January 19, 2026 REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY
(Today’s Date)
December 7, 2023
(Original Date)
*Denotes some change was made in or to the original blog, either added information or deleted information. Usually, deleted information will be indicated by the words “info deleted”.
**UPDATE denotes NEW information added to the blog after the blog’s original publication.
On November 30, 2023, I attended and was a party to a hearing regarding the case of Jose Angel Manaiza, Jr. v. Toastmasters International. Mr. Manaiza, a native of Honduras, is the primary party in the case, charging Toastmasters, a non-profit organization, with multiple claims, including breach of contract, misrepresentation, harassment, negligence, discrimination, emotional distress, etc. Mr. Manaiza is proceeding pro se in the case. He started out with an attorney, but subsequently began representing himself.
I became involved in the case at the time Mr. Manaiza was represented by counsel. I was asked by Mr. Manaiza to participate in the case as a pro hac vice counsel, because his counsel was having some medical and/or family problems which were making it difficult for him to meet his legal obligations in representing Mr. Manaiza. Thus, Mr. Manaiza thought that I might be able to assist he and his attorney in moving his case forward. In fact, I met Mr. Manaiza through this attorney. I knew the attorney before I met Mr. Manaiza, and , in fact, I met Mr. Manaiza through the attorney.
Anyway, in our discussion of my possibly representing him on a pro hac vice basis, I informed Mr. Manaiza that based on a provision of California’s pro hac vice statute, I was prohibited from representing him on a pro hac vice basis.
READERS : Briefly, pro hac vice is a legal concept whereby a lawyer who is not licensed in one state, but is licensed in a different state, is allowed by the non-licensed State to represent a client in the non-licensed state in court proceedings.
Basically, CA has an anti-competitive provision in its pro hac vice statute which prevents an out-of-state licensed lawyer from representing a California client in court proceedings if he (the lawyer) lives in California. (I am a member of the District of Columbia, D.C., Bar, and I live in California).
However, Mr. Manaiza, based on his own personal reason(s), believed that the judge in his case, Richard L. Fruin , might waive the provision. So, I agreed to represent him if the Court would waive the provision. Thereafter, Mr. Manaiza officially filed a motion to have me represent him on a pro hac vice basis.
The Defendant Toastmasters International (“Toastmasters“), through its attorney Matthew S. Kenefick and the law firm of Jeffer Mangel Butler & Mitchell (because the charged actions involve another lawyer from the law firm as well) responded to the motion and OPPOSED it. However, in his opposition, Kenefick made several false or misleading statements about me regarding my bar status and other, more serious, matters involving purported criminal conduct.
At the hearing on Manaiza’s pro hac vice motion, judge Fruin denied the motion, based on the fact that I live in California, while stating that he could not waive the out-of-state requirement. Thereafter, I raised the issue of attorney Kenefick’s false or misleading statements made about me in his Opposition, and I indicated that I intended to move for sanctions. Judge Fruin thereafter approved and authorized me to move for sanctions. And, I did so.
When the November 30, 2023 hearing on Plaintiff Manaiza’s multiple motions and my motion for sanctions was held, and my motion for sanctions was initially heard, Kenefick responded that it was based on false statements. Then judge Fruin responded by stating in so many words that lawyers were allowed to make defamatory statements during judicial presentations without being disciplined by the Superior Court. And, he said that this immunity was established during the years of Rose Bird’s reign as Chief of the California Supreme Court. I questioned this “policy” and asserted that ABA (American Bar Association) guidelines suggested that a lawyer can be disbarred for making false statements during judicial proceedings. Judge Fruin then stated “that’s the Bar”. So, the Court was initially inclined to deny my motion for sanctions based on it’s position regarding the false statements alone. However, near the end of the hearing, I brought it to the attention of the Court that the main claims of my motion for sanctions was not just the false statements, but also my charges that the Defendant’s and Kenefick’s Opposition was frivolous, made in bad faith, and made for an improper purpose, e.g., to deny Mr. Manaiza counsel. And, I relied, in part, on two California statutes, CCP 128.5 and 128.7. Judge Fruin then admitted, in open court, that he had not READ my motion. So, he, in a fair action, said that he would rehear my motion, after reading it, at , and as a part of, the rehearing of Mr. Manaiza’s motions (because he did not address all of Manaiza’s motions at the hearing). The next hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2023, at * 1: 30 p.m. in Department 15, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
The primary purpose of this blog is to bring to the attention of my readers what I believe is a remarkable policy if it is widespread, as judge Fruin suggests. It means that California lawyers, and other lawyers as well, can make defamatory statements about other lawyers, and perhaps other non-lawyers as well, at will, with no fear of discipline by the Superior Court itself. It encourages lawyers practicing in the Superior Court to act recklessly and it forces one defamed to seek relief from the California State Bar or another source. While I believe that a Superior Court judge has inherent power to sanction a lawyer for making false or defamatory statements, I believe that such a policy allowing lawyers to make defamatory statements during judicial proceedings should be repealed. If not, legislation should be passed to require the Superior Court to sanction such conduct. *I now believe that there is existing legislation that “allows” a Court to sanction a lawyer for making false or defamatory statements. See Business and Professions Code sec. 6068, where, “It is the duty of an attorney. . . (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of law or fact.” Emphasis added.
