Petition for Writ of Certiorari — McCarthy v. Supreme Court of California, (2006) (No. 724)

e — Supreme Court. US

Ee j}jor

mee

No. ___q¢ 794 "dv 24 2006

OPFICE OF THE CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

CHARLES CONNELL McCARTHY,

Petitioner.

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

and STATE BAR COURT,

Respondents.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The Supreme Court Of California

Sd

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CHARLES CONNELL MCCARTHY, pro se

A member of the Supreme Court Bar

since March 20, 1961

P.O. Box 261182

Encino, CA 91426

Telephone: (818) 981-1391

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether, the EN BANC ORDER OF DISBARMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, In re

Charles Connell McCarthy, Case No. 5145019, State Bar

Court Case No. 03-N-02791; 04-O-11745, filed October 10,

2006 (App. A) — without oral arguments - without a

judicial hearing - without a written judicial deci-

sion - and without a meaningful judicial review of

the important federal ISSUES PRESENTED therein —

deprived Petitioner McCarthy of his due process and equal

protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amend-

ments of the United States Constitution?

2. Whether, the telephone messages left on Petitioner

McCarthy’s telephone by the Clerk of the California

Supreme Court (App. G) constitute an unlawful interfer-

ence in a matter then before the California Supreme Court

and a violation of Petitioner McCarthy’s due process and

equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?

. 3. Whether, “the three members of the Review Depart-

ment Of The State Bar Court thereby willfully violated

Rule 1-100. Rules of Professional Conduct (A) Purpose

and Function, e.g., “to protect the public and to promote

respect and confidence in the legal profession.”!” as alleged

in Paragraph 3 of Petitioner’s VERIFIED PETITION FOR

ORDER DIRECTING THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF

THE STATE BAR COURT TO IMMEDIATELY COMPLY

WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §6081. In

the Matter of CHARLES C. McCARTHY, Case No.: 03-N-

02791 and 04-O0-11745, filed July 5, 2006? (App. A)

ii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

4, Whether, State Bar Assistant General Counsel, Tracey

McCormick’s “cryptic,” July 25, 2006 letter to the Clerk of

the California Supreme Court — contained a “single sen-

tence declaring ‘the matter moot’ [which] implemented

an evil, cunning State Bar scheme to summarily deprive

Petitioner of due process of law in violation of the Four-

teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States” as alleged in Paragraph 2. (pl) of Petitioner’s

SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED PETITION FILED

HEREIN ON JULY 5, 2006 WITH THE CLERK OF THE

SUPREME COURT AT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

dated August 3, 2006? (App. G)

5. Whether, the State Bar thereby intended “to induce

the Clerk of the Supreme Court Of California to cause the

prompt Dismissal With Prejudice of Petitioner’s Verified

Petition filed herein on July 5, 2006!” as alleged in Para-

graph 3. (p2) of Petitioner’s SUPPLEMENT TO VERI-

FIED PETITION dated August 3, 2006? (App. G)

6. Whether, “[t]he State Bar thereby intended to avoid

having to file their Verified responses to Petitioner’s

Verified Petition, re the allegations of Js 2 and 3 thereof,

charging that members of the State Bar Court [of] “will-

fully” committed acts involving “moral turpitude” in

violation of Rule 1-100, Rules of Professional Conduct and

State Bar Act §6106 respectively!” as alleged in Paragraph

4. (p2) of Petitioner’s SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED

PETITION dated August 3, 2006? (App. G)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

7. Whether, “[lilrrefutably, the State Bar’s proceedings

against Petitioner constitutes cruel and unusual punish-

ment to a man who stated in his State Bar Declaration of

November 9, 1999:

‘I have earned a personal and professional repu-

tation over fifty years that I cherish and for

which I will die.’ (Ex 1, 71, pl quoted at 73, p2

. Verified Petition)”

as alleged in Paragraph 5. (p2) of Petitioner’s SUPPLE-

MENT TO VERIFIED PETITION dated August 3, 2006?

(App. G)

8. Whether, members of the State Bar and the State Bar

Court are above the law applicable to all members of The

State Bar of California — including, but not limited to:

1) Business and Professions Code #6081; 2) State

Bar Act §6106; 3) Rule 1-100 Rules of Profes-

sional Conduct and 4) the due process clause of

the 14th Amendment to The Constitution of the

United States! as alleged in Paragraph 7. (p2) of

’ Petitioner’s SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED PE-

TITION dated August 3, 2006? (App. G)

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI...............4. 1

Re I caicisisists cotdascormntnaniincnilgeveessisnsdesiones 1

I stiles idisasesiicidiaiccntinpiiidapcelaicnmmioessinniciacin 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Pe eM ccicsasinacdieskouieidosihinihedihcnuniipiibinimicinesassbuieniinia y

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ..0cccccrvsersveceeescsosssevevesessess 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT...................048 3

SAEs SEIN ce ccssssinsntvticvrtvrciterencentoeanenassedwbetons 6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES: |

Herrscher v. State Bar, 4 Cal.2d 399, 49 P.2d 837

CIT su sidakicescashaniiectlovereisikphabhialsseiicuscdieumatuem son auasmliiateal 8

In re Rose, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 (2000).............ccceeeeeeeee 3, 4, 5

CONSTITUTIONS:

re I, PIII, © oi aiccetessssticeisseseneniotanivenmsianacnene ae |

Se I PE, TOE dssiccrscccsccuticssutiacciscetsitiaassuaooen ee

STATUTE:

Se sais CD Fat PAM nine cccncscscciinssbcessantaxtomuctousscoudennts 2

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a

writ of certiorari to review the EN BANC ORDER OF

DISBARMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALI-

FORNIA, filed October 10, 2006 IN RE CHARLES CON-

NELL McCARTHY ON DISCIPLINE Case No. $145019,

State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-02791; 04-O-11745.

¢

OPINION BELOW

The Supreme Court Of California’s En Banc ruling,

filed October 10, 2006, (App. A) “ordered that Charles

Connell McCarthy, State Bar No. 20803, be disbarred from

the practice of law and that his name be stricken from the

roll of attorneys” — without oral argument - without a

judicial hearing - without a written judicial deci-

sion - and without a meaningful judicial review of

the important federal ISSUES PRESENTED.

The Supreme Court Of California’s En Bane ruling

Filed August 23, 2006 stated in relevant part that: “Peti-

tion for writ of review DENIED.” (App. B)

The State Bar letter to Charles C. McCarthy In the

Matter of the Disbarment of Charles C. McCarthy dated

October 30, 2006 (App. C) states in relevant part:

“This is to remind you that by Order filed Octo-

ber 10, 2006, copy enclosed, the Supreme Court

disbarred you from the practice of law effective

November 9, 2006.”

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court Of California’s En Bane Order

filed October 10, 2006 that Petitioner Charles Connell

McCarthy should be summarily disbarred (App. A)

invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28

U.S8.C.A. Section 1257(a) and Rule 10(c) of the rules of the

Supreme Court of the United States.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-

ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press, or the right of the people peaceably to assem-

ble, and to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances. U.S. Const. Amend. I.

2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of

the United States and of the State wherein they re-

side. No State shall make or enforce any law which

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property, without due process

of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. Amend.

XIV.

+

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Factual and Legal] Genesis

McCarthy’s VERIFIED PETITION FOR ORDER

DIRECTING THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF THE

STATE BAR COURT TO IMMEDIATELY COMPLY WITH

BUSINESS AND PROVISIONS CODE §6081. In the

Matter of CHARLES C. McCARTHY, Case No.: 03-N-

02791 and 04-O-11745 — was stamped “RECEIVED Jul -

5 2006” by the “CLERK SUPREME COURT Los Angeles.”

(App. E), Petitioner refers to and incorporates herein as

though set forth in full, all of the verified allegations

thereof, including the prayer:

“WHEREFORE, petitioner CHARLES C.

McCARTHY respectfully requests that this Court

forthwith issue its ORDER DIRECTING THE

REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE BAR

COURT TO IMMEDIATELY COMPLY WITH

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 86081 —

including, an appropriate reprimand and/or

sanctions to assure that members of THE STATE

BAR COURT shall never again willfully violate

the unambiguous provisions of Business and Pro-

fessions Code §6081!

