The Witness Murder in the matter Bennett vs. Southern Pacific heard by Judge Peter Spinetta

Bennett lost millions when represented by Bennett and Johnson folded his case after years of litigation, Bennett enduring revenue reasonable losses upwards of 300 Million with the loss of Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures.  Founded in 1980 in a small 1000 sf shop grew to 10,000 sf, with monthly revenues approaching $100,000.   

One day Bennett learned one of key witnesses was murdered sometime between 1989 and 1990 at the tail end of the litigation.  At the time Southern Pacific was floating a six to seven figure settlement.  Bennett met the track investigator who said they were ready with a $750,000 investment. 

Bennett married in 1996, learned of the witness murder in 2000 or later, his truck exploded when his life insurance, assets and inheritance were easily over 1.2 Million at death.  What Bennett didn't was his Mormon wife was raised by the defense attorney connected to the witness murder.  Visit Disbarred Attorneys to learn more about how the Nate Greenan, son of Attorney James Greenan former President of Contra Costa Bar Association lost his life on WB Highway 24 in Orinda.  Nate played at VinniesBar.com with Bennett during March 2012, 

Bennett was arrested that same week where he Contra Costa Sheriff Deputy Carlos Francies who realized Bennett cellmate was a dangerous felon.  That inmate was placed in Bennett's cell by Deputy Vince Jimenez formerly a deputy in Danville with Deputy Tanabe later arrested in the case locally known as CNET Scandal 

Nate was driving on hwy 24 where suddenly switched lanes, went over the rail at Camino Pablo subsequently was killed.   Bennett was driven to court by his former Counsel Dax Craven who never shared he was the son-in-law of James Greenan then President of the Bar controlling attorney referrals.  

A 30 year set of lies 

The big Kahuna uncovered years later between Greenan, the Southern Pacific Attorney Rick Kopf, Safeway CEO Steve Burd, District Mark Peterson and his brother Michael Peterson ties back to the Alamo 1st Ward located on Stone Valley Road.  

There is another divorcee who suddenly started attending Alamo 1st in 2004 with her near identical family law battle to get her son back from Idaho.  She vanished but when asking members that new there was a sense of stonewalling.  

When my realtor friend Brian Schwalen died just hours after services was the last time I attended Alamo 1st Ward. 

October 24, 2007

COURT SAYS LAWYER HARASSED JUDGE FOR YEARS

See the bottom of this item for an update, now that we've heard back from lawyer James Disney.

Thirteen years after presiding over a Concord attorney’s divorce proceedings, now-retired Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Peter Spinetta still feels a need to watch his back.

Late Tuesday, San Francisco’s First District Court of Appeal upheld a three-year restraining order that prevents lawyer James Disney — whose 1994 divorce was handled by Spinetta — from further bothering the judge or his wife.

Writing for the court (.pdf), Justice Henry Needham Jr. held there was “substantial evidence” Disney had “seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed the judge” for “no legitimate purpose.”

Justices Barbara Jones and Linda Gemello concurred.

According to the ruling, Disney has harassed Spinetta and his wife for several years, confronting them in 2004 at a Home Depot in Concord, where he allegedly yelled at the couple and called Spinetta “stupid.” The ruling also noted that Disney mailed several insulting letters to the judge in 2006, showed up at two social events in the Spinettas’ residential community in Rossmoor and appeared in the judge’s courtroom “once or twice a quarter for six years” to glare when he had no official business to be there.

“A reasonable trier of fact,” Needham wrote in Tuesday’s unpublished ruling, “could conclude, upon clear and convincing evidence, that Disney’s course of conduct was harassing, willful, knowing and without legitimate purpose, and was the type that would cause, and in fact did cause, substantial emotional distress.”

Disney, who got his State Bar license in 1964 after graduating from the University of San Francisco School of Law, couldn’t be reached for comment on Wednesday.

In Tuesday’s ruling (Spinetta v. Disney, A116153), the appeal court noted that Disney argued that the restraining order, issued in October 2006, would violate his free speech rights and his right to practice law in the public courts, among other things.

