Sorry – forgot to enable comments. They are on now….
Happy Friday. Everyone enjoy a nice Thanksgiving?
Mine was wonderful. Had dinner with friends, and this included an art contest which featured an Aurora-drawing competition. This wasn’t my entry, but I still found it to be very cute.
Before the Christmas tree goes up, I want to finish providing my response to the Bar Guy’s BS claims. But the question is which topic should I cover next?
I’ve already talked about the first two complaints – 24-1692 (Wammack) and 24-1826 (Deans). That post is here: https://gingraslaw.com/unpacking-the-bars-bullshit-part-1-6-wammack-deans/
I also posted a video talking about the allegations in 25-1230 (the thing where Jim Lee falsely said I failed to tell Woodnick documents didn’t exist). That video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd5eoj6aTuY&t=6s
Finally, yesterday I posted a complete discussion of 24-3080 (Jim Lee’s attempt to punish me for using a mildly dirty word). That post is here: https://gingraslaw.com/unpacking-the-bars-bullshit-part-2-6-assholes/
So this really just leaves two other things — the Mata “judicial referral” (which everyone has seen already) and the Marraccini complaint. Does anyone have a specific preference which of those I should address next?
Keep in mind – the Mata and Marraccini complaints are at least partially overlapping since both raised the issue of “witness intimidation”, even though Mike wasn’t a witness, he knew he wasn’t a witness, and he told Megan Fox he knew he wasn’t going to be testifying (looking forward to playing this video clip for the Bar Judge, and I will also include this in my forthcoming bar complaint against Woodnick):
I will obviously need to respond to both the Mata/Marraccini allegations when the Bar Guy drops his complaint next week. Just wondering which should be the next blog post? Anyone want to vote? Drop a comment…and if there’s clear winner, I’ll cover that next as part 3/6.
Also, as I said before – some of these complaints DO have other little subparts. For instance, I’m not sure which file number it falls under, but Jim Lee (again, entirely on his own) is also making two other main allegations against me:
1.) Jim claims I published false statements about Judge Mata which I KNEW were false at the time I published them. This is why I can safely guarantee that Judge Mata WILL be called as a witness. Jim Lee can’t just claim something is false. He is going to have to PROVE it, and the only way to do that is by having Judge Mata testify.
Unfortunately, since he clearly isn’t a First Amendment lawyer, Jim’s report never actually explains WHAT I said that was false, nor does he explain what facts he has to show I KNEW anything I said was false. He basically just points the “Public Warning” page I published with some info about Judge Mata, and then he states in a conclusory fashion that the page contains false information. That’s a classic non-First Amendment lawyer blunder which I’ll happily cover once I see the final complaint.
2.) Jim also accuses me of providing knowingly false information to the court. This is due to the fact Jim noted Laura said one thing in her deposition, and then she said something slightly different later in the case. Apparently Jim Lee thinks if a witness gives two different versions of a story, the FIRST version MUST be true, and the SECOND version MUST be false (like when Clayton said Laura sent him 100 harassing messages, and then he suddenly changed his story to say 500 messages after Woodnick got involved). In Jim Lee’s view, ANY change in a client’s story like this means the lawyer MUST know which version was true and which was not, and therefore the lawyer should be punished if they present the second version rather than the first (unless his name is Gregg). Ugh. Tell me you don’t actually practice law in the real world without telling me that.
This probably IS an ER 1.6 issue in terms of my response, so I’m going to put that on the back burner until I see exactly what the formal Complaint alleges. But regardless of what Jim Lee claims, this is going to be pretty easy to win….since I absolutely NEVER provided any information that I knew was false.
Why does anyone who disagrees with you or has an opposing opinion have to have nefarious intent? You sound like a kid having a tantrum. By all means defend yourself but how about doing it like a professional and an adult without all the mudslinging. It truly is embarrassing.
Oh isn’t that rich or To quote your client “whoa, whoa, whoa!!!” Previously…..You said “ I haven’t watched Megan Fox’s content, I only viewed the thumbnail ”? So how can you play the clip of something or content that you claimed you never watched? I guess we all know who really “just LIED!!”. Nice work David.
My hairline receding and all still looks better than any legal argument I have seen from you.
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say here? All I said was I saw the thumbnail from Megan’s video and was shocked by Woodnick’s hair. What did I lie about?
Oh, wait, I get it — you are CONFUSED. I was talking about two different videos. The video I did NOT watch is the one with Woodnick’s hair shown in the thumbnail. I have never watched that, and see very little reason to…although Woodnick will be one of my primary witnesses, so I guess I need to watch what he said to Megan to see if there’s anything I can use.
