|
|
Charles Benninghoff comments
on the
case of Benninghoff v Superior
Court |
|
Thank you very much for taking
the time to review the evidence
placed before you in this
website that shows the community
support that was given to me in
the case of Benninghoff v
Superior Court. I was
personally overwhelmed by it.
Help came from elected
officials, judges, lawyers,
clients by the dozen, friends,
family and nationwide from folks
I'll never get a chance to know.
Following is a history I have
told so many times and to so many
people that I've decided to
eliminate all but the basic
elements. If the reader
wishes any more information,
please contact me using our
FORM. |
As has been explained elsewhere
herein, I pled guilty to three
federal charges in 1999.
The first involved reporting my
income over several years on the
accrual basis when I had
forgotten to uncheck the "cash"
basis and check the "accrual"
basis box. I accept
responsibility for this. I had
no intent to deceive and,
indeed, had no need to. In
the
second charge, I was accused
of wrongfully assisting a
contractor. The truth of
that charge is the contractor
had been siphoning payments to
 his subcontractors and spending
their payments on rebuilding his family's
shopping center. I found
this out during discovery on a
case where my client had driven
his unpaid subcontractor into
bankruptcy. During this
period he was
subjected to 43 lawsuits.
I either won the case, or after
I discovered where the siphoned
money was going, I forced the
client into negotiating
settlements on the balance.
He then decided not to pay me. I sued, won and
collected. As part of the
investigation of me, this
contractor was only too eager
to, in my opinion, to fabricate
evidence against me. I am
not guilty of this charge.
Finally, in about 1998 I was asked in
a government interview how I had
gotten a document in 1990 or '91
and I replied that it had been
given to me. The
government agents knew
at the time how I received the
document because they had
interviewed my young,
sharp-minded clerk who is 30
years my junior. I had
actually been sent the document
through FedEx.
For this lapse of memory I was
charged with a felony. I
pled guilty to these three
charges because I was informed
that if I did not, that new,
unspecified charges would be
brought against me. Given
the severity of the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines and
because I had paid off all
underlying loans years before
the government got involved, I
was eligible for parole.
Thus, I accepted the
government's cram-down "offer."
I would further offer as an
explanation and in no way an
excuse, that during the period
in question I was suffering from
out-of-control type 2 diabetes
and resulting high blood sugar
levels and subsequent behavioral problems; a
condition which I believe I have
controlled the past 12 years. My
federal sentencing judge cut
short my supervised release
because I asked him to and
because he ruled that I had
exhibited outstanding efforts at
self-rehabilitation. As a
key and principal part
of the request to be cut loose
early, I fully disclosed to the
federal judge the
fact that I was at that time
performing services in both
federal and state agencies as a
nonattorney. I disclosed
to him
Legislative Counsel Opinion
18108 that stated
specifically I could do so.
So, the federal government
clearly knew the extent and
scope of my work. This
knowledge was supplemented by
the monthly detailed probation
reports that I made including
complete financial disclosure of
all of my income sources.
Nothing was left out! |
|
The state bar also knew, as is
shown in the
Declaration
of Robert Corbin. |
|
I thus worked in front of many
California agencies from about
2001 to 2005 with full
disclosure. Finally, in
early 2005 in a medical case I
found that the California
Medical Board (CMB) was
providing its expert witnesses
with highly prejudicial material
not related to patient charts in
an effort to convince the
experts that the MD who was my
client was culpable of the
charges based upon false
evidence. For similar reasons
involving wrongful acts, the CMB
had been put under close
monitoring of a State-appointed
independent Practice Monitor -
an act of castigation that no
other medical board in the
United States that I know of has
ever had to endure. I
further discovered through
research on the CMB's Practice
Monitor website that providing
expert witnesses with such
highly prejudicial material not
related to patient charts was
strictly forbidden and, indeed,
was part and parcel of the type
of conduct for which the
Practice Monitor's oversight was
instituted. When I
disclosed this to an
administrative court I got the
information admitted into
evidence over the strongest
objections possible from
attorneys for the CMB.