The appellate court rejected Disney’s arguments, noting, for one, that the restraining order wasn’t directed only at his “written ridicule” of Spinetta, but also the fact he had publicly confronted the judge outside the courtroom. The court also held that the order didn’t prevent Disney from practicing law, but merely requires him to go through the Martinez courthouse’s regular security screening and to advise security personnel when he had business in Spinetta’s courtroom (However, Spinetta retired from the Contra Costa court earlier this year.)

The appeal court also upheld $1,200 in attorney fees against Disney.

Update: In a phone call on Thursday, Disney expressed astonishment at the appellate court’s ruling, saying “oh my god” several times during the conversation.

“I think they are protecting a judge,” he said of the ruling. “I think they are personally biased and … god, this is strange.”

Disney admitted he had sent rude letters to Spinetta, but said he never intended to cause any physical harm.

“I have been angry about him, so I wrote some letters to him and I called him a jerk,” he said. “I said that some judges had their head up their ass, thinking they are on a pedestal. My experience with him was past, so I was just being critical of him as a person.”

Disney said he was especially upset that the appeal court upheld a restraining order that was based on written declarations and not other testimony. He complained that he hadn’t been given a chance to cross-examine the security officers who made the declarations about his supposed behavior.

“This is a teaching lesson,” Disney said. “It teaches an attorney — in this case, me — about a client who has told the truth and the courts won’t believe it.”

He said he was certain that any lawyer who read the transcript of the court proceeding in which the restraining order was issued would be “quite surprised.”

Disney vowed to petition the California Supreme Court for review and to seek certioriari in the United States Supreme Court if necessary.

“In my opinion,” he said, “this court is not following the law.”

—  Mike McKee

Posted at 05:25 PM | Permalink

Reblog (0)Digg This

Comments

I don't want to be off topic, but I noticed this blog on the Recorder web page right underneath a story about me. I have not read the story about me yet, but if anyone is interested in it, please email me at boatbrain @ aol.com aith any questions.

Posted by: Steve White | October 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM

my comments are located at www.myspace.com/calbarblog. read on stay straight and GOP

Posted by: FELIX TORRES, JR. | October 25, 2007 at 03:34 PM

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Recorder to tell them I was kind of disappointed that they did not give any of the reasons for my complaints against Orloff in the article.

Very briefly, I was a whistleblower when Orloff and Judge Barbara Miller tried to cover up the crimes of Martin Nakahara, who is the older brother of Judge Vernon Nakahara.

Martin Nakahara was a prominent East Bay lawyer who embezzled from an estate. I will not give all the details here, but the point is, I discovered the crimes, reported them to both Judge Miller, and the DA's office, and found out they were not going to take any action, so I put out some leaflets near the courthouse to tell the public, and got attacked for that.

Sorry if this was off topic but the article about me was right over top of the link to this one and there seems to be a mutual theme of people with gripes.

FYI also - Judge Miller was my divorce judge, but unlike the attorney in this article she did nothing I had any gripe with in the divorce, until helping to cover up for her fellow judge's brother.

Posted by: Steve White | October 26, 2007 at 07:41 AM

One more comment about my own case.

The charge against me was dismissed after I made a motion for disqualfication of the DA's office, and then subpoenaed Tom Orloff and Nancy O'Malley, numbers 1 and 2 in that office, to the hearing.

Bottom line, they preferred to let the case go rather than testify, which I think says a lot.

Posted by: Steve White | December 03, 2007 at 01:53 PM

#20204-TheWitnessMurder

Read More

Judge Barry P. Goode - The Move Away Prevention Order is Kidnapping

Pete Bennett filed move away prevention order in February 2007,  but Superior Court Clerks stated there wasn't enough time to hear the case or some excuse.  At the Bennett was unaware that his courtroom bailiff would be arrested, convicted by a federal grand jury.

Bennett filed the appropriate papers on time without errors.

