Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Oliver Bruce Mitchell III

622 Wall Street


Los Angeles, California
90014

October 14, 2017

Kelly Gerner
Acting Intake Attorney
845 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California
90017-2515
Phone: (213) 765-1293
Fax: (213) 765-1168

The State Bar of California


Complaint Review Unit
Office of General Counsel
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1617

Subj: INQUIRY NUMBER 17-14764

Dear Ms. Gerner,

I have received your letter dated October 3, 2017, postmarked October 4, 2017 and
received on or around October 7, 2017. The following response is provided.

The State Bar of California is California's official bar association. It is responsible for
managing the admission of lawyers to the practice of law, investigating complaints of
professional misconduct, and prescribing appropriate discipline. It is directly responsible
to the Supreme Court of California. All attorney admissions and disbarments are issued as
recommendations of the State Bar, which are then routinely ratified by the Supreme Court.

The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Every person admitted and licensed to
practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while holding
office as a judge of a court of record. The State Bar acts as the administrative arm of the
California Supreme Court in matters involving the admission, regulation, and discipline of
attorneys.

Complaints against attorneys are investigated and prosecuted by the State Bar's Office of
the Chief Trial Counsel. Under the State Bar Act, upon receiving a complaint, the Bar may
choose whether to open an investigation. If the Bar does find sufficient evidence of
misconduct, decides that it has standing, and decides to take action to impose discipline, it

1
has the power to proceed against accused attorneys either in the Supreme Court of
California or in the State Bar Court.

In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, 1st page, 1st paragraph, lines 1 thru 3 you state
An attorney for the State Bars Office of Chief Trial Counsel has reviewed your complaint
against Andrew Schwartz, Lisa Holliday, and Diane Gross to determine whether there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding to prosecute a possible violation of the State Bar Act
and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

The State Bar Act refers to the California Business & Professions Code and the Rules of
Professional Conduct are intended to regulate professional conduct licensed by the State
Bar through discipline. The rules were adopted by the Board of Trustees and approved by
the California Supreme Court in an effort to protect the public and to promote respect and
confidence in the legal profession.

In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, 1st page, 2nd paragraph, lines 1 thru 8 you state
You have stated that you retained Mr. Schwartz to file an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission complaint on April 4, 2010. Ms. Holliday was the attorney from the Veterans
Administration handling your claim. Ms. Gross was the Administrative Law Judge hearing
your case. Your case was settled in 2011. You have alleged that these three attorneys
conspired to murder you, that they colluded to deprive you of justice, that they are
unprofessional and unethical, that you were denied due process based on their willful
negligence, that they failed to act competently, that they engaged in other acts of
professional misconduct, that they made misrepresentations of fact to a court, and they
violated their oaths as attorneys.

On August 25, 2017, I filed a 68 page Formal Ethics Complaint against Andrew M.
Schwartz, Lisa K. Holliday, and Diane A. Gross containing 112 evidentiary exhibits. In that
complaint I highlighted and alleged acts of failing to act competently, failing to avoid
interest adverse to a client, failing to avoid the representation of adverse interest, to
include fees for legal services, and trial conduct to name a few.

In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, 1st page, 3rd paragraph, lines 1 thru 5 you state
Although Ms. Gross is an attorney over whom the State Bar would ordinarily have
authority to consider disciplinary charges, your complaint involves her sitting in a judicial
capacity. As a result, it is recommended that if you wish to pursue this matter, that you
submit your written complaint to the attention of the presiding or supervising judge of the
court concerned. The judge will determine whether further action is appropriate.

In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, 1st page, 4th paragraph, lines 1 thru 2 you state
We have concluded that because the conduct complained of is beyond the time limit
allowed, we are unable to proceed with your complaint.

Ms. Gerner, while your letter addresses the three attorneys as whole and you do mention
Ms. Gross as an attorney outside your jurisdiction, you fail to make mention of Ms.

2
Holliday and Mr. Schwartz. Instead, you conclude that the conduct complained is beyond
your time limit for investigation.

Rule 5.21, Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California recognizes various exceptions to
extend the five year period, including for example, when the attorney continues to
represent the complainant, when the complainant is a minor, when there are pending civil,
criminal, or administrative investigations or proceedings based on the same acts against
the attorney, or when the attorney conceals facts about the misconduct.

The factual basis for my complaint to your office arises from Andrew Schwartz
misrepresentations of fact to a court when on November 1, 2006, Mr. Schwartz filed a
complaint bearing my name in the Central District Court of California, he made
misrepresentations of fact to a court. But as equally as important were his actions in Oliver
B. Mitchell vs. Secretary, Veterans Affairs.