After getting this damning
evidence accepted by the
administrative law judge, the
CMB came after me using every
trick and deceit it could come
up with. The result was
that I spent $100,000 in
defending myself and ending up
winning the right to continue
with my federal agency work -
even though the State had stolen
it from me by lying to the Trial
Court. I was forced to
stop performing California
administrative representation
when the California Bar informed
the Court of Appeals
that I was a danger to the
People of the State of
California even while the
California Attorney General was
winning appeals made by my
former clients whose
professional wrongdoing
had resulted in their licenses
being restricted and - now get this
- the Attorney General was
winning by informing the courts
how great my work was.
Click
HERE
to
review this unbelievable - at
least to me - oddity. |
|
How did "I win" this case
against the bar? By hiring
the best appellate lawyer in the
State of California, Mr. James
S. Link of Pasadena, who is a
Certified Appellate Law
Specialist. Mr. Link
literally brought the bar to its
knees and scored the greatest
victory against the bar in the
past 100 years, denying it the
right to control a huge segment
of administrative work; not only
that, my case of Benninghoff v
Superior Court has been
mentioned successfully to keep
the bar completely out of all
federal court matters, as well.
Mr. Link stuck with me through
thick and thin, thwarting all of
the wrongful attacks against me
by the bar, never letting up his
strong offense and belief that
it is the duty of the
legislature to change statutes -
not activist judges. If
you EVER need a wonderful
attorney I highly recommend Mr.
Link who can be contacted by
clicking
HERE. |
|
I have thanked, and again thank
now, all of the wonderful people
- known to me and forever
unknown - many of whose
declarations, briefs, letters
and emails are set forth in this
site for the world to visit.
I would like to bring up two
such people who had everything
to lose and absolutely nothing
to gain but the feeling of doing
what was right by supporting me.
These two are
Professor
Emeritus Michael Asimow of
UCLA who is the "father of
California's Administrative
Procedures Act" and the former
Congressman, State Senator,
Assemblyman and current
philanthropist and lawyer,
the Hon. John Burton of San
Francisco. Professor
Asimow wrote, wrote and wrote
again in support of my case.
Although I never discussed this
with him, I believe that he has
looked at the facts of my case
and decided I was worthy of
forgiveness. Mr. Burton
wrote most succinctly that
Opinion 18108 had been in
existence for four years before
the State Bar attacked me in
2005, that the legislature knew
about its existence, that the
legislature had never moved to
change it and that I was just in
relying upon it as a basis for
performing representation
services in California.
Also, I'd like to mention Judges
Gerre VanGorder and Roger
Diefendorf who came to my
support.
Tim Bolen - a friend of mine
whose prior association with me
bore a cost in some quarters -
nevertheless rallied again to my
support and helped greatly.
Finally, I thank my wife of 36
years who has stood by me,
fought with me against all of
these forces and, I pray, has
forgiven me. |
|
As to Professor Martin's blog
entry, it is the number 2 entry
when my name is Googled. I found
out about it about 2 weeks ago
when a mother from Spain told me
her son could not hire me to
help her imprisoned son because
his Florida-based attorney had
read the blog entry, concluded
that Professor Martin was right
and that my prisoner
representation was illegal.
Martin's personal attack against
me, calling my defense efforts
"wonderfully unsuccessful" and
grossly misstating the holding
of Benninghoff v Superior Court
have cost me hundreds of
thousands of dollars. |
|
If you believe based upon the
facts set forth in this site
that Professor Shaun Martin of
the University of San Diego Law
School should withdraw his
totally incorrect blog entry,
please use our
CONTACT
form to give him
attitude-changing advice. |
August 20, 2007 |
|
Contact Professor Martin |
|
If you believe that Professor
Shaun Martin of the University
of San Diego School of Law
should remove the offensive
material he has published
regarding Mr. Benninghoff,
please use the
CONTACT form to
contact him or send him an email
with your thoughts. |
|