The State Bar of California

Barry Goode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Barry P. Goode (born April 11, 1948) is a judge in Contra Costa County, California, and a former federal judicial nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Contents

• 1Early life and education
• 2Professional career
• 3Nomination to the Ninth Circuit
• 4Work for California Gov. Gray Davis
• 5Appointment to current judgeship
• 6Personal
• 7See also
• 8References
• 9External links

Early life and education[edit]

A New York native, Goode earned a bachelor's degree magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Kenyon College in 1969. He earned a law degree cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1972.^[1]

Professional career[edit]

Goode's first job out of law school was as a special assistant to U.S. Sen. Adlai Stevenson III of Illinois, from 1972 until 1974, when Goode then joined the San Francisco law firm McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen (now Bingham McCutchen), where he rose to become a partner. Throughout his 27-year career at the firm, he specialized in representing large corporations in environmental litigation. He also worked as an adjunct instructor of environmental law at the University of San Francisco.^[2] Goode left the firm in 2001 to join California state government.

Nomination to the Ninth Circuit[edit]

President Bill Clinton nominated Goode to the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 1998, to replace Charles Edward Wiggins, who had taken senior status.^[3] With the U.S. Senate under Republican control from that point until the end of Clinton's presidency, Goode's nomination languished, with no hearing scheduled or U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee vote for him. Despite the support for him from both of California's senators at that time, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Goode's nomination was held up by one anonymous senator who had placed a hold on his nomination for unexplained reasons. Clinton renominated Goode on January 26, 1999, and renominated him again on January 3, 2001.^[2] On March 19, 2001, however, President George W. Bush withdrew 62 executive and judicial nominations made by Clinton in his final days as president, including that of Goode.^[4] Goode's nearly three-year nomination remains one of the single longest federal appeals-court judicial nominations never given a full Senate vote, behind those of Helene White, Henry Saad and Terrence Boyle.

In April 2003, President Bush nominated Carlos Bea to the Ninth Circuit seat to which Goode had been nominated. Bea was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in September 2003.^[5]

Work for California Gov. Gray Davis[edit]

On February 1, 2001, California Gov. Gray Davis named Goode as his secretary of legal affairs. Goode called the post an "important job," in an interview with the Metropolitan News-Enterprise newspaper in a story that was published on February 2, 2001. "I'm the kind of person who looks forward, not backward," he told the paper, referring to his expired federal judicial nomination.

During his time working for Gray Davis, Goode was the point person during two controversies. One involved a $95 million software contract with Oracle Corporation and Northrop Grumman that state officials rescinded in 2002 after critics charged that it would cost the state millions of dollars instead of generating the promised $100 million in savings.^[6] The other controversy involved power generator Duke Energy, which in 2001 was accused of gouging California.^[7]

Appointment to current judgeship[edit]

On November 11, 2003, just days before he left office after an unprecedented recall vote, Davis appointed Goode to serve on the Contra Costa County Superior Court.^[8] Goode's courtroom is located in Martinez, California, which is the county seat of Contra Costa County.

Personal[edit]

Goode lives in California.^[1] Goode has taught environmental law at the University of San Francisco School of Law.^[1]

See also[edit]

• Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies

References[edit]

1.  

