State Bar of California STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA - CORRUPT San Francisco, California

This is an excellent post that is both factual and succinct. The men and women that do business as the State Bar of California are professional liars and thieves. That is precisely why countless attorneys are trading in their bar cards and the bar’s former CEO Joe Dunn is suing them for fraud and corruption. The original author couldn’t possibly be any more accurate when she stated, “The State Bar of California pretends to serve the public by offering people the ability to file a complaint against an attorney who has done something improper or dishonest. But their ‘investigations’ of these complaints are phony. They protect their members, not the public.” Indeed, both the complaint analyst assigned to the author’s cause and the bar’s review attorney lied and concealed the offending attorney’s professional misconduct by stating that “the attorney didn’t do anything wrong” because the author “didn’t have a right to a jury trial.”

This brings us to Robert's ridiculous Consumer Comment entitled "Too Many Holes.” Robert said that trial by jury is not a right in a civil action at law in California, erroneously citing to the federal Constitution. Apparently, Robert likes to run his mouth before researching the controlling law. The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by California Constitution, article I, section 16 (former Cal. Const. (1879) art. I, § 7) and is provided for by statute in Code of Civil Procedure section 592. “A ‘jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity.’ (Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 433, 436.) “[T]he right so guaranteed . . . is the right as it existed at common law in 1850, first adopted.” (C & K Eng'g Contractors v. Amber Steel Co. (1978) 23 Cal.3d 1, 8; People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal.2d 283.) None of Robert’s remaining arguments merit a response.

The original author along with thousands of others was deprived of her right to protection and enforcement of rigorous standards of ethical behavior by attorneys who are worthy of trust and who fulfill the professional standards required of them. The described conduct of the offending actors is an affront to basic concepts of American justice and the rule of law. The original author made a good record of the bar’s corruption and brought it to the public. There is nothing wrong with this post by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/a-russell-martin-att/legal-services/a-russell-martin-attorney-ru-c7007.htm

I never said a jury trial was my Constitutional right, it was my right in the case to have a jury.

And yes, it was corruption - by the judge, doctor, lawyer and finally the Bar Association. 

Specialization of attorneys is a fact of life Robert.

A friend who is a specialist in real estate law would have no business filing a lawsuit for Medical malpractice.

Kind of like having my proctologist do heart surgery.

So one hole plugged.

Second hole: Waiving the Jury trial. Automatic in my Jurisdiction for lawsuits under a certin $ amount unless specifically requested by one of the parties. Dont know the rules where this was filed but it means the OP didnt understand what was going on and thats his Lawyers Fault.

$10,000 for costs, again the OP doesn't understand the process and where his money went. Again his lawyers fault.

Finally the old boys club at the bar Association. Most "Bar" have this issue of secrecy. There may have been incompetence involved. But quite frankly the things OP is complaining about is more likely to be procedural explanation issues than actual fraud or corruption. and that is the investigators fault, not the BAR.

So what it comes down to is the OP ran into people that didn't take the time to explain anything, made errors and should be fired for that, not Corruption.

Your story has a bit too many holes that perhaps you can fill in.

First of all is if you have an attorney "friend" why didn't you use them to file suit?  At the very least why didn't you get a recommendation from  your friend as to who would be a good attorney to use?..or did they recommend the attorney you used and your friend is now an "ex" friend?

Next if you think that having a trial by jury for a Civil matter is a right, perhaps you should go re-read the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

Notice the part that I underlined...Medical Malpractice is a Civil Suit.  Now, while you don't have a right to a Jury Trial you can still request one for Civil Matters.

I had proof of Martin's deception which I sent to the State Bar.
- Your first statement was that the attorney waived your right behind your back.  So what proof do you have that you DIDN'T waive your right?

Also, since it was figured that you waived your right to a trial by jury..that means that you had a trial where the judge made the ruling, I am figuring that you lost or this would be a non-issue.  So why do you think that a jury would have seen it any other way, as they are supposed to follow the same laws as the judge?    This issue with an attorney not providing you valid council would also obviously be grounds for appeal..so how come you went after the lawyer instead of appealing the decision?  Or did you appeal and loose that as well?

One final item.  You seem to have no problem filing Malpractice suits..so why not file a malpractice suit against this attorney...yep there is legal malpractice as well.  Perhaps you can use your attorney friend and make sure he requests a trial by jury.