As alleged in my complaint, on page 67, lines 15 thru 18 state On December 9, 2013,


Attorney Schwartz emailed the Complainant saying You obviously dont remember what
transpired in 2006. You came to me to file a complaint in federal court against the VA.
That is why I filed the complaint. I have a copy of the agreement to that effect. Andrew
Schwartz. The complaint continues on page 67, lines 19 thru 26 saying On December 9,
2013, the Complainant emailed Attorney Schwartz saying Mr. Schwartz, I didnt retain you
in 2006. I contacted you in 2005 and we discussed my EEO complaint and you advised me
to wait for the agency decision. However, by that time I had already secured another job
and didnt pursue anything. I dont recall, nor do I remember we ever discussing you filing
a suit in 2007. Why would I wait 2 years then have you file a complaint or suit in court?
Whatever agreement you have I didnt sign because I didnt retain you. Nonetheless, were
talking about a suit you filed 2.5 years after my employment ended with the VA.

As previously stated before, my complaint to your office rose out of the actions of Mr.
Schwartz misrepresentations of fact to a court and equally as important were the actions
of Lisa Holliday and Diane Gross in connection to Mr. Schwartz and a strong belief that this
behavior is not an isolated incident.

In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, page 2, 1st paragraph, lines 1 thru 6 you state
After reviewing whether any of the possible exceptions available under rule 5.21 would
apply to permit your complaint to proceed, we conclude that your complaint fails to meet
an exception to the five year limitations rule. However, if you have additional information
showing that an exception applies, you may request in writing that your complaint be
reopened. In explaining why an exception may apply, please give specific dates of possible
violations so that we may properly evaluate your additional information.

Surely, conspiracy to commit murder, deprivation of due process, collusion, racketeering


and misrepresentations would trigger an exception to the rule. However, in this instance,
you have overstated the facts in an effort to deny any wrongdoing.

3
In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, page 2, 2nd paragraph, lines 1 thru 2 you state
If you have new facts and circumstances that you believe may change our determination to
close your complaint, you may submit a written statement with the new information to the
Intake Unit for review.

In your letter to me, dated October 3, 2017, page 2, 3rd paragraph, lines 1 thru 7 you state
If you are not aware of new facts or circumstances but otherwise disagree with the
decision to close your complaint, you may submit a request for review by the State Bars
Complaint Review Unit, which will review your complaint and the Intake Units decision to
close the complaint. The Complaint Review Unit may reopen your complaint if it
determines that your complaint was inappropriately closed or that you presented new,
significant evidence to support your complaint. To request review by the Complaint
Review Unit, you must submit your request in writing, together with any new evidence you
wish to be considered, post-marked within 90 days of the date of this letter

Ms. Gerner, the purpose of retaining Mr. Schwartz and the role and responsibility of Ms.
Holliday and Ms. Gross were to thoroughly investigate and adjudicate my allegations as
presented within their individual roles. My prior complaints were meant to address
systemic employment, mismanagement, and fraud, waste and abuse issues that I had
experienced as a result of exposing deadly wait times. Rather than conduct themselves in
a professional manner these three attorneys engaged in practices that has led to this
complaint in your office.

Rule 5.21 permits exceptions to extend the five year period; when there are pending civil,
criminal, or administrative investigations or proceedings based on the same acts against
the attorney.

Please be advised that on August 16, 2013, a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983 (non-prisoners), Case No. CV-13-6030-ODW (AS) was filed in the Central District
Court of California against the Secretary, Veterans Affairs; Donna Beiter, former Medical
Center Director and Ms. Lisa K. Holliday. On July 14, 2017, I filed a Notice of Motion and
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Defendants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure, Rule 15(a)(2) defendants can be added at any stage of litigation. If proven true,
both Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Gross could be added as defendants to a civil suit.

In the past your office handling of cases has been publicized in the media. For example, the
controversy surrounding the former Executive Director Joseph Dunn. On November 13,
2014, the State Bar issued a statement saying that former State Senator Joseph Dunn's
employment as Executive Director had been terminated by the Board of Trustees. The
same day, Dunn then filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the State Bar challenging the
termination because he had exposed malfeasance and "egregious improprieties."
The State Bar denied Dunn's allegations, saying the "Board received a complaint from a
high-level employee raising serious, wide-ranging allegations about ... Dunn and certain
State Bar employees."

4
In February 2012, Jon B. Streeter, President of the State Bar, said: Our role is roughly
analogous to that of a criminal prosecutor.... The professional discipline of attorneys is not
about punishment. For years, [the State Bar] has carried an enormous backlog ...averaging
some 1,6001,900 uncompleted investigations.... Any backlogmuch less one of this
magnitudeundermines our credibility with the public.... Only offending lawyers
deserving of discipline benefit from delay....

In my complaint to your office, on page 2, 5th paragraph, lines 1 thru 6 state In November
2008, while attending a Systems Redesign meeting, the Complainant witnessed schemes to
play the system to hide patient appointment wait times. During the meeting one VA official,
struggling to meet performance measurement demands, reportedly stated: Our numbers
for the second and third quarter were the same as last year and in order to show favorable
results we [need] to delete as many orders as possible. We are still playing catch up on the
backlog

Its ironic that the Bars own President would admit to an enormous backlog and that any
backlog much less one of this magnitude would undermine the Bars credibility with the
public.

