|
|
Professor Shaun Martin Got it
Completely
Wrong in Charles Benninghoff v Superior
Court
|
Professor Shaun
Martin of the University of San
Diego School claims in his blog
that Charles Benninghoff lost
his case against the California
State Bar in the case of
Benninghoff v Superior Court and
that, therefore, the
representation services
he provides to prisoners is
illegal. Further, he
states that Charles. Benninghoff's
effort to obtain support in
this case was "wonderfully
unsuccessful." Apart from
being rankly uncivil towards a
person he doesn't know and has
never met, Professor Shaun Martin is
simply and completely wrong in
his statements about Charles Benninghoff and the case
of Charles Benninghoff v
Superior Court. The purpose
of this website and all of the
exhibits and analyses herein is
to show the truth about
Charles Benninghoff v Superior
Court and, indeed, about Charles
Benninghoff, himself.It is important to note that
Professor Shaun Martin claims to read
every federal and state opinion
published out of California, and
a lot of those that are
not published, and due to
the fact that he also teaches
law school at the University of
San Diego School of Law, clearly
a misread from time-to-time is
to be expected. |
| How can one man
such as Professor Shaun Martin
of the Law School at the
University of San Diego go
through such a hectic life
without erring from
time-to-time? One clearly
cannot. Certainly, Charles Benninghoff found
out the answer to that question
to his deep and enduring injury
and great and continuing
financial losses due to the
untruths published by Professor
Shaun Martin that are the
subject of this site. |
| Nothing in the
entire history of the case of
Benninghoff v Superior Court
speaks more loudly or clearly
about how outrageous the conduct
of the California Bar
Association was than his
attorney's final letter to the
bar demanding that it admit it
lost and that it, therefore,
return Mr. Benninghoff's federal
prisoner practice or suffer even
more humiliation brought through an
additional action. |
| This letter,
below, shows how wrongful the
Bar of California continued to
be after it learned that Mr.
Benninghoff's single lawyer,
Certified Appellate Specialist
James S. Link of Pasadena, had
dealt it a crippling defeat -
actually stripping from the
California Bar jurisdiction over
any and all conduct before
federal courts and agencies
located in California, a
jurisdiction the Bar of
California had claimed for
itself
even while knowing it lacked all
authority to make such a
claim. A recording of the
Bar's admission in open court is
presented herein. Click
HERE
to listen to it. |
| The original of
the below letter can be read by
clicking
HERE. As shown below, the
Bar of California, reeling in
disbelief of losing such a major
case, drug its feet in returning
Mr. Benninghoff's practice,
property, telephone numbers,
etc. as ordered by the
California Court of Appeals for
more than 3 months: |
|
|
JAMES S. LINK
COUNSELOR
& ADVOCATE
AT
LAW
215 N. MARENGO,
3RD
FLOOR
PASADENA,
CA 91101-1504
(626) 793-9570
FAX
(626) 356-7414
CERTIFIED
SPECIALIST:
APPELLATE LAW
|
|
|
April 26, 2006
William John Cox
State Bar Of California
Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel
1149 S Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Re: State Bar
Action
Dear Mr. Cox:
On April 21,
2006, we spoke about the return
of the federal practice to Mr.
Benninghoff as
ordered by the Court of Appeal
on January 30, 2006. I had
called on April 20, 2006 in an
effort to seek out a resolution
to avoid potential further
motions and legal costs. In your
opposition to the peremptory
challenge, you contended that
there was no trial of any issue
to be had on the return of the
business. I thought a resolution
could be had. However, when I
suggested that we resolve the
matter it became apparent that
the state bar has created
disputes about the return.
You suggested
that the return of the files was
unnecessary or meaningless
because none of the files were
open or pending matters. You
further stated that any open
matters had been returned to the
clients. I broached the subject
of the telephone numbers that
the State Bar had seized. I
advised you that those numbers
had been used for the federal
practice and ought to be
returned.
You then
suggested that the numbers were
used in the state practice and
implied that if the numbers were
used more for the state practice
that they should not be
returned. This dispute is
frankly unfounded under the
Court of Appeal decision.