The video I DID watch was Megan’s interview of Marraccini. That had nothing to do with Woodnick’s hair, but this was otherwise honestly infuriating. It just offered further proof that Woodnick should be disbarred. It also shows why my Motion for Lunch should have been granted (this is something I’ll be raising in a complaint I plan to file against Woodnick shortly). The bottom line is that Woodnick broke SO many ethical and procedural rules by withholding information about Marraccini that he was obligated to disclose. Woodnick also clearly tried to deceive me into believing that Mike was going to testify, when clearly everyone knew he was not. But that’s not an issue to debate here. Woodnick can explain himself to the bar (assuming they don’t ignore my complaint, which I fully expect they will).
David, Arizona Supreme Court Rule 41(b)(7) requires attorneys to ‘avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct.’ When you sent a private email referring to individuals as ‘assholes’ in the context of asserting your own legal rights (copyright), were you acting as a private citizen or as a lawyer?
If you claim you acted as a private citizen, please address this scenario:
– An attorney sends a private email to his neighbor asserting a property line dispute, referring to his neighbor as a ‘thieving imbecile,’ and threatening to file a lawsuit if the matter isn’t resolved by 5 PM. The attorney later claims the Bar lacks jurisdiction because he wasn’t representing a client.
In that scenario, the Bar would likely still claim jurisdiction because the attorney used his legal knowledge and status to make a threat in an unprofessional manner.
Why should your private email, which asserted a legal right (copyright) using unprofessional language, be treated any differently?
GregBobby,I know you will never accept this, but “unprofessional” does NOT mean: “language I don’t like”. Unprofessional also does not mean “rude” (at least not in this context). I know the Reddit thing wasn’t about Mata, but the rule is the same: being rude to a judge’s face is one thing. Using rude language about a judge is entirely protected speech.
Don’t take my word for it. Go find and read this case: In re: Green, 11 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000).
https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2000/99sa150-0.html
This is a 25-year old case, but it explains the law perfectly: “we begin with the accepted legal principle that if an attorney’s activity or speech is protected by the First Amendment, disciplinary rules governing the legal profession cannot punish the attorney’s conduct.” (citing In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 432-433, 98 S. Ct. 1893, 56 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1978); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 355, 365, 384, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 53 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1977); State of Oklahoma v. Porter, 766 P.2d 958, 966-970 (Okla.1988); see also Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1054, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991)).
As I explained in my post, literally EVERY court that has considered the question has held the term “asshole” is rude, but fully protected speech under the First Amendment. Calling my words “unprofessional” does not change that fact. If my speech is protected by the First Amendment, which this clearly was, then by definition it is NOT unprofessional.
I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp that lawyers are bound by ethical and professional conduct rules as a condition of being licensed by a state bar. Your right to First Amendment speech does not trump these requirements. When you are admitted to that state’s bar, you must adhere to its rules. A lawyer’s First Amendment rights do not override the rules of professional and ethical conduct, period.
So much of your behavior in the LO case was highly unprofessional; it’s unfortunate that you can’t take a moment to reflect, acknowledge this, and make the necessary changes.
If your view of the law and the rules was correct, I would absolutely acknowledge my mistakes. But you have the rules backwards. I know you think the same of my view. That’s OK. But I have spent years studying this stuff. You haven’t. So there is that. Ultimately the decision about what is right and wrong won’t be made by me, nor by you, nor by Jim Lee. I am comfortable that I’m on the right side of this, but only time will tell. We should know by next summer.
No offense, but the predictions of your legal success have been abysmal thus far, so I take anything you say with a grain of salt, especially knowing that you are bound by the rules of professional and ethical conduct by the state bar.
You DO realize I have an incredible track record of wins in the past, right? Losing one case (wrongly, in my view) doesn’t define my whole history.
You did not simply lose “one case.” You lost virtually every motion (except for the request for judicial notice re: Greg Gillespie case), you lost the paternity case, you lost the case at the Court of Appeals, the reconsideration at the Court of Appeals, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied your petition. You added almost $50k in additional attorney’s fees and costs to Laura’s initial judgment of $149k. If you had been upfront with Laura and told her she basically had no chance with an appeal, and encouraged her to seek intensive psychiatric treatment, she might not be facing a 14-count felony indictment today. I think it’s incredibly tragic that Laura has no one in her inner circle who is willing to tell her she needs serious psychological help. Instead, she is surrounded by enablers.
If you manage to beat all of Jim Lee’s charges, but get convicted of a DUI, can you be disbarred anyway?
A DUI won’t result in disbarment. The most likely punishment would be a relatively short suspension.
However, I am fighting the DUI since I don’t believe the charge is legit. I’m hopeful that in a few more moths, I will be cleared of all this crap. If that happens, my focus will then be on seeking some form of punishment for Jim Lee since I believe his conduct has been far outside the bounds of the law and has been extremely harmful to the bar’s goal of protecting the public.
I don’t know how blood alcohol level works, but can they be false positives? I would just be curious how DUIs are proved if that’s the case?