A few people have posted comments asking me: “Why are you blogging about this bar stuff? You’re never going to convince us, so what’s the point?”
Here is my response. First, I understand there is a small group of hardened criminals cult members who will NEVER, EVER admit they were wrong. Nothing I say or do is for them.
Instead, I am speaking to the much larger group of open-minded people who actually care about the truth. I know many are skeptical of my arguments. I also believe those folks remain open to having their minds changed. So as part of my effort to push back against all the lies and misinformation, I am giving you a chance to hear MY side of the story. Do with it what you will.
The second reason for these posts is something you may not realize — this is work I’ll have to do anyway. Once Jim Lee files his Complaint, I will have 20 days to respond (but I plan not to wait that long). I will also have to put together a disclosure statement containing my facts/arguments. So as part of that process, I am doing this work now, so I can refer back to it later.
With that said, I want to make a few comments about the next part of Jim Lee’s report; this is a sub-part of File No. 25-1230. Once again, this is a “charge” where the complaining party is Jim Lee himself. Imagine that.
The actual text of the charge is shown below.
As you can see, Jim intends to argue I must be PUNISHED because I pursued an appeal which was not merely unsuccessful, it was SO bad as to shock his conscience.
If you are reading this, odds are 99% you agree with Jim Lee….which, personally, I think is INSANE. The fact an appeal is not successful is never, standing alone, proof it was frivolous. If that was the standard, lawyers would face sanctions in EVERY case (because every case involves a winner and a loser).
Of course, my view was (and still is) that my position was 100% legally correct. I believe the Court of Appeals got this wrong. I would further argue they erred intentionally (as reflected by the Court of Appeals’ decision NOT to even mention any of the law supporting my side, and the inclusion of various false statements and misrepresentations about the facts and the law).
But WAIT — do I even get to make this argument? After all, I pursued the appeal. I LOST. Isn’t that fight one I already lost?
And the judge who wrote the opinion specifically said my position was “not grounded in fact or law”. Isn’t that the end of the issue? Doesn’t that mean a judge has already found everything Jim Lee needs to punish me?
Thankfully, no.
Although it is certainly true the judge who wrote the decision (Garye Vasquez) disagreed with my arguments, that does not mean the issue is closed. I was never allowed to challenge his statements or offer my side, nor was I allowed to cross examine him to show his arguments were wrong. I am entitled to do both things, and to argue MY SIDE, before judgment can be passed on me.
But don’t take my word for it. That is exactly what the Arizona Supreme Court recently held in Hancock v. O’Neil, 253 Ariz. 509 (Ariz. 2022) (PDF) (Word). Hancock was a pretty crazy story. It arose from a federal district court case in which a lawyer was sanctioned for lying to the court and basically committing fraud. As a result, the trial court imposed sanctions of $548,240 against the lawyer (Hancock) and $2,192,961 against his client (Goodyear, the tire company). The sanctions award was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, but later reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
After the trial court sanctioned Mr. Hancock, the State Bar of Arizona charged him with misconduct based on the same events for which he was sanctioned. Kind of makes sense, right? Same thing Jim Lee is trying to do here (although I was never sanctioned, so my position is strong than Mr. Hancock’s).
Mr. Hancock tried to defend himself before the bar judge, but the AZ Bar argued: “Sorry, too late – a judge has previously found you acted improperly, so you can’t dispute this. That issue was conclusively resolved against you, therefore, we win.”
Based on that argument, the AZ Bar moved for summary judgment in the discipline case, and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) agreed. Basically, this meant Mr. Hancock lost his bar case without any chance to defend himself. He was never allowed to challenge the lower court’s sanctions findings. Same thing Jim Lee wants to do here.
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review and it reversed. In doing so, the Court explained: “the [Arizona] Bar cannot prevent an attorney from relitigating issues determined in a sanctions order ….” Hancock, 253 Ariz. at 514 (emphasis added). At the same time, the Supreme Court said the Bar CAN: “admit transcripts and other evidence of collateral proceedings as permitted by the rules of evidence ….”
Here, Judge Vasquez’s off-the-cuff (and otherwise unexplained) comments about the appeal not being “grounded in fact or law” are classic hearsay. See Ariz. R. Evid. 801(c). To be sure, if Jim Lee wants to make this argument (as he clearly does), he can call Judge Vasquez as a witness, and he can ask him to say exactly what he said in his appellate opinion. That would be fully allowed under the Rules of Evidence.
But then I get to cross examine him. I get to challenge what he said. I get to point out reasons why I believe he was wrong. From my perspective, this will actually be extremely easy. Just for fun, I will likely also call an expert witness to testify that Judge Vasquez’s comments were completely wrong as a matter of law.
So, for anyone who thinks Jim Lee is on solid footing because a different judge (Vasquez) already said my position was wrong — sorry, that is where the battle begins, not where it ends.
No
One
Cares
1A lawyer but deleted comments? Mkay.
1A says the government can’t punish your or censor your speech.
I’m not the government. So if people want to post rude shit on my page, of course I’ll nuke it. Not a 1A issue.
Do you know that facetious definition of ‘insanity’: doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results?
You ‘litigated’ Owens’ s cases in public in what can only be described as frantic manner – your former client ended up with nearly $200,000 judgement against her and 14 felony indictments, and you exposed her to more public scrutiny, not less. You – and your words – also lost all credibility with repeated braggadocious legal predictions that never materialized. Was that your ‘process’ too – testing ideas and arguments online? Trying to make things happen by wishful thinking (and writing)? Shouldn’t you have learned from the outcome?
I noticed you turned off the comments on your last 2 blogs. Just wanted to know why, well I kind of think 🤔 I know why , but if your blog is to connect to people who are following your story , maybe you can just have limited comments, and delete the nasty comments, I’m really interested in your point of view, I might not agree but, I can see your passion for your work. I really feel like you may have been taken advantage of, it seems to me you really want to help your client and I think she may have taken your work for getting people you feel were wrong the justice you feel they deserve. But in light of the current situation with your former client, do you think at the end of this will you apologized to a group of people you have been disparaging from the time you started working with her to date. Just saying if the shoe was on the other foot and you were the target of her attack and lies and were put through everything this lady has put these guys through all because of hurt feelings. I’m not saying you have to but I think if it doesn’t turn out in her favor will you be man enough to apologize.
Tahir, this is such a thoughtful comment but I wonder, do you honestly believe its passion for his work that drives him? Im no psychologist but ive been invested in this case for the past 2 years because I find these personality types really fascinating. Both him and Laura I think suffer from severe narcissism. They both come from families of means, their parents have handed everything to them on a silver platter ( Gingras admits mom fully footed bill for law school and we know Laura has been coddled by her parents her entire life as well) I truly think this is what happens when getting both spoiled by parents and having some family trauma collide (Gingras’ parents divorcing and Laura feeling like a less favorite daughter to her dad and having unhealthy enabling from her mom) Bottom line is both of these people have never been told no or accepted being told no and we are watching what happens in real time when narcissism goes too far. I love psychology, its why I love human character studies in TV and movies and this case has truly been a gift that keeps on giving in that way…. also to answer your question to him, he will never apologize, he doesnt have they capacity. Just like Laura will proclaim her innocence to the bitter end, even after she’s in jail . Its who they are.
Seek help.
Maricopa County Crisis Line / Central Arizona Crisis Line: 602-222-9444
My therapist says I’m fine.
Why do you keep going on and off and on and off twitter? Like those ppl who constantly go off and announce IM LEAVING then are back a week later
I left Twitter because it has become a cesspool of MAGA brainworm idiots and nasty trolls. I have no plans to return. This mix of blogging/YouTube is sufficiently allowing me to say what I need to say while limiting the hate I receive back. Oh, I also despise Elon Musk, so that’s another reason not to use Twitter.
David: I’d comment on the new blog but you turned off comments. Anyhow you stated yourself in Videos and on your Blog here several times that you no longer represent Laura or perhaps you worded it, as I’m no longer her lawyer. So why would Woodnick suggesting a new time and not informing the lawyer “not representing” Laura Owens be an ethical violation?
