PUBLIC STATE BAR REVIEW

This Page is Set Up to provide transparency for the California State Bar's Discipline and Investigative Processes. The site came about as of the result of a discussion with a California Legislator. It is designed to bring about legislation to create transparency related to all complaints lodged against any licensed Attorney so that the Complaints can be viewed by the Public digitally.

We feel that transparency will better inform the Public regarding Attorneys who have the propensity to be dishonest so that they may be avoided.

Under the existing system there is no transparency and without transparency, the Public will never know who the problem attorneys are until they have been taken advantage of.

We have a form attached to be used to express your concerns about any current Attorney so that it may be included in our endeavors.

THE FACTS

The Bennetts have filed three complaints with the California Bar Association referencing Case No. D072569 in the Fourth District, Division One (Superior No. 37-2015-00024336)against the following three Attorneys working for two differing Law Firms:

MICHAEL WITHEM working for Rosenthal-Withem & Zeff located in Encino, California: California Bar Number: 83002. Mr. Withem's Complaint was reviewed by Barabra Fields and William Todd at the Los Angeles office of the State Bar.

TIMOTHY A. BURNETT working for Hall-Griffin LLP located in Santa Ana, California: California Bar Number: 286516. Mr. Burnett's Complaint was reviewed by Susan Kim at the Los Angeles office of the State Bar.

JERED T. EDE working for Hall-Griffin LLP located in Santa Ana, California: California Bar Number: 273440. Mr. Ede's Complaint was reviewed by Carissa Andresen at the Los Angeles office of the State Bar. Because none of the complaints resulted in discipline, the Public will never know the problems these Attorneys caused.

For instance, in the case of Attorney Ede, we subpmitted a complaint against Mr. Ede and the State Bar Investigator did not do her job adequately. After she determined that the behavior of Attorney Ede was not worthy of discipline, we turned over our complaints to Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement contacted the Judge, the Clerk, and the Court Spervisor of Records and they all informed Law Enforcement that Mr. Ede was in truth the one who manipulated the record by manipulating the Defendants in our case (see Exhibit 7, pages 12-16 below). This serves as an example supporting the need for transparency.

So why does Mr. Ede find it so important to misrepresent the truth? Because his Client was never a party to this action and he wants to protect Bank of America from the two Judgments for Wrongful Foreclosure(Exhibit 4) and Wrongful Eviction(Exhibit 5). The Bennetts will surely collect on the two Judgments (Exhibits 8 & 9 below); however, Bank of America enlisted Deutsche Bank to assist them in avoiding damages by having them pretend they are the Defendants in order to avoid having to litigate Foreclosure and Eviction issues which have already been lost by Bank of America. This for sure constitutes a strategy despite its illegal and false means. I suppose the means justifies the end when there is no supervision of licensed Attorneys.

The Bennetts' Reply Brief appears below as Exhibit 7. Pages 12-14 outlines the various lies filed by Attorney Jered T. Ede. Pages 14-16 shows how Law Enforcement investigated the lies used by Attorney Ede to illegally change Defendants and determined based on conversations with Judge Jacqueline M. Stern and others that it was a the new Attorney Ede who engaged in the deceptive acts which caused the illegal manipulation of the Defendants. Even after the Law Enforcement conclusion the California State Bar has done nothing to stop Ede's illegal actions.

  • EXHIBITS

    • Oral Arguments were heard in front of Acting Presiding Justice GILBERT NARES; JUDITH HALLER; AND TERRY B. O'ROURKE. These Justices agreed with San Diego Superior Court Judge Jacqueline M. Stern that the Defendant the Bennetts sued was Deutsche Bank. This appears to be a known fraud because Exhibit 23 proves they knew Bank of Amereica was the true Defendant. There we see that just prior to the Defendant switch these Justices ruled on these two writs which prove Bank of America was the only Defendant. This effectively meant the Bennetts could not sue Bank of America, the party they won judgments against and the party they sued, served, and who answered the complaint. The Fourth District Opinion appears below as exhibit 10.

    The problem with the Opinion is the Justices at the Fourth District believed the attorneys for Bank of America and Deutsche Bank instead of looking to the documents in the record which prove Bank of America was the only party Defendant sued and served. Exhibit 11 is the proof of service of the summons and complaint which was part of the record on appeal.

    The proof of service isn't the only document presented in the record which the Fourth District Justices ignored. They also ignored the Amended Answer Deutsche filed to amend the Answer Bank of America initially filed and which is presented above as exhibit 6. When you compare Bank of America's Answer with Deutsche's Answer presented below as exhibit 12 you can see that a Defendant that never filed an initial Answer was allowed to file an amended Answer to another party's Answer.