A secondary purpose of this blog is to show how Defendants, such as the ones in this case, can try and rely on the defamatory statement “policy” to avoid sanctions for what is otherwise misconduct, e.g., the California State Bar has a Rule, 4.1, which states, in pertinent part, “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly : (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. . . .” And, “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf. . . .” If the only claim for sanctions that I had against the Defendants was the false statements themselves, I would be painfully out of luck. As stated supra, the Court initially was inclined to deny my motion, based on Kenefick’s response that the motion was about false statements. However, my motion , as stated in the motion and the reply, is about much more than the false statements themselves. But, if I do not obtain any relief in the Superior Court for the Defendants’ actions, I will turn to the California State Bar, where I will rely, principally, on the false statements. And, there is also a federal component to the false statement action that could lead to federal court. And, for those readers who wish to see how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals feel about lawyers providing false statements to the Court, see In re Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010). Briefly, the 9th Circuit sanctioned several attorneys and their law firms for submitting false statements to the Court. The Court stated, “The Court cannot and will not tolerate members of the bar employing the use of known falsehoods to further their objectives, no matter how appealing the underlying cause of their clients may be.”
Finally, while I didn’t intend to discuss or comment on the full merits of the motion for sanctions at this time, and I still will not do so here, I will comment on a preliminary matter that preceded the filing of the motion that is noteworthy.
When I initially attempted to file the motion for sanctions, that the Court had authorized, I was met with some technicalities at the Clerk’s Office in Room 102. After satisfying all other technicalities, the final one was having me named as a party in the case. The supervising clerk in 102 directed me to go to judge Fruin’s courtroom and have the court clerk or assistant, M. Zarate, , make or name me a party in the case. However, when I delivered the message to the court clerk, she decided that she would make me a “non-party”. Since my main concern at the time was getting my motion filed in a timely manner, I did not contest the clerk’s designation or label, and the clerks in 102 accepted the “non-party” designation and the motion was filed. One clerk in 102, subsequently, indicated that the court clerk has superior authority over 102 clerks with respect to the party designation. However, now that the motion has been filed, I am contesting the non-party designation. I raised the issue during the hearing on the motion, but did not receive a definitive response from the court. But, the motion for sanctions, along with various motions filed by Mr. Manaiza, has been continued until December 15th, supra. There, I will ask the Court to direct the clerk to designate me a party. It was error for her not to do so in the first place.
Not surprisingly, another lawyer from Kenefick’s law firm, Susan Allison, likely attempting to rely on the non-party designation, did not serve me with her Opposition (to MY motion). Rather, she served the opposition on Mr. Manaiza, who is the Plaintiff in the case, and who did not file the motion (my motion) for sanctions. This was simply bad faith conduct, and I argued so in my Reply (I could have legitimately not responded *and ask the Court to consider the motion conceded, since I didn’t receive the Opposition—-Manaiza informed me of the opposition , and I, acting in good faith, responded to it). There are other “errors” regarding my motion for sanctions committed by Zarate, which tend to favor the Defendants, but, I *will not comment on them here, although I may comment on them at a later time.
UPDATE—December 17, 2023.
THE HEARING : THE COURT TAKES THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UNDER SUBMISSION, INCLUDING A FACT REGARDING A DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY KENEFICK
The *December 15th hearing was held and at the end, judge Richard L. Fruin stated that he would take the Motion for Sanctions under submission.
First of all, the posted calendar for the hearing did not include my motion for sanctions, oddly enough, which causes any member of the public viewing the calendar to be unaware of the motion (which by its name and nature suggests misconduct of some kind) and that it is being lodged against the Defendant and its attorneys, Matthew S. Kenefick and Susan Allison. The motion for sanctions should have been on the calendar. Another “error” by the clerk. And, when the judge ask for appearances for the parties, he named the plaintiff and defendant, but, I had to, on my own, stand and identify my appearance as the Movant (although, I simply said regarding the motion for sanctions).
After the Court had discussed the Plaintiff’s, Jose Angel Manaiza’s , matters, he turned to the motion for sanctions. Generally, I argued that the Court had inherent authority to sanction the Defendants, besides the statutory authority, and judge Fruin didn’t believe he has the authority. Further, we discussed the “safe harbor” provision (allowing for the withdrawal of certain documents containing false statements or other matter) of certain statutes providing sanctions for certain misconduct, e.g., bad faith or frivolous filings. We didn’t reach the issue of my being a party or not, but, I clearly argued it in the motion, and the judge stated the motion was being submitted, so that means the entire motion. Therefore, the issue must be decided in the Court’s final ruling.
Before judge Fruin left the bench, I brought it to his attention a fact about a Declaration submitted by Kenefick. However, I will not discuss the fact here out of respect for judge Fruin’s suggestion that the parties (Kenefick and I) entertain settlement of the motion and/or matter. The same thing applies to the merits of the motion, i.e., a discussion of the false statements and why or how they are false. If there is no settlement, I will discuss the merits of the motion and the Declaration matter; and the multiple “errors” made by the clerk, which tends to favor or protect the Defendant(s).
NOTE : Manaiza broke down in tears after complaining to the Court about what he considers wrongful claims of misconduct asserted by Defendant Toastmasters International in some of its filings.
UPDATE—January 15, 2024 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday Happy King Day!
This blogpost is dedicated to Dr. King and his civil rights mission.