Dated: July 5, 2006”

+

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The EN BANC ORDER OF DISBARMENT IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, In re Charles

Connell McCarthy, Case No. S145019, in the State Bar

Court Case No. 03-N-02791; 04-O-11745, filed October 10,

2006 (App. A) — followed the precedent of In re Rose, 93

Cal.Rptr.2d 298 (2000), wherein the Court by separate

order, denied the petition for review and imposed the

discipline recommended by the State Bar Court — without

oral argument — without a judicial hearing — without

4

a written judicial decision - and without a mean-

ingful judicial review — after deciding that:

“We conclude that this court may summarily

deny an attorney’s petition for review of a State

Bar Court decision recommending disbarment or

suspension without violating constitutional prin-

ciples.” (/d., 436)

There follow quotes from the cogent; insightful —

indeed compelling — dissents of California Supreme Court

Justices Kennard and Brown in the matter of In re Rose:

KENNARD, J.,

“The majority’s decision here produces a startling

anomaly: Attorneys are the only persons whose

state occupational licenses can be revoked or

suspended without a judicial hearing. When the

right to continue practicing a trade or profession

is at stake, only attorneys are denied their day in

court.” (/d., 461)

“To summarize: The state Constitution grants

litigants a right to oral argument before this

court renders a judgment, and an attorney sus-

pension or disbarment order is a judgment ren-

dered by this court; therefore, an attorney has a

right under the state Constitution to oral argu-

ment before this court suspends or disbars the

attorney.” (/d., 462)

“But attorneys do not have recourse to adminis-

trative mandate proceedings because their li-

censes are suspended or revoked not by an

administrative determination, but by this court’s

orders. As a consequence, under the majority’s

decision today, only attorneys can have their li-

censes suspended or revoked without a judicial

hearing and a written judicial decision. This

5

disparate treatment of attorneys raises serious

due process and equal protection questions. I do

not address these issues, however, because I con-

clude that the state Constitution’s oral |***79]

argument and written-opinion provisions apply

to attorney suspension and disbarment proceed-

ings.” (Id., 465)

BROWN, J. [now on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia)

“We should not, however, pretend the current le-

gal order does not mark a transformation in the

attorney discipline process, one in which a con-

stitutional touchstone -— meaningful judicial

review by an article VI court — has been jetti-

soned.” (Jd., 466)

“Under the new regime, attorneys penalized for

professional misconduct get less in the way of

genuine judicial review of discipline than li-

censed nonattorneys [***83] do.” (Id., 466)

“At the heart of the majority opinion is the

supposition that review by any other name is

still review and passes constitutional muster:

that due process is satisfied by any process,

however much the decisionmakers may be [**983]

driven by bureaucratic agendas or political ties.

In this corner of the law, at least, we seem to be

presiding over a union of the legislative and

judicial components of government. It may be

efficient; it certainly isn’t pretty. And because it

seems antithetical to the constitutional design, I

dissent.” Ud., 470)

By following the precedent of In re Rose (Id., 436),

The Supreme Court Of California intentionally refused to

consider and dispose of the important federal questions

6

presented by McCarthy’s VERIFIED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF REVIEW.

¢

LEGAL DISCUSSION

The State Bar letter to the Clerk of the Court, Su-

preme Court of California (App. F) states in relevant part:

“Dear Clerk,

This letter is to advise the court that the State

Bar of California does not intend to file an an-

swer to the above petition, pursuant to California

Rules of Court, Rule 28(a)(2), unless the Court

requests briefing on the issues. In any event, it

appears from the Court’s website that the record

of discipline was filed on the same day as the Pe-

titioner’s brief, rendering the matter moot.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel

free to call me at the number listed above.

Sincerely,

Tracey McCormick

Assistant General Counsel”

The record does not indicate a reply from the Clerk of

the Court!

However, transcripts of telephone messages left on

Charles C. McCarthy’s telephone by the Clerk of the

California Supreme Court (App. D) include the following

message for Petitioner McCarthy:

“The Court is just wondering whether you would

like to present a petition for a review based on

the merits of the case. And if that’s the case,

7

there will be a motion — or if you can submit a

motion to withdraw the petition pending at this

point, then you can resubmit it on the merits of

the case.” (3:5-10)

The legal propriety of the Clerk’s proposal is highly

questionable at best as an unlawful attempt to influence

proceedings before the California Supreme Court!

Petitioner filed his SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED

PETITION FILED HEREIN ON JULY 5, 2006 WITH THE

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT AT LOS ANGELES,

CALIFORNIA dated August 3, 2006 (App. G).

Paragraph 1. thereof refers to the State Bar’s letter

dated July 25, 2006 “addressed to the Clerk of the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court re this matter, by Tracey McCor-

mick, Assistant General Counsel of The State Bar Of

California.”

Petitioner McCarthy then states:

“2. Ms. McCormick’s cryptic, single sentence

declaring “the matter moot” implemented an

evil, cunning State Bar scheme to summarily de-

prive Petitioner of due process of law in violation

of the lst and 14th Amendments of The Consti-

tution of the United States.

“3. The unambiguous intent of the State Bar’s

July 25, 2006 letter was to induce the Clerk of

the Supreme Court Of California to cause the

prompt Dismissal With Prejudice of Petitioner’s

Verified Petition filed herein on July 5, 2006!

“4. The State Bar thereby intended to avoid

having to file their Verified responses to Peti-

tioner’s Verified Petition, re the allegations of Js

2 and 3 thereof, charging that members of the

8

State Bar Court of “willfully” committed acts

involving “moral turpitude” in violation of

Rule 1-100, Rules of Professional Conduct and

State Bar Act §6106 respectively!

“5. lIrrefutably, the State Bar’s proceedings

against Petitioner constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment to a man who ;: vated in his State Bar

Declaration of November 9, 1999:

“I have earned a personal and profes-

sional reputation over fifty years that I

cherish and for which I will die.” (Ex 1,

{1, pl quoted at 73, p2 Verified Peti-

tion)

“6. The State Bar’s implementation of its rep-

rehensible scheme referred to above, is an arro-

gant, shameful failure to act responsibly as “an

administrative arm” of the Supreme Court of

the State of California! (Herrscher v. State Bar

(1935) 4 Cal.2d 399, 49 P.2d 837.

“7. Ineluctably, The Supreme Court of the State

of California must impose severe sanctions upon

The State Bar Court and its individual members

responsible for their outrageous, unlawful con-

duct referred to in Js 1, 2 and 3 of Petitioner’s

Verified Petition filed herein on July 5, 2006

App. E; and Js 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Petitioner’s

Supplement to Verified Petition filed herein on

July 5, 2006 with the Clerk of the Supreme Court

at Los Angeles, California. In the Matter of

Charles C. McCarthy, Case No.: 03-N-02791 and

04-O-11745, August 3, 2006 (App. G). Members of

the State Bar Court are not above the law appli-

cable to all members of The State Bar of Califor-

nia — including, but not limited to:

9

1) Business and Professions Code

#6081; 2) State Bar Act §6106; 3) Rule

1-100 Rules of Professional Conduct

and 4) the due process clause of the

+TtthAmendment to The Constitution of

the United States!”

CONCLUSION

This Court should forthwith grant this Petition and

award appropriate costs and damages to Petitioner

McCarthy. Attorneys are ,soutinely deprived of their

precious Constitutional right to practice law by an arro-

gant, self-serving Apparatchik - the California State

Bar!

Like a judicial Pontius Pilate - The California

Supreme Court routinely denies appeals by a multi-

tude of California attorneys from State Bar disbar-

ment proceedings. All attorneys not employed by

the California State Bar pray for the U.S. Supreme

Court’s “Emancipation Proclamation”!

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES CONNELL MCCARTHY, pro se

A member of the Supreme Court Bar

since March 20, 1961

P.O. Box 261182

Encino, CA 91426

Telephone: (818) 981-1391

CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

Page

APPENDIX A- EN BANC ORDER OF DIS-

BARMENT IN THE SUPREME

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, In re

Charles Connell McCarthy, Case

No. $145019, State Bar Court Case

No. 03-N-02791; 04-O-11745, filed

Cabeber 16, Ba ccsciccasecssesensianiveasass App. 1

APPENDIX B— DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT

OF REVIEW IN THE SUPREME

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, In re

Charles Connell McCarthy, Case No.

$145019, S.B.C. No. 03-N-02791/04

O-11745, filed August 23, 2006 ......... App. 2

APPENDIX C —- Letter to Charles C. McCarthy In

the Matter of the Disbarment of

Charles C. McCarthy, Case No.

S145019, from Eddie Esqueda,

Probation Deputy, The State Bar

of California, October 30, 2006....... App. 3

APPENDIX D — Transcripts of telephone messages

left on Charles C. McCarthy’s

telephone by the Clerk of the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court...............:.000 App. 5

APPENDIX E- VERIFIED PETITION FOR OR-

DER DIRECTING THE REVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE

BAR COURT TO IMMEDIATELY

COMPLY WITH BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONS CODE §6081.

In the Matter of CHARLES C.

McCARTHY, Case No.: 03-N-02791

and 04-0-11745, filed July 5, 2006....App. 6

il

CONTENTS OF APPENDIX - Continued

APPENDIX F -

APPENDIX G —

Letter to Clerk of the Court, Su-

preme Court of California, Jn the

Matter of McCarthy, Charles C. On

Discipline, from Tracey McCor-

mick, Assistant General Counsel,

The State Bar of California, July

25, 2006, with Proof of Service by

Mail to Charles C. McCarthy, July

Page

EEA EE SO App. 41

SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED

PETITION FILED HEREIN ON

JULY 5, 2006 WITH THE CLERK

OF THE SUPREME COURT AT

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of CHARLES C.

McCARTHY, Case No.: 03-N-02791

and 04-0-11745, August 3, 2006 .... App. 43

App. 1

APPENDIX A

(State Bar Court Case No. 03-N-02791; 04-O-11745)

S 145019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

EN BANC

(Filed Oct. 10, 2006)

IN RE CHARLES CONNELL MCCARTHY

ON DISCIPLINE

It is hereby ordered that CHARLES CONNELL

MCCARTHY, State Bar No. 20803, be disbarred from

the practice of law and that his name be stricken from the

roll of attorneys. Costs are awarded to the State Bar in

accordance with Business and Professions Code section

6086.10 and are enforceable both as provided in Business

and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money

judgment.

GEORGE

Chief Justice

App. 2

APPENDIX B

S.B.C. No. 03-N-02791/04-O0-11745

$145019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

En Banc

(Filed Aug. 23, 2006)

IN RE CHARLES CONNELL MCCARTHY on Discipline

Petition for writ of review DENIED.

Corrigan, J., was absent and did not participate.

GEORGE

Chief Justice

App. 3

APPENDIX C

THE STATE BAR OF OFFICE OF PROBATION

CALIFORNIA

1149 SOUTH HILLSTREET, TELEPHONE: (213) 765-1000

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TDD: (213) 765-1566

90015-2299 FAX: (213) 765-1439

http://www.calbar.ca.go

[SEAL]

October 30, 2006

Charles C. McCarthy

P O Box 261182

Encino CA 91426

In re: S145019 In the Matter of the Disbarment of

Charles C. McCarthy

Dear Charles C. McCarthy:

This is to remind you that by Order filed October 10, 2006.

copy enclosed, the Supreme Court disbarred you from the

practice of law effective November 9, 2006.

You will note that the Court has also ordered you to pay

costs to the State Bar of California, pursuant to the

Business and Professions Code 6140.7, wherein it states:

“Costs unpaid by a member who resigns with disciplinary

charges pending or by a member who is suspended or

disbarred shall be paid as a condition of reinstatement of

membership.”

Please note, Rule of Professional Conduct 1-311 requires

that a firm or attorney who employs an attorney who is

disbarred provide certain notices to the State Bar and to

clients. While there is no prescribed form, in order to

assist attorneys to comply with the rule, the State Bar has

App. 4

created notices for the employer’s use. If you are to become

employed by an attorney or a law firm, please remind your

employer of this requirement. Forms may be obtained by

contacting Paula Gavaldon at (213) 765-1000.

Very truly yours,

/s/ {Megible]

Eddie Esqueda

Probation Deputy

/ee

Enclosures

App. 5

APPENDIX D

TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE MESSAGES

FOR CHARLES C,. McCARTHY

FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CLERK’S

OFFICE

JULY 2006

RE THE MATTER OF THE DISBARMENT

OF CHARLES C., McCARTHY

CASE NO. S145019

* * *

“The same day that the petition was filed, the record was

received. So at this point pretty much your petition does

not address the merits of the case.

The Court is just wondering whether you would like to

present a petition for a review based on the merits of the

case. And if that’s the case, there will be a motion — or if

you can submit a motion to withdraw the petition pending

at this point, then you can resubmit it on the merits of the

case.”

App. 6

APPENDIX E

THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of ) Case No.: 03-N-02791 and

) 04-O0-11745

CHARLES C.McCARTHY ) VERIFIED PETITION

A Member of the State Bar. ) FOR ORDER DIRECTING

) THE REVIEW DEPART-

) MENT OF THE STATE

) BAR COURT TO IMME-

) DIATELY COMPLY WITH

) BUSINESS AND PRO-

) FESSIONS CODE §6081

(Filed Jul. 5, 2006)

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOI-

CATE |sic] JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

Pursuant to Business and Professions Code §6081,

Petitioner, CHARLES C. McCARTHY respectfully re-

quests that this Court order the Review Department Of

The State Bar Court to “immediately file” with this Court,

a “certified copy” of its OPINION ON REVIEW AND

ORDER, allegedly filed in the State Bar Court Clerk’s

Office Los Angeles on or about May 08 2006 — which

stated: “We recommend that Charles C. McCarthy be

disbarred and his name be stricken from the roll of attor-

neys in this State.” (p10)

In support of this petition, petitioner alleges that:

1. To date, the State Bar has not filed a certified

copy of said Opinion On Review And Order

thereby violating the unambiguous provision of

App. 7

Business and Professions Code §6081, which

states in relevant part:

“Upon the making of any decision rec-

ommending the disbarment or suspen-

sion from practice of any member of the

State Bar, the board shall immedi-

ately file a certified copy of the decision

together with the transcript and the

findings, with the Clerk of the Supreme

Court.” (emphasis added)

By its patent violation of Business and Profes-

sions Code §6081, the Review Department Of

The State Bar Court presumably sought uncon-

scionable advantage in their preordained quest

to recommend the disbarment of Petitioner

Charles C. McCarthy. In so doing, members of

the State Bar Court committed acts involving

moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in vio-

lation of State Bar Act §6106.

Indisputably, the three members of the Review

Department Of The State Bar Court thereby

willfully violated Rule 1-100. Rules of Profes-

sional Conduct (A) Purpose and Function. eg. “to

protect the public and to promote respect and

confidence in the legal profession.”!

The right to practice law is a valuable right, one

which should not be taken away under circum-

stances that have even the slightest tendency to

suggest any possible unfairness or disadvantage

therein to the attorney whose right to remain in

his profession is challenged. Neblett v. State Bar

of Cal. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 77, 109 P.2d 340.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and by reference

made a part hereof, is a true and correct copy of

the 20 page DECLARATION OF CHARLES C.

App. 8

McCARTHY BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF

CALIFORNIA filed on November 9, 1999 which

states in relevant part:

“I have earned a personal and professional

reputation over fifty years that I cherish and

for which I will die.” ({1 p1)

“I was born on August 22, 1922 in Minnea-

polis, Minnesota; attended grammar and

high school in Evanston, Illinois; then com-

pleted 3 years at Northwestern University

until 1943 when I volunteered for service in

the U.S. Navy, first on board torpedo boats

then in the Navy Air Corps from which I

was houorably discharged in 1945. I thereaf-

ter attended the Northwestern University

School of Law from which I received my Ju-

ris Doctor degree in 1948.” (93 pp1,2)

“I was admitted to the practice of law in

California by the Supreme Court of Califor-

nia on June 14, 1949, thereafter actively

practicing law in the Westwood and Brent-

wood areas of Los Angeles until January 27,

1994 at which time I requested INACTIVE

status as of December 31, 1991; from that

date to July 6, 1999, I was an INACTIVE

member of the State Bar of California. On

July 6, 1999 I transferred at my request to

the ACTIVE status. Since that date I have

been, and am at the date hereof, an ACTIVE

member of the State Bar of California. No

recommendation for discipline for profes-

sional or other misconduct has ever been

made by the Board of Governors or a Disci-

plinary Board to the Supreme Court of the

State of California. All of the above is evi-

denced by a letter from the Supervisor,

App. 9

Membership Records of the State Bar Of

California dated September 29, 1999, a copy

of which is attached hereto as Ex 1.” (4 p2)

6. Petitioner Charles C. McCarthy has not at any

time since December 31, 1991 represented any

clients in any pending matters subject to the

provisions of California Rules Of Court, Rule

955(a). On August 18, 2006, Petitioner, Charles

C. McCarthy, will be 84 years of age ~ God will-

ing!

WHEREFORE, petitioner CHARLES C. MCCARTHY

respectfully requests that this Court forthwith issue its

ORDER DIRECTING THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF

THE STATE BAR COURT TO IMMEDIATELY COMPLY

WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §6081 -

including, an appropriate reprimand and/or sanctions to

assure that members of THE STATE BAR COURT shall

never again willfully violate the unambiguous provisions

of Business and Professions Code §6081!

Dated July 5, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Charles C. McCarthy

CHARLES C. McCARTHY

VERIFICATION

I, CHARLES C. McCARTHY, am the Petitioner in this

proceeding. I have read the foregoing Petition and know

the contents thereof. The factual statements set forth in

the Petition are within my personal knowledge and I know

them to be true.

App. 10

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of

the State of California that the foregoing is true and

correct and that this verification was executed on the third

day of July, 2006 in Los Angeles, California

/s/ Charles C. McCarthy

CHARLES C. McCARTHY

Charles C. McCarthy

17320 Burbank Blvd. Apt. #14

Encino, CA 91316

EXHIBIT 1

Henry T. Heuer (69006)

PRINCE & HEUER

A Professional Law Corporation

2029 Century Park East, Suite 2550

Los Angeles, California 90067-2901

Telephone: (310) 277-7442

Facsimile: (310) 277-7458

Attorneys for

CHARLES C. McCARTHY.

BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

In re ) Case No.: 98-0-528

CHARLES C. McCARTHY ) DECLARATION OF

’) CHARLES C. McCARTHY

Respondent. )

) Date: November 9, 1999

) Time: 3:00 p.m.

) Place: *

App. 11

DECLARATION OF CHARLES C, McCARTHY

I, Charles C. McCarthy, declare as follows:

I am a party to this action. The facts recited in this

declaration are known to me of my own personal know]-

edge and if called upon to testify as a witness, I could and

would competently testify thereto.

I have earned a personal and professional reputation

over fifty years that I cherish and for which I will die.

2. Ihave formed an informal and abiding conviction

that neither my wife Joy nor I have expended KAU or PUA

monies for anything other than partnership purposes and

that I have violated no fiduciary duty to those partner-

ships or any of their Limited Partners.

3. I was born on August 22, 1922 in Minneapolis.

Minnesota, attended grammar and high school in Evans-

ton. Illinois; then completed 3 years at Northwestern

University until 1943 when I volunteered for service in the

U.S. Navy, first on board torpedo boats then in the Navy

Air Corps from which I was honorably discharged in 1945.