In my complaint to your office, on page 9, 5th paragraph, lines 1 thru 6 state On April 27,
2010, Attorney Schwartz emailed the Complainant saying Mr. Mitchell, the agency doesnt
pay much money for punitive damages, unless there is a hearing and the judge awards a
large amount, but this rarely happens. You would have to suffer a traumatic injury to
receive any real award, and then the agency would appeal the decision. I would ask for
$50,000. This would be a starter sum, but dont expect a pot of gold. Andrew.

In my complaint to your office, on page 10, 2nd paragraph, lines 1 thru 7 state On April 27,
2010, Attorney Schwartz emailed the Complainant saying Mr. Mitchell the maximum
payment for punitive damages is $300,000. No one as far as I am aware has ever reached
this amount. Any award is based on the discrimination and the resulting harm to the
individual. While you experienced discrimination you would have to show that you
suffered some traumatic harm and medical documentation to substantiate it. If you are still
employed and havent suffered such harm case law in this area limits the amount of the
award substantially. Andrew.

In my complaint to your office, on page 20, 2nd paragraph, lines 1 thru 10 state On
November 22, 2010, during the EEOC Pre-Hearing, Attorney Schwartz, Attorney Holliday
and Attorney Gross demonstrated numerous, multiple and repeated instances of
unprofessional and unethical conduct. Attorney Holliday stated she would like to put the
Complaint in jail for whistleblowing. Attorney Gross stated she was moved to remove
race from the Complainants complaint because she didnt see any racism. Attorney
Schwartz stated, 1) he could no longer represent the Complainant because he was too
smart to be black, 2) these people dont know you, why dont you let them get to know you,
go out and have a drink with them, 3) youre such a family man, all you do is go to work
then go home to your family, and 4) if you sue me all I carry is the state minimum for
insurance.
5
It is my strong opinion that the actions of these three attorneys undermined the Bars
credibility and that this office has a duty and an obligation to myself and the public to
perform a thorough investigation.

Persecution of whistleblowers has become a serious issue in many parts of the world.
Although whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, there
have been many cases where punishment for whistleblowing has occurred, such as
termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by
other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws
provide for limited make whole remedies or damages for employment losses if
whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a
widespread shoot the messenger mentality by corporations or government agencies
accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal
prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing.

Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or


group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes
under law.

Many whistleblowers are politically targeted. Many of whom are subjected to gang
stalking, harassment, un-forced break-ins, thefts, vandalism, libel, slander, surveillance,
taunting, bullying, sabotage of relationships, work life, home life and school.
Many whistleblowers are singled out for the purpose of misdiagnosis as mental illness,
schizophrenia, paranoia or delusions; which perfectly fits the definition of political abuse of
psychiatry.

Once identified as a whistleblower you may be labeled as a targeted individual. Targeted


individuals may be subjected to wiretapping, civil rights violations, privacy rights
violations, illegal use of communications technology and even human rights violations.

In addition to unethical conduct and misrepresentation, shortly after I was forced to resign
my position I was subjected to what I can only describe as race based terror. Briefly, in
November 2011 I suffered from a gun incident, in December of 2011 I suffered from a gun
incident, in February of 2012 I suffered from a gun incident, in May of 2012 I was hit by a
car, in June of 2012 I was run over by a car, in July of 2012 I had unforced home invasions,
in November of 2012 I found hidden surveillance equipment in my home, in January of
2014 my family dog was killed, and between 2011 and 2012 I was forced to institutionalize
my ex-partner, all of which has been found to be directly related to the behavior and
conduct of these three attorneys.

Therefore, when on April 4, 2010, I retained the services of Mr. Andrew Schwartz, it was to
protect my legal interest as a whistleblower and to prevent any such targeting, retaliation
and/or reprisal for being a black whistleblower.

Per your instructions, I am requesting that this matter be reopened based on the
allegations laid out against Mr. Schwartz and his misrepresentations of fact to the court.
6
The material evidence, allegations and statements against both Ms. Holliday and Ms. Gross
are equally as important as they relate to an overall picture surrounding my wait time
disclosures.

Per your instructions, a complaint, to include your letter has been filed with Ms. Gross
presiding supervisor, along with the Inspector Generals office for the U. S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

Pending outcome of your decision and ensuing investigation, I assert, that it is indefensible
that the United States of America would engage me in what has been described as race-
based tactics to include any conspiracies or extrajudicial murder simply because I am both
a black and gay whistleblower in a time of political and cultural strife in America. The
purpose of my whistleblowing were to save taxpayer dollars and ensure public safety. At
no time did I expect nor authorize the respondents to engage me in any race based, anti-
terror tactics.

In closing, I remind you that your organization has been tasked with safe keeping to protect
the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal profession. Properly
investigating this complaint is a way to ensure you gain and retain the publics respect and
confidence in your organizations abilities.

I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Oliver B. Mitchell III