JUDGE FRUIN ISSUES HIS DECISION ON THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS : DENIED
Judge Richard L. Fruin has now issued his decision on my motion for sanctions against attorney Matthew S. Kenefick, which was under submission (which usually signifies that the motion is being seriously considered or reviewed), and which was lodged against attorney Kenefick, primarily, and the law firm of Jeffer Mangels Butler and Mitchell, LLP, and Kenefick is a partner, for making false statements to the court and about me in their Opposition to Plaintiff Jose Manaiza’s motion to retain me as pro hac vice counsel. The decision began as a one-liner : “The Motion for Sanctions filed by Laurack D. Bray on 11/09/2023 is Denied”, as stated in the Minute Order, but was followed by a written Ruling, which provides some discussion of the motion, but, which includes false or misleading statements itself. However, the most important aspect of the written ruling is the OMISSIONS from the ruling. See, infra.
Kenefick never attempted to engage in settlement talks regarding the false statement matter, apparently feeling confident that the motion would be denied. And, it was. But, an additional problem for Kenefick and judge Fruin arises from Kenefick’s Declaration in support of his false and/or misleading statements. As I stated above, before judge Fruin left the bench and courtroom during the hearing, I brought to his attention a fact about the Declaration. That is, Kenefick did not sign the Declaration under oath or VERIFY it. Judge Fruin summoned his clerk for the Declaration and acknowledged that Kenefick did not verify the Declaration. Kenefick apologized for not verifying the Declaration. I stated that an apology was insufficient, and more importantly, I MOVED to strike the Declaration and all references made to it in Kenefick’s Opposition. Judge Fruin did not rule on my motion to strike. Thus, Fruin denied my motion for sanctions for Kenefick’s false or misleading statements made in his Opposition, based on an Opposition supported by a false or un-verified Declaration. That is, false statements supported by a false or un-verified Declaration.
Now, to a few of the omissions in judge Fruin’s ruling :
1. Judge Fruin’s Order authorizing me to file the motion for sanctions, or a discussion or mention thereof.
2. Govt. Bus. and Prof. Code 6068 (d) , regarding misleading a judge through use of a false statement of fact or law, which I cited in my motion papers.
3. State Bar of CA Rules of Professional conduct, Rule 4.1, which states in pertinent part : “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly : (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. . . .”, which I cited in my motions papers.
4. A discussion of Kenefick’s false or un-verified Declaration.
5. My motion to strike Kenefick’s Declaration.
6. Judge Fruin’s implementation of Defendants’ safe harbor rights with the law firm’s participation.
The omissions amount to fraud by omissions, which amounts to an intentional denial of my due process rights. In fact , the ruling contains false or misleading statements itself, which is a further denial of my due process rights.
Contrary to what I stated above, in the December 17th Update, I will not get more specific regarding the false or misleading statements of Kenefick at this time, other than to state that they were centered on my bar membership or whether I am a member of any bar, and my alleged involvement in ongoing criminal proceedings; and I will not get more specific regarding the court clerk’s, M. Zarate, actions at this time, other than to say that they will be addressed, and that I charge the actions involve racial discrimination and bias.
Judge Fruin, in his response to my suggestion that the ABA suggested that a lawyer could be disbarred for making false statements, suggested that that may be the case for the bar, but that the principle didn’t apply to the court. Well, one of my next steps will be the State Bar of California.
And, the State Bar of California will be hard-pressed not to find Kenefick liable when it has just recently found (and recommended) what appears to be a minority lawyer, Redondo Beach City Counsel member Zein Obagi, Jr., liable for, among other things, “allegedly seeking to mislead a judge and making misrepresentations to the Superior Court. . . .”
“(A)ccording to the State Bar, which accused Obagi of additional misconduct for making false statements in his lawsuit, . . . .” The L.A.Times. Kenefick is white. *Obagi is Libyan.
UPDATE—February 19, 2024
NEXT STEPS IN THE FALSE STATEMENT PROCEEDING
I have now taken the following next steps towards resolving the false statement matter :
1. Submitted a complaint with the supervisory arm for court clerk M. Zarate, complaining about Zarate’s racial discrimination and bias (favoring Matthew S. Kenefick and his law firm). 2. Submitted/filed a complaint to/with the State Bar of California against Matthew S. Kenefick (in filing the complaint, the State Bar clerk receiving the complaint date-stamped the complaint on the backside of the front page of the complaint rather than on the front or face of the complaint, p
and also on the backside of the last page of the complaint—the complaint was filed on February 7, 2024. 3. I filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the denial of the motion for sanctions. NOTE : When I first attempted to file the notice of appeal, the initial clerk, after reviewing the record for the case, sought out a supervisory clerk, who then informed me that I was NOT on the docket—my name had been removed—and he could not file the notice of appeal until my name was put back on the docket. He instructed me to go back to the courtroom (#15) and inform the clerk, Zarate, to replace my name on the docket. I did so. However, when I spoke to Zarate, she said that she would do so, but, she would continue to identify me as a non-party. And, she did so. Even after I informed her that I was charged the initial appearance fee (or first paper fee) for a party .
Other Comment
RE : Zarate. The removal of my name from the docket after my motion for sanctions was denied, and Zarate, for the second time and with a second opportunity to designate me a party after referral from another clerk’s office, only adds fuel to the discriminatory fire. NOTE : I thank the clerks in the appeals office for being fair and honest. They could have handled the situation in a different way. But, their integrity caused them to do things the right way. And, I must admit, amongst the racism that I have persistently experienced in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, the appeals clerks‘ conduct was refreshing .