I thereafter attended the Northwestern University School

of Law from which I received my Juris Doctor degree in

1948.

4. I was admitted to the practice of law in California

by the Supreme Court of California on June 14, 1949,

thereafter actively practicing law in the Westwood and

Brentwood areas of Los Angeles until January 27, 1994 at

which time I requested INACTIVE status as of December

31, 1991; from that date to July 6, 1999, I was an INAC-

TIVE member of the State Bar of California. On July 6,

1999 I transferred at my request to the ACTIVE status.

Since that date I have been, and am at the date hereof, an

App. 12

ACTIVE member of the State Bar of California. No rec-

ommendation for discipline for professional or other

misconduct has ever been made by the Board of Governors

or a Disciplinary Board to the Supreme Court of the State

of California. All of the above is evidenced by a letter from

the Supervisor, Membership Records of the State Bar Of

California dated September 29, 1999, a copy of which is

attached hereto as Ex 1.

5. In 1967, 1968 and 1969, I organized three Califor-

nia Limited Partnerships to wit: Kau-Kona Land Co.

(KAU) as of Oct 10, 1967; Puapuaa-Kona Land Co (PUA)

as of Nov 20, 1968; and Onouli-Kona Land Co (ONO) as of

Dec 31, 1969 (not a subject of this proceedings).

1) I drew the AGREEMENTS OF LIMITED PART-

NERSHIP (KAU Ex 2, PUA Ex 3) each of which re-

cited that the: “Limited Partners are desirous of

participating with General Partners [McCarthy and

Prince] in purchasing the Real Property, with limited

liability and without assuming any managerial re-

sponsibilities in connection therewith.”

2) “The Purpose of the Business” of the Limited

Partnerships was to: “purchase and hold the Real

Property [situated near Kailua-Kona, Island of HI] for

investment.” (Art. III p 2) during the 20 year term of

each Limited Partnership. (Art. IV C. p 3) (KAU and

PUA Article and page references are identical.) The

Limited Partnerships purchased unimproved acreage

near Kona for the following prices:

1967:KAU 5miNofKona 1,400 ac $1.4mil ($1,000 per ac)

1968:PUA 1lmiSofKona 178ac_ 1.2mil ($6,700 per ac)

1969:ONO 10 miSofKona 300ac 1.5 mil ($5,000 per ac)

1,878 ac $4.1 mil

App. 13

Attached is a map of the Island of Hawaii (Ex 4) anda

map of NORTH KONA (Ex 5) which identify the KAU,

PUA and ONO parcels.

3) Each purchase closed on payment of 2 years of

prepaid interest. Thereafter, interest was payable an-

nually for a minimum of 5 years. Each purchase was

structured as a tax shelter using soft money, eg. in-

come tax deductible prepaid interest, with the objec-

tive of realizing a capital gain on sale; hopefully

before hard money, eg non-deductible payments on

purchase note principal, came due. Capital gains,

were then taxable @ 25%! Marginal taxes on ordinary

income were then as high as 90%! To assure the de-

ductibility of interest under then existing tax laws,

Prince and I assumed personal liability for any defi-

ciency on foreclosure!

4) To enhance the prospects of success and avoid

misunderstandings with the Limited Partners or

third parties, I vested the General Partners with “ab-

solute discretion” to sell, exchange, convey title, lease,

mortgage, refinance etc., “all or any part of the Real

Property ... upon such terms as they deem proper.” —

specifically including the following rights and powers:

4.1) “all of the rights, powers and liabilities of

partners in a partnership without limited part-

ners under the Partnership Law of the State of

California.” (Art X B. p 13);

4.2) “the exclusive right to determine whether

and when, to make distributions to the partners.”

(Art V D. p 7);

4.3) the authority to establish “One or more

partnership bank accounts ... in the name of the

partnership or otherwise as the General Partners

App. 14

or either of then shall see fit, in such bank ac-

count or accounts as they may from time to time

determine, into which the moneys of the partner-

ship shall be deposited. Withdrawals from any

such bank account or accounts shall be made

upon such signature or signatures as the General

Partners or either of them may designate.” (Art

XV p 19); and

4.4) The activities of the Limited Partners were

restricted: “The Limited Partners shall take no

part in, or interfere in any manner with, the con-

duct or control of the Partnership business or the

sale, leasing, or refinancing of its assets, and

shall have no right or authority to act for or bind

the Partnership,” (Art XI p 15)

5) At and prior to their entering into the Agree-

ments Of Limited Partnership each Limited Partner

was informed by the General Partners that the part-

nerships might participate in the joint venture devel-

opment of their properties; provided that the

deductibility of interest or capital gain treatment of

the proceeds of sale would not likely be jeopardized.

To facilitate that very attractive possibility, each of

the limited partnership agreements contained a para-

graph entitled “Waiver of Doctrine of Partnership Op-

portunity,” which provided that: “Any of the Partners,

General or Limited, may engage in or possess an in-

terest in other business ventures of every nature and

description, independently or with others, including

but not limited to the ownership, financing, leasing,

operation, management, syndication, brokerage, and

development of real property;” and “The fact that a

Partner, General or Limited, or a member of his fam-

ily is employed by, or is directly or indirectly inter-

ested in or connected with, any persons, firms or

corporation employed by the Partnership to render or

App. 15

perform a service ... shall not prohibit the General

Partners from executing a deed.... with ... such

person, firm, or corporation or from, other dealing

with him or it....” (Art X D, pp 13, 14)

6) Each of the Limited Partners invested in the Lim-

ited Partnerships in reliance on:

(i) my impeccable reputation of integrity and my com-

petence as an experienced real estate attorney and

developer; (ii) my unqualified endorsement of Prince,

who none of the Limited Partners had previously

known; and (iii) warranties and representations by

me and Prince that:

6.1) we would not rely solely on real estate bro-

kers to find buyers or joint venture development

partners for the Real Properties but would pro-

actively utilize our best efforts to merchandise

the Real Properties on our own;

6.2) Prince would establish his permanent resi-

dence in Kailua-Kona, Hi in Jan 1968 {which he

did] for the purpose of confirming the long term

commitment of the partnerships to the responsi-

ble development of their sizeable prime proper-

ties; and that

6.3) Prince and I would utilize our best efforts

to create good will for the Limited Partnerships

on the Big Island and in Honolulu; especially

with lenders and governmental agencies having

jurisdiction over zoning and development.

7) The 23 original KAU Limited Partners made ini-

tial capital contributions totaling $300,000, as set

forth in Ex A of the Agreement of Limited Partnership

of Kau-Kona Land Co. (Ex 2)

App. 16

Robert J. Schiller of Guild Management Corp., a long

time friend and client of mine, brought entertainment

business clients of his into the KAU Limited Partnership

including: Steve McQueen, Brian [Robert] Keith, Ricardo

Montalban and Sue Lyon — all of whom contributed about

50% of KAU’s initial $300,000 capitalization which was

entirely income tax deductible. I brought in the rest of the

investor Limited Partners, all of whom were long-time

friends and clients of mine including; Prince, with whom I

had developed a 12 unit condominium (Verde Pines) on

Burbank Blvd., a few blocks East of Van Nuys Blvd.: and a

40 unit condominium (Essex Town Houses) at the corner of

Hamlin and Kester, across the street from Van Nuys High

School in the San Fernando Valley; Elinor Mayer Kerna-

ghan, (whose father headed the Oscar Mayer Meat Pack-

ing Co.), a client and good friend of mine beginning at

Lincoln Grammar School in Evanston, Illinois; and Baird

C. Brittingham, brother of my close friend and client,

Thomas E. Brittingham, III. In 1963, 64, and 65 I was

Tom’s attorney and partner in: Blue Lagoon Villas, a 181

unit luxury condominium running from the Pacific Coast

Highway down to the ocean in South Laguna; and The

Flying Butler restaurant located on Newport Blvd. across

the street from the Newport Beach City Hall. Tom died in

Jan 1965. I represented Baird as the Executor of Tom’s

Estate.

8) The 28 original PUA Limited Partners made

initial capital contributions totaling $290,000, as set forth

in Ex A of the Agreement of Limited Partnership of

Puapuaa-Kona Land Co. (Ex 3)

Once again, Robert J. Schiller’s clients including:

Brian Keith, Steve McQueen, Ricardo Montalban and Sue

Lyon, contributed about 50% of PUA’s initial capitalization

App. 17

of $290,000. I brought in the rest of the Limited Partners

including long time friends:

Norman Q. Brill, M.D., Chief of the Neuro-

Psychiatric Institute at UCLA;

Anna Marie Peterson, my mother-in-law;

Paul D. Arthur, Ph.D., professor of mathematics

at UCLA and UC Irvine, a long time client;

Robert B. Jarchow, a high school classmate of

mine at Evanston Township High School;

George V.R. Mulligan, Jr., then manager of the

Los Angeles office of Booz, Allen and Hamilton, a long time

client; and

Gerald Lipsky, Esq., a successful Beverly Hills

entertainment lawyer and friend of mine since taking

Forest Cool’s Bar Review course together in 1949.

9) The investor Limited Partners of ONO were

similarly composed.