Also in regards to this Blog, I think Jim Lee is doing a fine job representing the Bar.
Oh one other thing, Bobby is brilliant! His takes are pure genius.
And I have to give you credit for your Easter Eggs recently, the one with the dress shirt and tie open was an obvious shot at Omar as he has appeared on his youtube in that manner many times. And I guess the weiner dog was a veiled reference to SchnitzelNinja. Well played.
Lastly, it’s ok to admit your LOVE for Megan Fox. She’s easy on the eyes, I get it! You watch all of her videos even though you claimed previously to only watch two things she has ever done. Otherwise you would not be citing an example of a 3rd video she did in your blog as some sort of proof.
Um, weird takes on all this. BUT, since you asked about the status of my representation of Laura – I am still her counsel of record in the family court case. That didn’t mean much since the case is (was) effectively over. BUT, the case suddenly came back to life when Woodnick filed for the judgment debtor exam. If I was not going to continue representating Laura in the family court case, I could and would have withdrawn. I didn’t do that, because I still intend to represent Laura through the JDE thing (which would be brief and limited in scope, so it basically requires very little work from me). Since Woodnick knew I was still counsel of record, he had an ethical duty to consult with me before setting a hearing date. Gregg ignored that rule, which is about the 15th time he has simply ignored the rules. Kind of makes it hard when you are dealing with someone like Woodnick who believes every rule is optional. But whatever. You guys love him despite his flaws, so I’m not even going to point out the hypocrisy.
How do you keep getting a continuance for your DUI case?
I have nothing to do with that decision. My lawyer is handling the case, and he is the one who keeps asking for a continuance, not me. He is preparing the best defense possible. Takes time. And yes, he said the case is absolutely defensible. I wasn’t impaired and the only grounds the cop had to arrest me was that I declined the FSTs (which are not required, so I had every right to decline them).
I know it’s your lawyer that’s asking for it. I’m just wondering why the judge is granting it over and over. What reasons is the lawyer giving the judge?
No idea. I haven’t seen whatever motions have been filed. I understand you may doubt that, but it’s true. My belief is these are probably just generic form motions that my guy is filing to allow himself sufficient time to do his job. I understand there are people who automatically assume this is a slam dunk. I was there, and I don’t see it that way.
When is Unpacking the Bar 5 coming out?
That’s a fair question. I have kind of been holding off since Jim Lee told me last week that his complaint would be filed this week. I have said several times that I don’t know if everything in his August report made it (or will make it) in the actual charges filed. So I would obviously prefer to be talking about the final version, rather than this draft hypothetical thing. But as of Thursday, 12/4, he still hasn’t filed anything…so who the fuck knows? What if his boss reviewed the complaint and told him the charges were clearly junk?
Having said all that, maybe today I’ll post the next part. Or I may put up the Christmas tree. Can’t decide.
JUST.STOP. Stop with the dishonesty, it’s really embarrassing me for you. You were charged with the crime of DUI because you blew over the limit-standard reason for being charged in every state of this country. No attorney does anything without consulting their client. Ergo-you both came up with the delay strategy-to delay the moment you are found guilty and have to go to jail for a night, the blower gets installed in your car, and bar suspends you. Or was an officer who stopped you for speeding a JFC? (laughing emoji laughing emoji)
I’m sorry you find it hard to trust, but I’m telling you the truth.
David, you’ve been destroying your credibility since you took Owens’s case with hard to understand self-destructive ferocity so yeah, I came to believe pretty much nothing you say unless it can be verified elsewhere.
You say you are ‘telling the truth.’ Sure, you have nothing to do with judge’s decisions to allow or not allow for continuances. YOU and your attorney TOGETHER have everything to do with filing for them. Please, let’s do away with language games. They don’t work.
Your only chance is to question the validity of your traffic stop. But since you were stopped for speeding, not sure how. Refusal of Field Sobriety Tests gives probable cause fot arrest not the way to get out of DUI later. Unless I’m completely wrong on that.