UPDATE—February 28, 2024 HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MAMMA! 102 YRS. TODAY
MOVING ON WITH THE APPEAL.
I’ve now filed the next appeal process evolving from the Superior Court, designation of documents and transcript. And, the final process should be producing the compiled Record (to be forwarded to the Court of Appeal). The remaining processes will be in the Second District Court of Appeal, beginning with the submission of a Civil Case Information Statement.
Status : After reviewing the Court’s Ruling denying the motion for sanctions more carefully, I’ve discovered additional false or misleading statements or “falsified facts”, which I will not reveal here (I could, but, I will not, on behalf of judge Fruin, who, in good faith, authorized my filing the Motion for sanctions) but, which will, necessarily, have to be revealed in briefing on appeal because those statements will be a basis of my appeal, in addition to attorney Matthew S. Kenefick’s false statements, which are already a part of the superior court Record (and will become a part of the appellate record after production by the superior court appeals clerk). “Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include : conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example : ‘falsification of facts’ at summary judgment). . . .” Emphasis added. Wikipedia on Judicial Misconduct.
I’ve also discovered additional false or misleading statements in Kenefick’s Declaration. I will not identify Kenefick’s statements here either, but for a different reason than for judge Fruin.
The Irony : The motion for sanctions began as a process to garner relief for Kenefick’s false statements made in his opposition papers to the pro hac vice motion submitted by Plaintiff Jose Manaiza, with Kenefick legally and indirectly turning to and relying on judge Fruin for relief, which Kenefick legally obtained through a denial of the motion for sanctions.
But now, with the advent of the false or misleading statements made by judge Fruin in his Ruling, it places judge Fruin, indirectly, in the position of relying on Kenefick and his law firm for relief (in avoiding serious consequences that would go beyond the Second District if the case proceeds to briefing).
So, what will Kenefick and his law firm do, with the tables turned ?
UPDATE—April 7, 2024.
THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MY APPEAL : I BARELY GOT MY FOOT IN THE DOOR BEFORE THE DISCRIMINATION BEGAN
As I attempted to appeal the denial of the motion for sanctions against Matthew S. Kenefick, Susan Allison, and Toastmasters, I barely began the process in the Second District Court of Appeal before the discrimination began. To begin with, I was never given or assigned a Court of Appeal number as I should have been; and I still haven’t been assigned one (and it’s too late now—because the Court has already essentially denied me an appeal (based on multiple matters or factors) as a matter of due process, and under color of law. Thus, I have now filed another criminal-civil rights complaint with the federal Justice Department. At some point, I will attach a copy of my Complaint to this blog, but now is not the time.
My involvement as a movant party in the Manaiza case began with Matthew S. Kenefick, and his law firm, and I suspect it continues with him (and them) through the short appellate process. Kenefick could have opposed the pro hac vice motion by Plaintiff Jose Manaiza simply by citing the California law which doesn’t allow it, but, he decided not to stop there (and he did cite the law), he went further and produced unnecessary lies or false statements , to the court and about me, to buttress his opposition to the pro hac vice motion. So, I filed a motion for sanctions against Kenefick, Allison, and Toastmasters for making or supporting the false statements. Judge Richard L. Fruin, either directly or indirectly, protected Kenefick and the others from paying money amounts by denying the motion (even if the denial of the motion was based strictly on an assessment of the merits of the motion).
Next, the appellate process in the Second District. I contend, as I do in my Complaint, that some of the actions of the Second District leading to my Complaint are related to Kenefick and his law firm, either directly or indirectly.
Finally, since my appeal is essentially temporarily ended, I will turn to how judge Fruin’s sanctions ruling may be addressed and the connection with Kenefick . I will also deal with the prosecution of my criminal complaint *versus the Second District and how I will try to seek assistance in getting it done.
Next time.
UPDATE—April 11, 2024
KENEFICK AND JUDGE FRUIN’S RULING AND FATE : IF JUDGE FRUIN MUST END UP DEFENDING HIMSELF AND HIS RULING BEYOND THE SUPERIOR COURT, *BLAME IT ON KENEFICK, WHO, AFTER ADMITTING THAT HE SUBMITTED AN UN-VERIFIED DECLARATION, REFUSES TO TAKE STEPS TO END THE MATTER FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING JUDGE FRUIN, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.
As I alluded to earlier in this blog, Judge Fruin, based on his Ruling denying the motion for sanctions, made himself susceptible to charges of both judicial misconduct and constitutional violations, which would take the matter beyond the Superior Court if the matter is not resolved in the Superior Court or at the Superior Court stage. For me, it would be a matter of disproving both the allegations of Kenefick’s false statements in his Opposition and un-verified Declaration and the similar allegations/statements of judge Fruin in his Ruling, where both sets of statements/allegations tend to reflect on my reputation and character, and without a Superior Court resolution, I will be compelled to pursue the matters further as a means of both disproving the allegations of both sets of documents, and in the interests of justice, that is, to discourage this type of conduct by any attorneys or judges in Kenefick’s or Fruin’s positions in the future.