10) As co-equal General Partners, Prince and I each

had a 20% profit participation in KAU and 15% profit

participations in PUA and ONO. I gave my brother John 2

of my 20 point profit participation in KAU and 1 of my 15

point profit participations in PUA and ONO. John is

identified as a “Special Limited Partner” in each of the

Agreements Of Limited Partnership to distinguish him

from “Regular Limited Partners” who were obligated to

make calls for “Additional Capital Contributions,” which

John was not obligated to do. (Art V B. p 4)

App. 18

11) The Limited Partners in each of the partnerships

were entitled to receive a return of all their capital contribu-

tions before any profits were distributed to the General

Partners; except for 25% of any capital gains and 50% of

any ordinary income realized by the Limited Partnerships

which was payable to me and Prince so we could pay

income taxes attributable to us. (Art V D, pp 7, 8)

4, There follows a chronology of relevant events

occurring after formation of the three Limited Partner-

ships:

1971

KAU wins Eminent Domain settlement with the state

of Hawaii in the amount of $1,650,000 from which I

distributed over $300,000 to the KAU LPs after paying off

the $1.4 mil purchase note on which we had paid nothing

except pre-paid interest, 2 years of which was returned to

KAU. Thus, we owned 1,000 acres of prime Kona land all

free and clear. This was a major financial gain for all of

the partners — at least a four-fold increase on investment.

1976

Prince resumed his residence in California, thereby

breaching his fiduciary duties to each of the three Limited

Partnerships to reside in Kona to promote the business

affairs of the Limited Partnerships as he had warranted

and represented to each of the Limited Partners to induce

their investing in these three ventures.

1978

KAU petitioned Hawaii County to rezone the upper

732 acres of 1,000 acres from 5 acre Ag (100+ lots) to 4

acre Ag (197 lots); but it was nullified by Prince’s letter to

App. 19

the Hawaii County zoning director objecting to the pro-

posal to rezone in his capacity as a co-equal General

Partner of KAU.

1979

1) 1-29-79: McCarthy v Prince LASC No WE C

57669. I filed a Complaint to remove Prince as a Gen-

eral Partner in all three partnerships for many rea-

sons including: Prince’s abandonment of his duties as

General Partner by resuming his California residence

in 1976 and his nullification of KAU’s petition to re-

zone the upper 732 acres of 1,000 acres from 5 acre Ag

(100+ lots) to 3 acre Ag (197 lots) in 1978. (Ex 6)

2) KAU resubmitted petition to rezone upper 732

acres.

1982

KAU and PUA each borrowed $300,000 from Sterling

Bank of Los Angeles. Both loans were personally guaran-

teed by me and my wife, Joy. Loan proceeds were used to

purchase 900 water units by each partnership from

Hawaii County costing $225,000 @$250 per unit in order

to enhance the marketability of the properties.

1983

1) Hawaii County approved KAU rezone of upper

732 acres to 3 acre Ag (197 lots) from 5 acre AG (100+ lots)

resulting in a $13.4 mil appraisal!

2) 4-1-83: Estate of Richards v McCarthy, Prince and

ONO, HI Civil No. 8719; Complaint to Foreclose ONO for

delinquencies on the purchase note.

3) 9-6-83: McCarthy vs Prince, JUDGMENT AFTER

TRIAL BY COURT, LASC No. WE C 57967 (Ex 7), removed

App. 20

Prince as a General Partner in all three partnerships; his

20% profit participation in KAU was reduced to 10% and

10% awarded to me; his 15% profit participation in PUA

was reduced to 11% and 4% awarded to me; and his 15%

profit participation in ONO was reduced to 10% and 5%

awarded to me; Prince’s retained interests to be thereafter

identified respectively as a “Special Limited Partnership

Interest” similar to my brother John’s interests wherein he

had no authority as a General Partner and no obligation to

make calls as did a Regular Limited Partner.

1984

1) 6-6-84: ONO filed Chapter 11 in Hawaii. Case No

84-00269, to stay foreclosure, because the limited partners

were not disposed to making capital calls. This caused

ONO to default on the 1969 purchase note, as amended.

2) Hawaii County Water Dept demanded that KAU

and PUA each pay an additional $1,500 per water unit or

$1,350,000 for the 900 water units by July 1986.

3) 9-24-84: Estate of Richards v McCarthy et al. HI

Civil No. 8719: foreclosure Judgment entered on which

McCarthy, Prince and ONO were jointly and severally

liable for $2,242,988! (Ex 8)

1985

1) 8-18-85: Hawaii County Council adopts zoning

ordinance for Hawaii’s first “private agricultural park”

discussed at length in my 7-8-85 letter to the KAU Limited

Partners including the subjects of: water, loans, market-

ability, appraisal and projected profits. (Ex 9; 6 pp, enc. 35

pp) and my 9 page summary of 8-18-85 entitled “HUALA-

LAI Plantation.” (Ex 10)

App. 21

2) 9-3-85: ONO property (300 acres) sold at Bank-

ruptcy Court auction for $1,350,000 ($4,500 per acre) to

the Richards Estate. Order entered 11-1-85. Richards

applies sale proceeds to the Judgment leaving a deficiency

of $1,121,588 for which I was jointly severally liable with

Prince!

3) PUA received Eminent domain award for State’s

taking of the Queen K Highway right of way and paid off

the $300,000 Sterling Bank loan from proceeds! The PUA

property was thereby divided into 100 acres above and 65

acres below the new highway.

4) 11-22-85: I issued a 15th call to PUA Limited

Partners for Additional Capital Contributions delinquent

if not received by 12-22-85. (Ex 11)

1986

7-18-86: KAU and PUA bankruptcies;

(a) KAU filed Chapter 11 in the Honolulu

Federal Court, to stay forfeiture of 900 water units to

Hawaii County Water Dept for non-payment of $1,350,000;

and to stay Sterling Bank’s foreclosure for non-payment of

the $300,000 land loan used to buy 900 water units in

1982. All KAU LPs were noticed!

(b) PUA filed Chapter 11 in Hi, solely to stay

forfeiture of 900 water units to Hawaii County Water Dept

for non-payment of $1,350,000. All PUA LPs were noticed!

1987

1) May 87: About 30 KAU and PUA Limited Part-

ners, including Nazar H. Ashjian, Jr., attended a 3 hour

App. 22

meeting. The M.A.I. appraisal of KAU’s Hualalai Planta-

tion at $13,400,000 was a central topic of discussion!

2) 10-30-87: I sent a letter to the KAU LPs enclosing

2 copies of Amendment To Agreement Of Limited Partner-

ship extending the term of the partnership. (Ex 12)

3) 11-25-87: I sent a letter to the KAU and PUA

Limited Partners re seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s order

authorizing conveyance of the Partnerships’ properties to

joint venture development projects to be funded by loan

commitments of CitiSavings of San Antonio, Texas due to

close by 12-31-87 — time of the essence! (Ex 13)

At about the same time an attorney for a few succes-

sor LPs sent out notices inviting the KAU and PUA LPs to

attend a meeting on 12-2-87 “to discuss Mr. McCarthy’s

proposals for disposition of the partnership properties, as

set forth in the papers served with the Notice of Hearing

setting a Bankruptcy hearing for December 9, 1987.” (Ex

14)

About 30 KAU and PUA LPs attended the 2 hour

meeting including Nazar H. Ashjian, Jr., Also attending

was Leon Daniell, a Harlingen, Texas developer who had

played a key role in generating the Citi commitment. I was

anxious for the LPs to meet him. He made a very good

impression. Daniell owned about 800 precious water units

left over from his recent sale of 300 acres near Kona that

were an integral part of the deal with Citi which had a

20% profit participation in each of the proposed projects.

The proposed joint ventures were unanimously approved

by the KAU and PUA LPs present or represented at the

meeting. No one objected!.

App. 23

4) 12-7-87: I sent another letter to the KAU and PUA

Limited Partners re the proposed joint venture develop-

ment projects to be funded by CitiSavings. (Ex 15)

5) 12-9-87: Honolulu Bankruptcy Court hearing re

approval of KAU and PUA proposed joint venture devel-

opment projects to be funded by CitiSavings. Dissident

successor Limited Partners representing a small minority

of interests appear by counsel at the hearing and object

Citi is spooked. The matter was continued by the Bank-

ruptcy Court.

6) 12-23-87: I filed a Motion To Dismiss PUA from

Honolulu Bankruptcy Court (Ex 16) because water rights

were available for purchase from Leon Daniell without

having to pay $1,350,000.

“Accordingly, on or before the hearing on the instant

motion [noticed for 1-15-88], the Debtor will enter into an

option agreement to purchase up to 835 water units from

Daniell.”

On entry of the Order of Dismissal. Daniell also

agreed to loan sufficient monies to Debtor to pay all

creditor claims in full. All PUA LPs were noticed!

The same dissident successor LPs who appeared by

counsel and objected in the KAU bankruptcy proceedings

on 12-11-87 likewise appeared by counsel and objected to

PUA's Motion To Dismiss!

1988

1) PUA Bankruptcy

1-26-88: Order Dismissing PUA from Bankruptcy

Court entered.(Ex 17) All PUA LPs were noticed!