The order of the
Court of Appeal is: “The
petition is granted in part. Let
a peremptory writ of mandate
issue directing the court to
modify its June 17, 2005 order
to relinquish jurisdiction over
Benninghoff’s federal practice,
and
require the State Bar to
return any seized materials
regarding his federal practice.
…” The Court of Appeal requires
that
any seized material
regarding the federal practice
must be returned, not material
solely used for the federal
practice or mostly used for the
federal practice . The
percentage game that you
suggested in our conversation
cannot be played.
Because of your
contention that the state bar
has disputes that need
resolution, I stated in our
conversation that the state bar
then wanted a “trial” within the
meaning of Code of Civil
Procedure § 170.6 before Judge
Brenner thus requiring his
disqualification. You denied
that the resolution of the
issues the state bar apparently
claims exist constitutes to a
trial. That denial is against
the law.
Without having
considered our reply to your
opposition to the peremptory
challenge, Judge Brenner has
refused to disqualify himself.
Now, we must take further action
to secure an order that is long
overdue. The Court of Appeal
issued its opinion on January
30, 2006, taking the unusual
step of making it final on
February 14, 2006. Then, the
court of appeal took an
additional step of issuing the
remittitur on March 21, 2006,
destroying your primary
objections to the order we
submitted on February 15, 2006.
Judge Brenner has been in
violation of the order of the
Court of Appeal for more than
one month. Judge Brenner has had
our proposed order since the
middle of February 2006. It is
astonishing that Judge Brenner
has acted in direct violation of
the Court of Appeal.
We requested the
return of the federal practice
and related property wrongfully
seized in a letter directed to
you dated March 22, 2006. You
did not respond to the letter,
making it clear that it is the
intention of the state bar to
destroy Mr. and Mrs.
Benninghoff. Such conduct is
unbecoming the state bar.
Judge Brenner
has now compounded the abuse of
power exercised by the state bar
from the beginning of the
petition proceedings in
violation of the rights of
Charles Benninghoff to the
federal practice. To mitigate
the damages suffered by Mr. and
Mrs. Benninghoff, this matter
must be brought to a conclusion
now. We demand that you request
Judge Brenner to sign the order
that we presented, as is, by the
close of business on April 28,
2006.
|
|
| In his blog
Professor Martin expresses the
belief that Justice Ikola - who
issued the opinion - had not
done a good job, in fact that
the opinion was not a good job.
Indeed a foul stench comes forth
from it and Professor Martin appears
to argue that justices are entitled
to write less than honorable, thorough
opinions. The rendition of
justice must be based on the
law, not the court's favor of
one party over another by smell.
As stated many years ago by
Justice Frankfurter, "This
is a court of review, not a
tribunal unbounded by rules. We
do not sit like a kadi under a
tree dispensing justice
according to considerations of
individual expediency."
Terminiello v. Chicago
(1949) 337 U.S. 1, 11 (dis.
opn.). We personally
believe that Justice Ikola's
pretending
Legislative Counsel Opinion
18108 did not exist, or that
it was poorly written, or that
it provided no safe harbor as
expressed by the
Hon. John Burton, was
clearly decided upon to obtain
the result desired and did not
follow the
long-standing California Supreme
Court rule of construction that
Legislative Counsel opinions are
to be given great weight. |
| As Mr.
Benninghoff explains (click
HERE),
he and his family have suffered
from the untrue, baseless,
pejorative and wrongful
statements of Professor Shaun
Martin of the University of San
Diego School of law long enough
and have presented herein the
truth that Professor Martin will
be forced to confront if he does
not withdraw the
blog entry
forthwith. |
Please Contact Professor
Shaun Martin and
give him your thoughts about his
wrongful deeds |
| If, after
reading these pages, the
Amici Briefs and Letters,
the Declarations from
legislators, lawyers, clients,
friends and persons to be ever
unknown around the world, please
contact him using our CONTACT
page. There you will find
his contact information, or, you
can use our email form. |
Contact us to request
information or provide
additional
documents that may be helpful to
bringing out the truth |
| You can also
contact us directly using our
CONTACT form and with this form
you are able to send us
documents as attachments you may
believe are important to these
issues including additional
instances of misconduct by
employees of the Bar of the
State of California. |
|
a diamond