Thus, judge Fruin’s fate , more than Kenefick’s own fate, is in Kenefick’s hands. When judge Fruin initially suggested settlement talks, Kenefick made no effort to engage in any talks, even though his actions (which are clearly a violation of a State Bar rule) provided the fuel for the sanction litigation in the first place. I didn’t reach out either, because it is his misconduct that is at issue, not mine. However, now, judge Fruin is also involved, so I will reach-out and offer a window of opportunity to resolve the matter.
UPDATE—April 22, 2024
GUESS WHAT ? COURT CLERK M. ZARATE IS NO LONGER IN JUDGE FRUIN’S COURTROOM
I’ve discovered that courtroom clerk M. Zarate, post my Complaint, is no longer in judge Fruin’s courtroom. *For the Manaiza case anyway. That might help some other Black men that might appear in Fruin’s courtroom.
By the way, my home was burglarized again, someone stealing documents from my files again. Documents relating to my trial and appellate case here. Now, I see why these law firms have security guards in their offices. As always, who would want the documents, or, better, who would not want me to have the documents, i.e., stamp-filed documents. I specifically discovered it yesterday, but I don’t know when it actually happened. One document I know was taken in the last few days, the Complaint against Zarate.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 12, 2024
JUDGE FRUIN : BOTH COMPLAINTS HAVE NOW BEEN FILED
Attorney Matthew S. Kenefick, as he did when judge Richard L. Fruin had initially suggested settling the matter, did not attempt to resolve the sanctions matter after I reached out to him, so two Complaints have been filed regarding judge Fruin’s Ruling regarding the sanctions matter : one to the Commission on Judicial Performance and the other to the U.S. Justice Department. If judge Fruin is not disciplined or prosecuted, based on his written Ruling, it will be the result of racism and/or corruption.
To its credit, the Commission has acknowledged receipt of my Complaint. On the other hand, as has been the pattern with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, I have not been contacted. And, this pattern leads me to conclude that the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) does not operate to protect and serve Black people. It operates to protect and serve white people, and perhaps some others. When it holds these press conferences after prosecuting minorities, it is speaking to white people, and perhaps some others, but it’s not speaking to Black people. Generally, the only thing the USAO does for Black people is prosecute them. I thought when the USAO came under Democratic leadership that there might be a difference in its treatment of Black people, but, needless to say, I don’t see a discernible difference. If anything, it’s worse, because of the expectations.
While the USAO prosecutes minority officials for what I call “greedy crimes” (trying to earn or obtain money or luxuries beyond their salaries), where there is no victim, or a victimless crime, it refuses to prosecute white officials, where there clearly is a victim who has suffered a detriment at the hands of the official. Clearly, this is unequal treatment.
“The Pew study notes that Black Americans have a unique relationship with both discrimination and claims of government conspiracy theories given the nation’s legacy of slavery, Jim Crow-era segregation laws and modern-day discrimination against Black Americans by public and private actors”. L.A. Times, “Majority of Black people say system is against them”, June 11, 2024. “ ‘When you have a history of American institutions actually conspiring against Black people, it’s not so hard to believe that anything else would also be true’, said Tasha Philpot, a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, who studies political psychology among Black Americans.’ ” Id. “(M)ore than 6 in 10 Black adults surveyed agreed that institutions such as the criminal justice system and policing are designed to hold Black people back.” Id. And, finally, “Black Americans were also likely to believe racial conspiracy theories about politics. Three quarters of those surveyed said they agreed that ‘Black public officials being singled out to be discredited more than white officials’ happens in politics today.” But, ‘‘ ‘It’s not really a conspiracy theory if it’s true,’ she (Philpot) said.” Id. (emphasis added).
UPDATE—August 2, 2024.
BOTH THE CJP AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAVE RESPONDED IN SOME WAY TO MY COMPLAINTS : APPARENTLY, NEITHER AGENCY HAS FOUND THAT JUDGE FRUIN DID ANYTHING WRONG, NOTWITHSTANDING THE RECORD
I have now received a response and non-response to my two complaints. The Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) basically found that judge Fruin did nothing wrong. The Justice Department, as usual, did not respond to my complaint. But, clearly, there were no substantial prosecutorial actions taken. And, the non-actions speak volumes. I stand by my statement in the June 12, 2024 entry above. But, see the next update, infra.
UPDATE—August 4, 2024
A LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER
A few months or so ago, I wrote a letter to U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, requesting permission or authorization to file a motion for appointment of counsel to address the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) violation of the Crime Victims Rights Act and denial of my due process and equal protection rights as a Black male in Los Angeles County. Basically, while the USAO is supposed to be protecting and serving the rights of citizens in its jurisdiction, it does not do so when it comes to Black males in Los Angeles.
After receiving the letter, judge Carter, through a court clerk, established the requirements in order for the court to grant my request for permission to file a motion for appointment of counsel. I met the requirements. And, a final hurdle was to show that my writing to judge Carter didn’t violate a Central District court rule . I showed that. So, all that was left was for judge Carter to give the request his blessing. But, he never got to do so.
The letter, a document assigning error based on the writing to the judge rule, and my response to the document assigning error were all filed in the habeas corpus case. It had to be filed in the habeas corpus case because I didn’t have a case in judge Carter’s courtroom.