    After Bennett realized a crime had been committed they contacted Law Enforcement. After the Detective handling the case made a few inquires, he discovered that Attorney Jered T. Ede was the person responsible for the illegal change in Defendants. Exhibit 13 is the email confirming that Judge Jacqueline Stern, her Clerk MICHAEL Garland, and the supervisor of Civil Records informed him that Mr. Ede was the responsible person who made the change. Exhibit 14 is a copy of the Register of Actions less than 2 hours before the change and Exhibit 15 is a copy after the change. Notice that the Defendant in the last column listed and Defendant filing is changed to Deutsche Bank, the Attorney is changed to Jered T. Ede, and all of the entries have been changed from being filed by Bank of America to being filed by Deutsche Bank

    The Bennetts realized that they had obtained two judgments against Bank of America, one for Wrongful Eviction and the other for Wrongful Foreclosure, presented as exhibits 8 and 9 above, they filed a Federal Action in North Carolina to obtain damages. Exhibit 16 is that Complaint. The problem is Bank of America in that action now tells that Court that they were the Defendants in the Bennetts' San Diego Complaint. They had previously convinced the Appellate Justices in the exhibit 10 opinion that Deutsche Bank was the Defendants and the Justices believed them; however, in order to use the Deutsche Judgment issued by the Justices in the exhibit 10 Opinion as a Defense in North Carolina they told the Judge there they were in truth the Defendant. Exhibit 17 proves they are now deceiving the Federal Court in North Carolina

    We are now faced with a hearing on July 16, 2021 in Department N27 in Vista Superior Court in California. We have a new Judge and Bank of America has a new Attorney named ADMAM F. SUMMERFIELD. His filing presents similar misrepresentations as his predecessor JERED T. EDE. It is presented below as exhibit 18.

    The July 16, 2021 hearing was held before the Honorable CYNTHIA A. FREELAND. The transcripts are presented below as Exhibit 24. What you see is Deutsche Bank's Attorney, HYUN WOOK SHIN, admits on lines 18-20, on page 8, "Deutsche Bank, had notice of this suit and we made an appearance because we our interest was jeopardized". The Court Record "was showing the Court history". This contradicts what is being said by Judge Freeland.

    FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF SAN DIEGO JUDGES: Click Here and Click Here There is a history of Corruption in the San Diego Courts. The FBI has set up a hot line specifically to be used to report such corruption. We have submitted the Sheriff's Email in exhibit 13 which confirms Judge Jacqueline Stern and Clerk Michael Garland admitted the fraud where Deutsche's Attorney Jered Ede changed the Defendants from Bank of America to Deutsche Bank. We have also submitted the July 16, 2021 hearing transcripts which prove that Deutsche's Attorney, HYUN WOOK SHIN, confirms Deutsche Bank did come in after Bank of America's litgation was failing; therefore, he says they had to protect their interest from the Bennetts' Judgments against Bank of America. And of course we did inform the FBI that an Attorney does not have access ability to change Defendants in the Court's Electronic Docket; therefore, one of the Court's employees such as a Judge or Clerk must have assisted. As a result, we have passed on additional information regarding the employees in Department N27 and the Unlawful Detainer Clerk Ammy Wagner who is listed as the Clerk who issued the Writ of Possession which Bank of America used to evict the Bennetts. If you have information on Judge Cynthia Freeland, Judge Jacqueline Stern, Clerk Michael Garland, Attorney Hyun Wook Shin or others contact the FBI hot line at 800-225-5324.

    To prove this is a criminal merry go round the Bennetts present Exhibit 19. Exhibit 19 is the Unlawful Detainer filed by Bank of America which was reversed by the Appellate Court Opinion in Exhibit 9 above. One can see that the Appellate Court accurately determined that Bank of America, N.A. was the actual party despite the fact that the Unlawful Detainer lists Bank of America, N.A. for the benefit of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as the Trustee for Holders of the GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-0A1. The question then is why are the California Superior Court in Vista, California and the Fourth District, Division One having such problems with a simple conclusion. Some might speculate that someone is being compensated to engage in a confusion which is truly not confusing.

    What we know so far is exhibit 20 is the Trustees Deed proving Bank of America gained title to the Bennett home by surrendering the Mortgage in exchange for the title. That means they surrendered the Bennett mortgage as payment for the title to the home.

    The problem is, one year after having supposedly surrendering the mortgage, exhibit 21 proves instead Bank of America sold the mortgage to Nationstar Mortgage and exhibit 22 proves Nationstar continued to collect on it after Bank of America took the home. Nationstar continued collecting and sending form 1099s to the IRS as required for all active mortgages.

    IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIGNATURE BLOCK IN EXHIBIT 21 YOU CAN TELL THE LENDER MAKING THE ASSIGNMENT IS IN FACT BANK OF AMERICA NOT DEUTSCHE BANK.

    THE BENNETTS ARE THE PLAINTIFFS. WHY AREN'T THEY ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THEIR DEFENDANT AS ALL OTHERS DO? WHY MUST SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE BENNETTS DO IT FOR THEM? AFTERALL, THE ONLY PERSON WHO KNOWS WHO HARMED THE BENNETTS ARE THE BENNETTS

    CLICK HERE FOR CALIFORNIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT