This is an astonishing letter!
Unless I am somehow wrong, Davis is whitewashing the Wager deposition as "fully investigated." (The State Bar had for at least two months.)
In that deposition, Wager was forced to admit to a long list of criminal acts in front of Judge Lachs. One of of the things he admitted to was was paying Apodaca for false testimony and being reimbursed for the payment by Kendrick Moxon. It is nice to know that such acts are on the approved list for the State Bar instead of getting you several years in the slammer.
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
William W. Davis
Special Assistant to the Chief Trial Counsel
1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015-2299
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Graham E. Berry, Esquire
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90066
In re, Care Number- 99-0-12791
Dear Mr. Berry:
This is to acknowledge receipt of, and respond to, your letter dated March 29, 2001, addressed to Palmer Madden, President of the State Bar of California, with copies to the Board of Governors, various employees of the State Bar of California, and State Bar Court Hearing Judge Michael Marcus, in which you raise concerns regarding the investigation and prosecution of the above referenced case against you.
The discretion to file disciplinary charges in any particular matter rests exclusively with the Chief Trial Counsel pursuant to statute, and as such, the Board of Governors cannot comment on the concerns raised in your letter with regard to the prosecution of the underlying disciplinary case by attorneys employed by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. The specific legal issues in your case may ultimately become the proper subject of a hearing before a Judge of the State Bar Court to determine culpability and the nature and extent of discipline to be imposed, if any. As you are aware, a Notice of Disciplinary Charges has been prepared by the Office. However, the Notice has not been filed with the State Bar Court as an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference is currently pending with Judge Marcus.
The State Bar of California has gone to great lengths to formalize rules of procedure and practice that insure that all attorneys are provided with a "level playing field" and afforded ample due process in their dealings with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and the State Bar Court from the time that the initial complaint is received, through and including, a final decision entered by the California Supreme Court. Your assertion that the Church of Scientology, along with the various attorneys employed by it, have some kind of undue influence over the prosecution and outcome of your disciplinary proceeding is without any foundation!
Further, allegation of misconduct which you have made in the past involving attorneys representing the Church of Scientology were fully investigated by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and the files were thereafter closed. Your current assertion, that the Office is allegedly ignoring on-going criminal conduct by the Church's attorneys, while at the same time pursuing you in a disciplinary proceeding, is equally lacking in merit.
If you possess specific evidence of misconduct, criminal or otherwise, committed by an attorney, I encourage you to provide such information to law enforcement and/or our Office for review and consideration. However, such a complaint and potential investigation by our Office is entirely independent of the matter which is currently pending against you.
I also encourage you to consult with legal counsel familiar with State Bar disciplinary proceedings to determine the various options which may be available to you with regard to your underlying disciplinary matter.
If you have any other questions or comments, please feet free to contact me directly.
Very truly yours,
William W. Davis
Special Assistant to the
Chief Trial Counsel
c: Board of Governors
Mike Nisperos, Jr.
Francis P. Bassios