Since the documents were filed in her assigned case, district judge Sunshine Sykes ruled on my request for relief (rather than judge Carter) and converted the request for permission to file a motion for appointment of counsel to an actual motion for appointment of counsel, and denied the motion. But, she probably should have recused. Her decision is now being appealed, but, under habeas corpus procedure (which requires a Certificate of Appealability by judge Sykes), rather than regular appellate procedure, where I would have an automatic right of appeal.
More next time.
UPDATE—August 8, 2024
WHILE THE LETTER TO JUDGE CARTER IS PRINCIPALLY DIRECTED TO THE MISTREATMENT OF BLACK MALES BY THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MISTREATMENT OF BLACK MALES BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL ALSO BE ADDRESSED; SUCH THINGS AS ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE, INCLUDING TAPPING TELEPHONES AND CAUSING PHONES TO BE INOPERABLE, AND INTIMIDATING CITIZENS OR LYING TO CITIZENS ABOUT ANOTHER CITIZEN FOR ILLEGAL REASONS
The U.S. Justice Department has mistreated Black males, but, the State of California is not far behind, and is probably worst, in terms of engaging in illegalities to achieve its illegal objectives. I am hopeful that the result of the letter will address such things as illegal surveillance, wire tapping, and intimidating citizens, regardless of the source of usage.
UPDATE—August 11, 2024
THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TAKE ME DOWN, I BELIEVE, BY, OR THROUGH, SOME, OR ALL, OF THE METHODS I HAVE IDENTIFIED ABOVE. BUT, IF THEY SUCCEED, IT WON’T BE THROUGH SUBMISSION, ONLY THEIR POWER. THEY REALIZE THAT I AM A BLACK, POOR, AND POWERLESS LAWYER, WITH NO SUPPORT. THAT IS, THE POWERLESS VERSUS THE POWERFUL. AND IF THE GOVERNMENT SUCCEEDS, BLACK MALES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WILL LOSE THE ONLY REAL VOICE ON THEIR BEHALF. AND, PERHAPS TO A LESSER DEGREE, THE STRONGEST VOICE ON BEHALF OF DISENFRANCHISED BLACK PEOPLE AND OTHER MINORITIES IN L.A. CITY AND COUNTY.
Because of unusual happenings regarding friends, telephones, and other matters, and the effect on me financially; and because only the government would have the resources to perform certain actions, I believe the government is trying to take me down. But, while I don’t have the resources to match theirs, I will not willfully submit to their conduct; the takedown will only be because of their power, and my lack thereof. Besides myself, the biggest loser in my takedown would be Black males in Los Angeles city and county, where, generally and invariably, my voice is the only voice advocating on behalf of Black males. And, most times, it is the only voice advocating on behalf of disenfranchised Black people, male and female, e.g., Nicole Lorraine Linton, who never should have been charged with murder, and Xavier Cerf, who, in all likelihood, was murdered by vigilante justice instead of being held for police.
The government is goal-driven. It knows what it’s doing.
BUT, if the Letter to district judge David O. Carter is somehow successful, the government’s misconduct will all come out.
UPDATE—September 13, 2024
THE FRAUDULENT APPELLATE PROCESS CONTINUES : THE CLERK TRANSCRIPT
After being told the Clerk’s transcript was ready, I went by to pickup the transcript. The title page of the transcript was false and fraudulent. It had me opposing Jose Manaiza instead of Matthew Kenefick. At no time did I oppose Manaiza below. That sealed the misconduct, and finalized the denial of an appeal of my motion for sanctions against Kenefick and members of Jeffer Mangels. So, guess what I did with the transcript ? I gave it back.
UPDATE—October 9, 2024
LAURACK D. BRAY V. MATTHEW S. KENEFICK, SUSAN ALLISON, & JEFFER MANGELS, ET.AL. : A BLACK MALE LAWYER V. A WHITE MALE LAWYER AND HIS WELL-FUNDED LAW FIRM ENGAGED IN FEDERAL COURT, WITH THE BLACK LAWYER CHARGING THE WHITE LAWYER AND HIS LAW FIRM WITH DEFAMATION AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION : WHAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME ?, WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WHITE LAWYER AND HIS LAW FIRM MADE FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE BLACK LAWYER IN PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, WHICH, IN TURN , CONTRIBUTED TO THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.
Yesterday, I filed a Complaint, and lawsuit, in federal district court, charging Matthew S. Kenefick and his law firm with defamation and racial discrimination, evolving from false statements made by Kenefick and his law firm about me during Superior Court civil litigation involving Jose Manaiza , see above, and Toastmasters International (also a defendant in this case).
More next time.
UPDATE—October 27, 2024
BRAY V. KENEFICK, ET.AL. : WILL THERE BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TREATMENT OF THE CASE ? SOME QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS SUGGEST OTHERWISE
I want and expect what most Plaintiffs want and expect when they file a civil case, that is, fair and impartial treatment of their cases. And, the burden on the courts is a heavy one. And, in a case like this one, involving racial discrimination and defamation with a poor Black attorney pitted against a white partner in a law firm, the burden on the courts is even higher. The state courts have already showed their bias and/or racism in favor of Matthew S. Kenefick in regards to his false statements, so now, I move on to federal court. Will there be fair and impartial treatment here ? At the outset, I could see my status as a poor, pro se litigant was causing my case to be treated differently. For instance, summonses still haven’t been issued by the court for service on the defendants because, per the clerks, IFP status for waiver of filing fees still has to be decided, and once decided, the summons will be issued. So, I must wait. And, who benefits from this action ? Kenefick and the other defendants.