App. 24

1-28-88: I received attorney Neuhoff’s 3 page

letter VLA CERTIFIED MAIL Re: PUA (i) Rationale of

client’s opposition at Dec 9, 1987 Bankruptcy Ct hearing

and to PUA Motion To Dismiss heard 1-15-88; (ii) “As we

all know from 20 years experience everything does no [sic]

always proceed according to your pro forma plans;” (iii)

“_.. if the land could be sold now for $3,000,000, the

Partnership could derive the same benefit in the near

future without incurring the risks and delays of develop-

ment.” (Ex 18)

2-2-88: I sent a letter to the PUA LPs which

stated, “we were unable to make a deal with CitiSavings.”

“The Court having granted our Motion To Dismiss the

bankruptcy proceedings I have decided to sell our property

to a developing entity to be formed by Leon Daniell and

myself, on the terms set forth in the enclosed copy of Offer

For Purchase Of Real Estate and Acceptance (including a

$1,750,000 four year 9.5% note and a 30% profit participa-

tion!).”

“As shown in the enclosed Pro-Forma, our partnership

is better off by about $1.5 million than in the Citi deal.

The partnership realizes a Gross Return of $4,882,350,

70% of which, or $3,417,645, goes to the Limited Part-

ners.” (Ex 19)

2-9-88: James A. Wagner, PUA’s Honolulu Bank-

ruptcy attorney, received a 2 page letter from Ashjian’s

attorney, Tim Bruinsma of Hill, Farrer and Burrill, conclud-

ing “In short, the proposed transaction appears to

either be an admission by the General Partner of a

substantial failure in his management of the existing

partnership, an attempt by the General Partner to

App. 25

utilize his position to achieve preferential treatment

ahead of the limited partners or both.” cc: Nazar H.

Ashjian, Jr., CPA (Ex 20)

2-17-88: Three-hour meeting of about 20 PUA

Limited Partners, including Ashjian, held, noticed by the

same dissident successor Limited Partners “to adopt a

plan to oppose McCarthy’s proposed plans” disclosed in the

Motion To Dismiss PUA from bankruptcy. (Ex 21) I re-

ceived a letter dated 2-17-88 from attorney Levy re: “The

meeting of this morning,” setting forth a proposal. (Ex 22)

2) 3-10-88: STERLING BANK JUDGMENT

AGAINST CHARLES C. MCCARTHY AND JOY V.

MCCARTHY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST

CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII CIVIL NO. 86-1451 for

$386,673.90. (Ex 23)

3) 4-18-88: At my direction, PUA bankruptcy attor-

ney Wagner sent letters to the PUA LPs enclosing a copy

of a Purchase Agreement dated 2-12-88 noting changes

from earlier drafts (Ex 24)

4) KAU Bankruptcy:

5-2-88: Honolulu Bankruptcy Court confirmed

sale of KAU’s 1,000 acres for $5,250,000 — all cash. All

KAU Limited Partners noticed!

5-11-88: KAU filed Motion For Order Authorizing

Payment Of All Creditors And Partial Disbursement To

Equity Owners. (Ex 25) All KAU Limited Partners noticed!

6-9-88: Honolulu Bankruptcy Court Order Au-

thorized Charles C. McCarthy’s Payment Of All Creditors

And Partial Disbursement Of Profits To Equity Owners of

$2,094,600. (Ex 26) All KAU LPs noticed!

App. 26

6-13-88: Sale of KAU land for $5,250,000 cash

closed with disbursement of net cash proceeds of

$4,373,022.30 to CCM as the General Partner of KAU.

5) 7-13-88: I paid $600,000 for the $2,242,988 JUDG-

MENT filed 9-24-84 in Estate of Richards v McCarthy,

Prince et al. Hi Civil No. 8719 which was assigned to me.

(see Ex 8)

6) 17-27-88: I sent a letter to the KAU Limited Part-

ners re disbursement of Bankruptcy Court sale proceeds.

(Ex 27)

7) 9-8-88: Estate of Bryden

PETITION TO ESTABLISH ESTATE’S CLAIM OF

OWNERSHIP TO PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER DI-

RECTING DISBURSEMENT TO EQUITY OWNER by

Ned R. Nelsen, Executor of the Will of Elinor Mayer

Bryden. LASC No P 674 148, filed 9-8-88 (Ex 28)

1989

1) 7-11-89: Order Nunc Pro Tunc entered providing

in part that the Executor “shall, on behalf of said Estate of

ELINOR MAYER BRYDEN, sign and give to KAU KONA

LAND CO. the Warranty, Indemnification and Release Re

Preliminary Distribution of Profits presented by KAU

KONA LAND CO. for signature by its limited partners

with the addition to said Release of the following: Not-

withstanding the foregoing it is understood and agreed

that the Release shall not include or prevent any claims

the undersigned Estate of ELINOR MAYER BRYDEN

may have concerning or with respect to any future part-

nership distributions.” (Ex 29) (emphasis added)

App. 27

Accordingly, the Executor signed the Warranty,

Indemnification and Release Re Preliminary Distribution

of Profits. Then I sent a KAU check to the Executor in the

Estate’s favor for $209,460 which closed the matter.

2) 9-18-89 Ashjian’s letter to me by Certified Mail

states: “Please receive this letter as an additional demand

for my share of the July 27, 1988 preliminary distribu-

tion.”! (Ex 30)

3) 9-22-89 I sent a letter to the KAU LPs this date

stating: “Be advised that Kau-Kona Land Co, recently filed

a 9-count Complaint in the Third Circuit Court of Hawaii

against CitiSavings and their attorneys for treble compen-

satory damages of $22 million and punitive damages of

$19,500,000.00”

“Kau’s claims mirror those being made by me and

Leon Daniell against the same defendants. The costs of

litigation are being shared equally.” (Ex 31)

4) 9-22-89 KAU Attorney Bullis responds to Ashjian’s

Sept 18 letter stating:

“1. As you well know, preliminary distribution

will be made to you on receipt of the duly executed Receipt

and Release, as has been done will all of the other Limited

Partners. (emphasis added)

2. Mr. McCarthy’s letter dated September 22,

1989 to the Kau-Kona Land Co. Limited Partners re-

sponds to the other subject of your letter.” (Ex 32)

App. 28

1990

1) 6-12-90 My Memo to the PUA LPs enclosed a copy

of Hawaii Zoning Ordinance No. 9063 evidencing zone

change to upper 99 acres. (Ex 33)

2) 9-26-90 My Memo (by my secretary) to the KAU

LPs enclosed a copy of a newspaper article from West

Hawaii Today about our lawsuit against Citi entitled

“Massive civil suit brewing over soured development.”

Trial began 9-18-90. My Memo stated: “Jury selection and

opening statement went extremely well.” (Ex 34)

1991

1) 3-28-91 Ashjian’s letter to me by Certified Mail

stated that: “Within ten (10) days of this letter I demand

that you deliver to me my share of the initial distribution

as you made to the other limited partners.” If not received

“I shall instruct my attorney to proceed with an action to

obtain the monies for me along with any related damages.”

Additionally: “Should I not have an answer from you I

shall reflect such currently unresolved concerns of mine as

to the correctness of a K-1 in my 1990 personal income tax

filings to the Internal Revenue Service and the Franchise

Tax Board.” (Ex 35)

2) 9-17-91 Ashjian’s letter to me states: “I had

heard ... that the Puapuaa note was paid and you

lent the money back to yourself or your develop-

ment group.”

“For the record, if the partnership did get paid off I

DEMAND that you immediately pay my monies to me.”

(Ex 36)

App. 29

1993

On 6-23-93 attorney Frederick H. Stern filed two

LASC Complaints on behalf of Ashjian:

(i) Ashjian v CCM Case No. BS 023 800

Re: his alleged PUA damages;

(ii) Ashjian vy CCM Case No BS 023 801

Re: his alleged KAU damages

N.B. Initially these actions produced a mountain of

paper but were eventually abandoned by Ashjian when I

filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in May, 1996.

1996-1999

State Bar Proceedings

1) 1-23-96 Ashjian files a Complaint against me with

the State Bar pertaining to KAU (Ex 37) and PUA (Ex 38)

N.B. Ashjian’s letterhead does not reveal that he is a CPA,

nor does any of his subsequent correspondence with the

State Bar!

2) 3-27-96 State Bar Investigator Garcia writes me a

letter summarizing Ashjian’s Complaint (Ex 39)

3) 4-19-96 I responded to Investigator Garcia's letter

stating in substance that: (i) Never since being admitted to

practice in June 1949 “has anyone ever filed a complaint

with The State Bar of California relating in any way to my

professional conduct — until the recent filing by Nazar

Ashjian.”; (ii) “At no time to the present has an attorney-

client relationship ever existed between me and Mr.

Ashjian.”; and (iii) The “specious claims made by Mr.

App. 30

Ashjian arise out of a business relationship which The

State Bar of California has no jurisdiction to adjudicate.”

“Nevertheless, Mr. Ashjian filed his Complaint in the

false hope of intimidating me into making a sizeable

settlement of his specious claims though knowing full well

that an attorney-client relationship had never existed

between us. I am confident The State Bar of California

will not be party to this attempted shakedown.” (Ex 40)

4) 2-20-97 Ten months later, Inspector Garcia re-

sponds to my letter of 4-19-96 stating “it appears there

was a fiduciary duty you owed to Mr. Ashjian since the

Arbitrator found that you, as a general partner of Kau-

Kona Land Co., were a fiduciary” and that “We intend to

proceed in this matter.” Garcia then repeated the allega-

tion of Ashjian’s Complaint set forth in Garcia’s letter of

4-19-96. (Ex 41)

5) 3-25-97 James R. Felton, of Greenberg and Bass,

responded to Inspector Garcia’s 2-19-97 letter with a 3

page letter noting that his office is representing me “with

reference to various litigation, including an action cur-

rently in the bankruptcy court filed by Nazar Ashjian

(Ashjian v. McCarthy, USBC Case No. SV 96-15656-AG.).”

Felton then states:

“First, we think that it is important that the State Bar

understands that Mr. Ashjian’s complaint is simply part of

a scheme to, leverage Mr. McCarthy into submission in the

civil action.” [eg. the bankruptcy court action]

Felton concludes:

“With all of the above in mind, we believe that Mr.

Ashjian’s complaint is simply a product of his desire to

App. 31

prevail in the civil arena. The bankruptcy court will

ultimately determine whether Mr. McCarthy breached any

fiduciary duty and whether Mr. McCarthy, notwithstand-

ing his bankruptcy, should be held monetarily responsible

for a monetary debt to Mr. Ashjian. That court is consider-

ing this matter and the State Bar should let the bank-

ruptcy court be the adjudicator of the dispute between Mr.

McCarthy and Mr. Ashjian.” (Ex 42)

Ashjian’s attempted extortion is again corroborated:

2-18-97: fax Ashjian/attorney Felton Re: IRS

agent allegedly investigating KAU and PUA (Ex

43)

3-21-97: Ashjian Draft settlement Agreement re-

quires payment of $35,000 rather than $25,000

previously agreed! (Ex 44)

4-8-97: fax Ashjian/attorney Felton Re: repeating

his threat re IRS and FIB (Ex 45)

6) 4-30-97 Inspector Garcia’s letter to Felton states

“The State Bar of California would like to ask a few more

questions regarding Mr. McCarthy’s dealings with Mr.

Ashjian.”

This statement is followed by 7 paragraphs and

Garcia’s statement:

“In order to complete this investigation, we request

your written response to these allegations along with any

documentation.” (Ex 46)

(Shortly thereafter Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the

State Bar’s annual dies authorization bill. Nothing further

was heard from the State Bar for 2 years and 4 months.)

App. 32

7) 8-23-99 Terrie Goldade, State Bar Deputy Trial

Counsel, resurrected the State Bar’s proceedings when

she, wrote Felton:

“Based on a review of the investigation, it has been

determined that unless a pre-filing settlement is reached,

a Notice of Disciplinary Charges should be filed, charging

the respondent with the commission of acts of professional

misconduct, including but not limited to, violations of

Business and Professions Code sections 6106 [Moral

Turpitude, Dishonesty or Corruption Irrespective Of

Criminal Conviction] and 6090.5(a)(2) [Atty/Client Agree-

ment Not to File Complaint] in addition to possible Rules

of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.”

Goldade requests a call from Felton “to meet before

September 12, 1999; otherwise, the Notice of Disciplinary

Charges will be filed by the close of business on that date”

(Ex 47)

8) My attorney, Henry T. Heuer, addressed a letter to

Ms Goldade stating: “As we discussed earlier today, please

consider this letter the formal request of Charles C.

McCarthy for all discoverable documents including but not

limited to ‘all exculpatory evidence from the State Bar’s

investigation files,’ as described in your August 23, 1999

letter. You estimated that these documents were approxi-

mately two reams in quantity. Please let me know the cost

of these copies once you have made that determination.

This letter also confirms our meeting at your office on

Wednesday, September 8, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.”

Mr. Heuer and I met with Ms Goldade at the ap-

pointed time.

App. 33

9) 9-14-99 Goldade presented the documents re-

quested by Mr. Heuer’s letter of Sept 1 being approxi-

mately 1,000 copies of undifferentiated documents piled in

3 amorphous stacks of paper. The colossally burdensome

task of reading, evaluating and organizing this jumble of

paper required at least 70 hours of my time.

To date, the State Bar has not specified my alleged

“acts of professional misconduct” alluded to in Ms

Goldade’s letter constituting:

(i) “any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or

corruption” with the meaning of Business and Professions

Code § 6106; or

(ii) a violation of Business and Professions Code

§ 6090.5(a)(2); or

(ui) a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct

of the State Bar of California; or

(iv) a violation of any other law.

Attempting to ferret out the facts on which Ms

Goldade might premise any charges against me from the

1,000 pages she produced, is literally impossible. This is

particularly so because the documents are rife with gross

misstatements of the facts, applicable law and applicable

accounting principles relating to matters originating over

32 years ago in 1967!

It is my belief however that the incomprehensible

claims embodied in the 1,000 pages constitute essentially

the same issues of fact and law tried before the Bank-

ruptcy Court on February 2 and 3, 1998 pursuant to

Ashjian’s Complaint To Determine Dischargeability.

App. 34

The Bankruptcy Court’s Joint Pretrial Order filed Dec

1, 1997 identified Disputed Issues Of Law:

“The following issues of law, and no others, remain to

be litigated:

1. Whether the unsecured loan by the Limited

Partnership to Pualani Development Co. in the

amount of $1,400,00, [sic] per Exhibit 11, constituted

a breach of fiduciary duty as a general partner of the

Limited Partnership within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.

Section 523(a)(4), and whether Debtor converted

Plaintiff’s capital account of $25,324 within the pur-

view of 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a)(6) so as to render

Plaintiff’s claim nondischargeable? (emphasis added)

2. Whether certain transfers of funds from the

Limited Partnership to Joy McCarthy constituted a

breach of Debtor’s fiduciary duty as a general partner

of the Limited Partnership within the meaning of 11

U.S.C. Section 523(a)(4) and whether Debtor con-

verted Plaintiffs capital account of $25,324 within

the purview of 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a)(6) as to ren-

der Plaintiff's $25,324 claim nondischargeable? (em-

phasis added)

3. Are any of Plaintiff's claims relating to the

Limited Partnership barred by the applicable state of

limitations, the doctrines of laches, waiver or estop-

pel? (emphasis added)

Following oral argument on 2-3-98, the Bankruptcy

Court ordered Judgment For Defendant Charles C.

McCarthy on all issues; primarily on the grounds that all

of Plaintiff Ashjian’s claims were barred by applicable

statutes of limitation. The Court referred to Exs 55 and 58

(Exs 19 and 20 herein) observing that:

App. 35

~— Ashjian mistrusted McCarthy since Feb 88

— by Sept 91 Ashjian had sufficient information to

trigger a lawsuit

~— Ashjian cannot “bootstrap” a claim barred by the

Statute of Limitations in his Complaint To Determine

Dischargeability

— there is no evidence that McCarthy pocketed any

money but I don’t have to decide that because the

conversion claim is also barred

~- Ashjian was aware of his claims in Sept 91

As to partnership bank accounts in my wife Joy’s

name, the Court commented in part:

— bank accounts created as a convenience do not con-

stitute a breach of fiduciary duty

— there is no evidence that money in the bank ac-

count(s) in Joy McCarthy’s name was used for other

than partnership purposes

— there is no evidence of misuse, or impropriety or

personal uses of money in partnership bank accounts

in Mrs. McCarthy’s name

I invite — indeed challenge — investigators of the State

Bar to audit, with my full cooperation, all of the thousands

of documents in my possession which confirm beyond a

reasonable doubt the findings of the Bankruptcy Court

that neither I, nor my wife Joy, used any money of the

partnerships’ for other than partnership purposes; nor did

I ever violate my fiduciary duty to the partnerships.

The Bankruptcy Court’s Joint Pretrial Order filed Dec

1, 1997 was preceded by the Court's MEMORANDUM OF

DECISION RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT entered Jul 29,

App. 36

1997 (Ex 48) wherein the Court ruled on Ashjian’s claims

re: KAU that Defendant McCarthy was barred by the

doctrine of collateral estoppel from contesting Plaintiff’s

LAMC judgment for $31,606.22 (p 4: 18-20); and PUA that

“Triable issues exist regarding the plaintiff's claim of

nondischargeability as to the Puapuaa-Kona Land Com-

pany partnership” (p 8: 14-16)

The Bankruptcy Court’s ORDER ON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT was entered July 29, 1997 (Ex

49) No final Judgment has been entered thereon! When,

and if it is, I shall file an appeal principally on the grounds

that misapplication of the doctrine of collateral estoppel

has deprived me of my day in court regarding Ashjian’s

PUA claims that are barred by applicable statutes of

limitation.

Following the Bankruptcy Court’s ordering Judgment

For Defendant on all issues re: PUA; Ashjian filed his

Request For Dismissal on Feb 10, 1998 in the matter of

Nazar H. Ashjian, Jr. v Joy McCarthy, Et. Al., LASC Case

No. LC 041 147. (Ex 50) Ashjian’s Complaint in that

matter had been filed on May 15, 1997. (Ex 51)

Ashjian’s unverified Complaint set forth 14 Causes Of

Action against Joy — the first 7 causes related to Ashjian’s

alleged claim re KAU and the remaining 7 causes related

to his alleged claims re PUA

e The 5th cause alleged that Joy converted $20,946 of

Ashjian’s KAU capital account. (p 6)

e The 6th cause alleged that “Charles McCarthy pur-

ported to transfer to” Joy “assets” of KAU with “ac-

tual intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of

Charles McCarthy” and KAU “including Plaintiff in

the collection of his claim.” (p 7)

App. 37

The 7th cause seeks “To Have Fraudulent Transfer Set

Aside” (p 9) Ashjian’s 12th, 13th and 14th causes (pp 12,

13 and 15) assert the same claims as the 5th, 6th and 7th

causes cited above — with respect to Ashjian’s alleged

claims re PUA.

Subsequent to the filing of Ashjian’s Complaint on

May 15, 1997 there followed the predictable orgy of discov-

ery, including issuance of a Deposition Subpena [sic] For

Production of Business Records on Sep 11, 1997 (Ex 52)

which was served on City National Bank Sep 22, 1997. (Ex

53)

Both the results of the Bankruptcy Court trial on Feb

2 and 3 1998 and Ashjian’s Dismissal of his Complaint

against Joy — confirm that: the filing of Ashjian’s Com-

plaint against Joy on May 15, 1997 was a consequence of

my filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 19, 1996; Ashjian’s

Complaint v Joy was patently specious as he well knew;

and that Ashjian’s Complaint was filed for the sole purpose

of attempting to extort money from Joy!

Attached are copies of my letters to the KAU and PUA

limited partnerships (Exs 54 and 55 respectively) account-

ing for my stewardship as General Partner of these part-

nerships from October 10, 1967 and November 20, 1968

respectively. I state without reservation that I take great

pride in my stewardship of these partnerships

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of

the state of California that the foregoing is true and

correct.

App. 38

Executed on November _3 , 1999 at Los Angeles, Cali-

fornia.

/s/ Charles C. McCarthy

CHARLES C. MCCARTHY

[SEAL] THE 180 HOWARD STREET

STATE BAR SAN FRANCISCO,

OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA 94105-1639

TELEPHONE (415) 538-2000

September 29, 1999

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that according to the records of the State

Bar, CHARLES CONNELL MCCARTHY was admitted to

the practice of law in this state by the Supreme Court of

California on June 14, 1949; that from the date of admis-

sion to January 27, 1994, he was an ACTIVE member of

the State Bar of California; that on January 27, 1994, he

transferred at his request to the INACTIVE status as of

December 31, 1991; that from that date to July 6, 1999, he

was an INACTIVE member of the State Bar of California;

that on July 6, 1999, he transferred at his request to the

ACTIVE status; that he has been since that date, and is at

date hereof, an ACTIVE member of the State Bar of

California; and that no recommendation for discipline for

professional or other misconduct has ever been made by

the Board of Governors or a Disciplinary Board to the

Supreme Court of the State of California.

App. 39

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

/s/ Charlotte Blackford

Charlotte Blackford

Supervisor

Membership Records

ee

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and

not a party to this legal action.

My residence or business address is: 15335 Morrison St.

Ste. 104 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

I mailed the within document(s) described as: VERIFIED

PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE REVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE BAR COURT TO IM-

MEDIATELY COMPLY WITH BUSINESS AND PROFES-

SIONS CODE §6081 on the interested parties in this action.

I placed true copy(s) thereof enclosed in sealed enve-

lopes(s) addressed as follows:

GENERAL COUNSEL _ (3 copies)

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

180 HOWARD STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

CLERK (1 copy)

STATE BAR COURT

300 SOUTH SPRING STREET

LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

Date of mailing: 7-5-06

Place of mailing: Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

App. 40

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the above is true and correct.

Date: 7-5-06

/s/ Euvey Diaz {legible} _

Type or print name Signature

App. 41

APPENDIX F

[SEAL] THE Tracey L. McCormick

STATE BAR Assistant General Counsel

OF CALIFORNIA

180 HOWARD STREET TEL. (415) 538-2324¢

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1639 FAX (415) 538-2321

July 25, 2006

Clerk of the Court

Supreme Court of California

350 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102-3600

Re: In the Matter of McCarthy, Charles C. On Discipline

Petition for Review

Case No. $145019

Dear Clerk,

This letter is to advise the court that the State Bar of

California does not intend to file an answer to the above

petition, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule

28(a)(2), unless the Court requests briefing on the issues.

In any event, it appears from the Court’s website that the

record of discipline was filed on the same day as the

Petitioner’s brief, rendering the matter moot.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to

call me at the number listed above.

Sincerely,

/s/ Tracey McCormick

Tracey McCormick

Assistant General Counsel

TLM/tlm

App. 42

ce: Charles C. McCarthy Y¥

17320 Burbank Blvd. Apt. #14

Encino, CA 91316

App. 43

APPENDIX G

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of ) Case No.: 03-N-02791 and

) 04-0-11745

CHARLES C. McCARTHY )SUPPLEMENT TO VERI-

) FIED PETITION FILED

A Member of the State Bar. ) HEREIN ON JULY 5, 2006

) WITH THE CLERK OF THE

) SUPREME COURT AT LOS

) ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOI-

CATE [sic] JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

1. By envelope post-marked JUL 27 2006 — Petitioner

received a copy of a letter dated July 25, 2006 addressed

to the Clerk of the California Supreme Court re this

matter, by Tracey McCormick, Assistant General Counsel

of The State Bar Of California stating:

“Dear Clerk,

This letter is to advise the court that the State

Bar of California does not intend to file an an-

swer to the above petition, pursuant to California

Rules of Court, Rule 28(a)(2), unless the Court

requests briefing on the issues. In any event, it

appears from the Court’s website that the record

of discipline was filed on the same Day as the Pe-

titioner’s brief, rendering the matter moot.

App. 44

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel

free to call me At the number listed above.

Sincerely,

/s/

Tracey McCormick

Assistant General Counsel

TLM/tlm”

2. Ms. McCormick’s cryptic, single sentence declaring

“the matter moot” implemented an evil cunning State

Bar scheme to summarily deprive Petitioner of due process

of law in violation of the 14th Amendment of The Consti-

tution of the United States

3. The unambiguous intent of the State Bar’s July 25,

2006 letter was to induce the Clerk of the Supreme Court

Of California to cause the prompt Dismissal With Preju-

dice of Petitioner’s Verified Petition filed herein on July 5,

2006!

4, The State Bar thereby intended to avoid having to file

their Verified responses to Petitioner’s Verified Petition, re

the allegations of Js 2 and 3 thereof, charging that mem-

bers of the State Bar Court of “willfully” committed acts

involving “moral turpitude” in violation of Rule 1-100,

Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act §6106

respectively!

5. Irrefutably, the State Bar’s proceedings against

Petitioner constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to a

man who stated in his State Bar Declaration of November

9, 1999:

“I have earned a personal and professional repu-

tation over fifty years that I cherish and for

App. 45

which I will die.” (Ex 1, 91, pl quoted at 73, p2

Verified Petition)

6. The State Bar’s implementation of its reprehensible

scheme referred to above, is an arrogant, shameful failure

to act responsibly as “an administrative arm” of the

Supreme Court of the State of California! (Herrscher v.

State Bar (1935), 4 Cal.2d 399, 49 P2d 837.

7. Ineluctably, The Supreme Court of the State of Cali-

fornia must impose severe sanctions upon The State Bar

Court and its individual members responsible for their

outrageous, unlawful conduct referred to in Js 1, 2 and 3

of Petitioner’s Verified Petition filed herein on July 5,

2006; and Js 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Supplement to said

Verified Petition. Members of the State Bar and the State

Bar Court are not above the law applicable to all members

of The State Bar of California — including, but not limited

to: "Business and Professions Code #6081; State Bar Act

$6106; *Rule 1-100 Rules of Professional Conduct and “the

due process clause of the 14th Amendment to The Consti-

tution of the United States!

Dated: August 3, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Charles C. McCarthy

CHARLES C. McCARTHY

17320 Burbank Blvd., #14

Encino, CA 91426

Tel: (818) 981-1391

Fax: (818) 981-3503

App. 46

P VERIFICATION

I, CHARLES C. MCCARTHY, am the Petitioner in

this proceeding. I have read the foregoing Supplement to

Verified Petition and know the contents thereof. The

factual statements set forth in said Supplement are within

my personal knowledge and I know them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of

the State of California that the foregoing is true and

correct and that this verification was executed on the third

day of August 2006 in Los Angeles, California.

/s/ Charles C. McCarthy

CHARLES C. McCARTHY

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and

not a party to this legal action.

My residence or business address is:

15335 MORRISON ST STE 104, SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403

I mailed the within document(s) described as: SUPPLE-

MENT TO VERIFIED PETITION FILED HEREIN ON

JULY 5, 2006 WITH THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME

COURT AT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA on the inter-

ested parties in this action.

I placed true copy(s) thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes(s)

addressed as follows:

GENERAL COUNSEL _ (3 copies)

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

180 HOWARD STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

App. 47

CLERK (1 copy)

STATE BAR COURT

300 SOUTH SPRING STREET

LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

Date of mailing: 08/03/2006

Place of mailing: Sherman Oaks, California

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the above is true and correct.

Date: 08/03/2006

/s/ Stephen Raheb {Illegible]

Type or print name Signature