Read More

YVONNE ELDRIDGE Munchausen syndrome by proxy and once again Judge Peter Spinetta

Yvonne Eldridge Other California Cases with Female Exonerees Yvonne Eldridge Yvonne Eldridge had years of experience running a foster home in Walnut Creek, California, when, in 1987, she became one of the first foster parents to participate in a special program for medically fragile babies. Most of the infants in this program were born drug-addicted or with life-threatening conditions such as AIDS, and Eldridge was recruited for the program because of her experience and success as a foster parent. Eldridge was featured in a video produced by the San Francisco Department of Social Services to recruit foster parents and in1988, Nancy Reagan presented her with a “Great American Families” award at the White House. In 1991, Oakland doctors alleged that Eldridge had intentionally interfered with the medical treatments of several of the children in her care.  The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office investigated for a year, but failed to find evidence to support a conviction. But in November1992, at the urging of the doctors, the State Attorney General’s office took the unusual step of reinvestigating the case. In the spring of 1993, prosecutors sought to revoke Eldridge’s foster care license. Investigators testified at an administrative hearing that she was responsible for the deaths of three children and tried to harm eight others between 1987 and 1991. Although it was not uncommon for the medically-fragile infants in the program to succumb to illness, the state claimed that Eldridge suffered from a rare psychiatric disorder called “Munchausen syndrome by proxy” that caused her to lie about the physical conditions of the children in her care in order to receive attention from medical professionals. As a result, doctors ordered unnecessary medicines and performed unneeded surgeries on some of Eldridge’s foster children. The state accused Eldridge of piercing the intravenous line of one child and injecting sodium or potassium into others, causing them to suffer symptoms ranging from breathing difficulties to cardiac arrest. In March 1993, California Child Protective Services took custody of the newborn son of Eldridge’s daughter, Amber, who was living with Eldridge, on the ground that the infant was not safe in Eldridge’s home. In April, Eldridge lost her foster care license. In November 1994, a grand jury indicted Eldridge on two charges felony child abuse, and on December 3rd Eldridge turned herself in. Eldridge’s trial began on May 8, 1996. Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Peter Spinetta had ruled that prosecutors could not introduce testimony about Munchausen syndrome by proxy because it might prejudice the jury. Without referencing the syndrome, prosecutors claimed that Eldridge regularly sought medical care for her foster children for mysterious health problems, and that two sick children began to thrive after being taken out of Eldridge’s home. The two doctors who testified against Eldridge were inexperienced in treating the severe medical conditions that the children were born with, and one of them had never even treated the children Eldridge was accused of abusing. As Eldridge’s appellate attorneys would later argue, the medical records of the children greatly contradicted the testimony of these two doctors. Eldridge’s attorney, Contra Costa County chief deputy public defender Bill Egan, argued that Eldridge was innocent and did the best she could with difficult cases.  On June 3, 1996, Eldridge was convicted by the jury of abusing two medically fragile babies in her care. The judge allowed Eldridge to remain free on a $100,000 property bond because Eldridge was caring for her husband, who suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease and attended the trial daily in a wheelchair. On July 10, 1996, Eldridge was sentenced to three years in prison. The judge allowed her seven weeks to arrange care for her husband before she had to begin serving her sentence in late August. Eldridge hired new attorneys, Zenia Gilg and Kristen Wohadlo, who filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that her trial attorney, Egan, had not effectively represented her because he did not call family members, other foster parents, or medical experts who could have testified that the children Eldridge was accused of abusing were genuinely sick and that Eldridge had provided appropriate care. Eldridge’s attorneys also raised evidence that one of the doctors who had initially requested the investigation of Eldridge had a history of accusing foster parents of abuse. Eldridge was allowed to remain free on bond pending the motion for a new trial. On January 16, 1998, Judge Spinetta ordered a new trial for Eldridge. In February, prosecutors appealed the ruling. In 2000, the California 1st District Court of Appeal remanded the case back to Judge Spinetta, saying that in order to conclude that Egan’s representation was constitutionally ineffective he had to decide that Egan had no tactical reasons for representing Eldridge as he did. At a hearing on September 29, 2000, Eldridge’s attorneys argued that Egan had failed to call family and friends who could have corroborated Eldridge’s observations about the infants’ ailments. More significantly, Egan failed to find a medical expert to assist in Eldridge’s defense. Egan had asked Dr. Richard L. Oken, a pediatrician, to serve as an expert witness, but provided Oken only with the limited medical records that had been prepared by the prosecution. In a declaration presented at the hearing, Oken stated that, had he seen the entire medical record, he would have been able to provide accurate medical explanations for the children's fragile medical conditions. Eldridge’s attorneys also argued that Egan failed to present evidence that one of the doctors who raised allegations against Eldridge, Dr. Marc Usatin, had previously made a pass at Eldridge, had been accused of a series of unwelcome sexual overtures directed at other patients and hospital staff, and had a history of accusing women of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. On December 21, 2000, Judge Spinetta ordered a new trial based on the ineffectiveness of Eldridge’s trial attorney. The state again appealed the ruling. On Sept 20, 2002, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. On January 8, 2003, prosecutors dismissed the charges against Eldridge. – Alexandra Gross Report an error or add more information about this case. Posting Date: 9/28/2012

Read More