And, while in the Clerk’s Office, I heard a clerk say the same thing to another Black man apparently filing a civil case as a poor person. So I’m not claiming it was just me. It’s apparently policy for poor people. The main point I’m making is that if I wasn’t poor, and had the funds, I could have had the summons issued the same day I filed the complaint. Moreover, the court has already granted me IFP status in a recent habeas corpus case. That should be sufficient. Incidentally, the Black guy referred to said out loud, “I get food stamps, so I know I qualify”.
More next time.
UPDATE—October 29, 2024
MORE EVIDENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT WIRE-TAPPING MY TELEPHONE WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE ME OF INCOME, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY I AM PROCEEDING AS A POOR PERSON
I now have further evidence, I believe, that the government is wire-tapping my phone, and thereafter using information it obtains from the wire-tap to prevent me from obtaining funds or employment, which is why, in part at least, I’m poor. And, why, as a lawyer, I’m proceeding as a poor person. The evidence revolves around two things : an object and a person, both related to me receiving income, and both involving government interference, I believe. The evidence surrounding the object points to the federal government. If it is the federal government, what does that say about the Democratic U.S. Justice Department in Los Angeles ? Who do Black males of Los Angeles County have to turn to for protection against criminal conduct of purported *Justice Department protectors ?
UPDATE—November 11, 2024 VETERANS DAY
NOW, WITH THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT, WE ARE GOING TO SEE WHAT A TRUMP-REPUBLICAN U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO DO ABOUT CRIMES, SUCH AS ILLEGAL WIRE-TAPPING, COMMITTED BY THE BIDEN-DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHO TRUMP CONSIDERS AN ENEMY WITHIN
I guess the answer to my question above as to who I, as a Black male of Los Angeles County, have to turn to for protection against the Democratic Justice Department‘s violations of the law, e.g., illegal surveillance, will, necessarily, be the Trump Justice Department. And it will want to know, “HOW LONG DID IT LAST ?”
UPDATE—November 29, 2024
BRAY V. KENEFICK, ET. AL. : FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TREATMENT OF THE CASE ? NOT SO FAR. BUT, IN DENYING ME MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND IN AIDING DEFENDANTS ESCAPE LIABILITY, THE COURT HAS PRODUCED A DEFECTIVE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS FINDING THAT MY COMPLAINT IS DEFECTIVE
There have been several questionable actions in the case since I last wrote a blogpost about the case, such as summonses still haave not been issued and served on Defendants. And, who does that help ? The Defendants. But, rather than go through all the questionable acts involved in the case, I will discuss the last few acts after District Judge Fernando M. Olguin was assigned to the case. First, I objected to judge Olguin being assigned to the case, because he was not randomly selected at the time I filed my Complaint, and I believe he was assigned to my case in bad faith. Second, after judge Olguin was assigned, the Court, through clerks, issued documents informing me of the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program, and informing me that judge Olguin was a participating judge in the program. But, the information wasn’t clear to me as to whether the ADR program was being proposed for current participation or after the Defendants have been served. So, I filed a request for clarification by the clerk. And, I indicated that I would not be participating unless the Defendants assigned someone who would be representing their interests. That is, I would not be unilaterally participating in the program, because I noted some prejudicial aspects of my participating alone, i.e., my taking actions alone.
Instead of receiving a response to my request for clarification of the ADR program, judge Olguin issued Orders regarding my in forma pauperis (IFP) application and my Complaint. That is, questioning both of them, with the implication that my responses will not be sufficient (e.g., requiring me to explain the difference between income and liabilities, and stating that my Complaint fails to state a claim), thus causing denial of IFP status and dismissal of my Complaint, and the case; although, I’ve been offered an opportunity to amend the Complaint (which I’ve done, but for different reasons and legal basis than the Court suggested).
But, judge Olguin‘s Statement supporting his finding that my Complaint is defective also has defects. I will defer reporting the details until later, if necessary. However, I believe that my responses to judge Olguin’s orders are sufficient to demonstrate viable claims for both IFP status and a viable Complaint.
UPDATE—December 5, 2024
PRESIDENT BIDEN APPARENTLY SHARES MY VIEW OF OUR DEMOCRATIC U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT : DISAPPOINTMENT
A couple of days ago , President Joe Biden was asked about his reasoning behind granting his son Hunter Biden a pardon. “Biden said he did it, after promising he wouldn’t , because he felt his own Justice Department had treated his son unfairly — that ‘raw politics’ had ‘infected’ Hunter Biden’s prosecution on gun and tax evasion offenses and ‘led to a miscarriage of justice.’ ” L.A. Times (emphasis added).
His statement signifies that he expected more, in terms of fairness, from his own Justice Department. I expected more, in terms of fairness, as well. We both were disappointed. But, while the Democratic Justice Department can point to some legal support or justification for its action against Hunter Biden, it cannot point to any for its action against me. Its actions against me were (are) strictly illegal.
