit all over you at some point or what? I don’t think any of us will jump up to nominate lawyers as “man of the year”, but damn…

  13. Shyster Says:


    Thanks man. Have a great weekend.


  14. rollinnorth Says:

    Thanks for taking the time to correct and clarify those points. That troll who had been baiting and criticizing you isn’t worth it, but Rebel’s work on this blog, and many who hang out here, are worthy and appreciate it.
    Don’t give up the fight.

  15. Junior Says:

    16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

  16. Junior Says:

    You should know better. Your statements that statute supercedes the U.S. Supreme Court is absurd and exposes your ignorance. You really need to read American Jurisprudence or re-enroll in law school.

    All: Shyster’s ignorance of the law is common among today’s ATTORNeys. I find this type of ignorance of the Constitution and Law commonplace among today’s ATTORNeys. Not very surprising when law schools don’t even require Constitutional courses as a pre-requistite for graduation, they used to require them. When you “buy” an attorney, you get what you pay for, or more correctly you get the drone that the law-school produced. Most can’t think “on their feet”, much less think for themselves (Fritz Clapp excluded) as evident in shyster. -Junior

  17. Junior Says:

    Business and Professions Code Section 6068
    Duties of Attorney
    It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:
    (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
    of this state.
    (b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
    (c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or
    defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the
    defense of a person charged with a public offense.
    (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided
    to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and
    never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
    artifice or false statement of fact or law.
    (e) (1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril
    to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an attorney may, but is
    not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the
    representation of a client to the extent that the attorney
    reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent
    a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely
    to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an
    (f) To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
    party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with
    which he or she is charged.
    (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the
    continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of
    passion or interest.
    (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or
    herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
    (i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation or
    other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against himself
    or herself. However, this subdivision shall not be construed to
    deprive an attorney of any privilege guaranteed by the Fifth
    Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other
    constitutional or statutory privileges. This subdivision shall not be
    construed to require an attorney to cooperate with a request that
    requires him or her to waive any constitutional or statutory
    privilege or to comply with a request for information or other
    matters within an unreasonable period of time in light of the time
    constraints of the attorney’s practice. Any exercise by an attorney
    of any constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used against
    the attorney in a regulatory or disciplinary proceeding against him
    or her.
    (j) To comply with the requirements of Section 6002.1.
    (k) To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary
    probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of
    the attorney.
    (l) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution
    with the agency charged with attorney discipline.
    (m) To respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of clients and
    to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in
    matters with regard to which the attorney has agreed to provide legal
    (n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents under time
    limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional conduct which the
    board shall adopt.
    (o) To report to the agency charged with attorney discipline, in
    writing, within 30 days of the time the attorney has knowledge of any
    of the following:
    (1) The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period
    against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct
    committed in a professional capacity.
    (2) The entry of judgment against the attorney in any civil
    action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or
    gross negligence committed in a professional capacity.
    (3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against the
    attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or
    monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
    (4) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a
    felony against the attorney.
    (5) The conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of
    guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of any felony, or any
    misdemeanor committed in the course of the practice of law, or
    in any manner in which a client of the attorney was the victim,
    or a necessary element of which, as determined by the
    statutory or common law definition of the misdemeanor,
    involves improper conduct of an attorney, including dishonesty
    or other moral turpitude, or an attempt or a conspiracy or
    solicitation of another to commit a felony or any misdemeanor
    of that type.
    (6) The imposition of discipline against the attorney by any
    professional or occupational disciplinary agency or licensing
    board, whether in California or elsewhere.
    (7) Reversal of judgment in a proceeding based in whole or in
    part upon misconduct, grossly incompetent representation, or
    willful misrepresentation by an attorney.
    (8) As used in this subdivision, “against the attorney” includes
    claims and proceedings against any firm of attorneys for the
    practice of law in which the attorney was a partner at the time
    of the conduct complained of and any law corporation in which
    the attorney was a shareholder at the time of the conduct
    complained of unless the matter has to the attorney’s
    knowledge already been reported by the law firm or
    (9) The State Bar may develop a prescribed form for the
    making of reports required by this section, usage of which it
    may require by rule or regulation.
    (10) This subdivision is only intended to provide that the failure
    to report as required herein may serve as a basis of discipline.
    (Origin: Code Civ. Proc., §282. Amended by Stats. 1985, ch.
    453; Stats. 1986, ch. 475; Stats. 1988, ch. 1159; Stats. 1990,
    ch. 1639; Stats. 1999, ch. 221; Stats. 1999, ch. 342; Stats.
    2001, ch. 24; Stats. 2003, ch. 765, operative July 1, 2004.)

  18. Junior Says:

    Shyster said:”And read California Business and Professions Code 1680 again”
    I just read California Business and Professions Code 1680 for the first time, never read it before, mostly because it pertains to dentistry and says NOTHING about attorneys or the practice of law.

    The professions code that pertains to attorneys and the practice of law is in California is Business and Professions Code Section 6068. 6068 says NOTHING about the attorneys duty being to the client, 6068 is clear that an attorneys paramount allegiance is to the court and its’ judicial officer. (Pasted below for you and all to see). There can be only one “paramount” allegiance, and for BAR Attorneys that “paramount” allegiance is to the court and the courts judicial officer. I am not saying this lightly, this is an issue I have looked into for many years…and an issue that my grandfather, a law school grad but not an attorney, had looked into since the 1960’s and he and I and many others agree that there can be only ONE paramount allegiance. Read 6068 and tell me who that “paramount” allegiance is to how about it. It is to the court, not the client!!! YOU are an officer of the court whether you realize it or not.

    Calling you a “blowhard” is hardly “schoolyard name calling”. Blowhard is a proper english word defined as 1. A very boastful and talkative person; a braggart 2. A self-important egomaniac who likes to toot his own horn.

    When you make a statement like “your HO will get someone the fucken gas chamber! We DO NOT have the right to kill a cop who is effectuating an unlawful arrest! Period.” and back it up with NOTHING,ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION it qualifies you as a “blowhard”, you back up your statements with NO case law. I provided many many cases that clarify that killing a cop making an illegal/unlawful arrest could be a crime but in most cases is NOT! Where’s your case law? O, thats right, you fucking have none.

    Shyster said: “NOT ONLY HAS THE CASE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY STATUTE …” Shyster you know as well as I do that statute can not supersede Supreme Court case law. The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. Every law, state or federal, must abide by the Constitution and the Supreme Courts interpretation of it.

    Shyster also said: “…your giving absolutely flawed advice to the readers here that not only can one kill a cop who is attempting an unlawful arrest…” The case law I posted speaks for itself and is very clear that killing a cop performing an unlawful arrest is not a crime in most cases. -Junior

Leave a Reply