UPDATE—December 10, 2024
BRAY V. KENEFICK, ET.AL. : NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE COURT HAS NOW DISMISSED THE CASE, PURPORTEDLY FOR FAILURE TO STATE A FEDERAL CLAIM, I.E., RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. BUT, WHAT IS A SURPRISE, IS THAT THE COURT, AND CERTAIN CLERKS, WERE BLINDED TO THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW ALONG THE WAY. AND, ONE OF THOSE PROSCRIPTIONS IS THE VIOLATION OF ONE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Today, when visiting the Clerk’s Office, I discovered that the court, judge Fernando M. Olguin, dismissed my case yesterday, purportedly for failure to state a federal claim, i.e., racial discrimination. He also claimed that I failed to explain with particularity why my monthly expenses exceeds my monthly income, causing him to deny me a waiver of the filing fee, or in forma pauperis (IFP) status, even though I did provide an explanation. I believe Olguin’s IFP requirement and order was not justified, and at least, was arbitrary and capricious, if not wholly intentional. As for the court’s decision to find that I failed to state a racial discrimination claim, my theory, equal benefit of all laws, for finding that I stated a claim, was different from the court’s theory, a contractural relationship, which the court relied on to deny me relief. But, a major difference between the assertion of our respective positions was that the court relied on false statements, at least in part, to support its position.
While Judge Olguin made several false statements over the course of the three Statements that he issued, I will only point out one at this time, because it is defamatory. On October 31, 2024, judge Olguin ordered me to respond in 30 days (or by November 30, 2024) to his order to show why there was a difference between my monthly income and expenses and to file an amended complaint. On November 27, 2024, I filed both a response to the court’s IFP order and an Amended Complaint. This was three days before the documents were due. On December 3, 2024, judge Olguin, in his dismissal Order, stated, “As of this date, more than 30 days later, Plaintiff has not filed (an IFP response). . .or filed an Amended Complaint.” This was false. And, a false statement. Then, again, subsequently, Olguin states, “Despite the Court’s warning, Plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint.” Again, this was not true. Thereafter, the court proceeded to dismiss the case “for failure to comply with a Court order”. Again, this was false because I complied with the court’s order, and, the statement was(is) defamatory because it implies that I engaged in misconduct of some kind. And, I did not have an opportunity to RESPOND to the Court’s false statements and dismissal order, because the next day, December 4, 2024, the court issued another order, this time an order to vacate the December 3rd dismissal order, because the court states that on this date (Dec. 4th), “ the Clerk of the Court entered on the docket Plaintiff’s responses to the Court’s order, which Plaintiff had filed on November 27, 2024”. And, the court concedes that I complied with his order in a timely fashion. *But, nowhere in this order did judge Olguin issue an apology.
I received both the December 3d and 4th orders on the same day, December 9th. And I discovered on December 10th (at the Clerk’s Office) that the court had dismissed the case, for failure to state a federal claim, on Dec.9th. * I still haven’t received the dismissal Order by mail. So, I didn’t have an opportunity to RESPOND to either of the orders after their issuance. That, in itself, is a violation of my constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law. While the vacation order is apparently purported to be positive, it is just as bad as the dismissal order because most people viewing the order on the docket without downloading the document, would be left with the conclusion that the dismissal order was vacated because I had NOW complied with the court’s order. And, that adds to the defamation. And, the additional defamation adds to the violation of my constitutional rights, under color of law.
Judge Olguin had a duty to assure himself, through contacting the clerks and/or the clerk’s office, that the documents he ordered to be filed had not been filed, before he concluded that the documents had not been filed. He could not simply rely on the docket entry report to determine whether the required documents had been filed or not. In my view, Judge Olguin knew or should have known that the documents he had ordered to be filed by November 30, had, in fact, been timely filed , at the time he determined that I did not comply with his order.
Certain clerks, especially the clerk responsible for docketing the filings who did not docket the ordered filings until a week after they were filed, are responsible for violating my constitutional rights, whether his or her actions were intentional, reckless, or negligent, because the clerks’ actions contributed to the dismissal order for failure to comply with a court order.
Finally, there is federal criminal law directed to the denial of a person’s constitutional rights under color of law and making false statements during judicial proceedings.
*Moreover, I filed a motion with the Chief Judge of the Court, Dolly M. Gee, requesting that she address certain matters, including judge Olguin’s action on the IFP application, but judge Gee refused to act on the motion. However, the Justice Department might find her failure to act is an ACT itself.
*The case was dismissed without the Defendants having had to respond in any way. The summonses were neither issued nor served. So, the Defendants haven’t had to defend against the claims.
How often does this happen to indigent, Black male, and pro se Plaintiffs by the Central District in general? How often has it happened in the past? By judge Olguin ? By the Central District ?
Did I or my case receive fair and impartial treatment ? Not a chance.
UPDATE—January 14, 2025
ON A LIGHTER SIDE : IN RECOGNITION OF A RARE FAIR JUDGE : JUDGE HOLLY L. HANCOCK
Readers : A version of this update was previously printed and published, but, it was accidentally deleted. And so, this repeat of the blogpost is abbreviated. The original blog was produced during Christmastime, and I noted that in terms of why I was thanking judge Hancock at that time.
In the appearances I’ve had before judges in Los Angeles, my experiences, for the most part, have been unfair treatment. So, judge Holly L.Hancock of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, is a rare fair judge. This is a delayed message, because I should have written it sometime ago. While I won’t go into detail about the matter that was resolved by judge Hancock, I will say that I filed a motion seeking a certain type of relief, but, by the end of the court proceedings, I received an even more positive relief. Thanks judge Hancock, for being a fair judge. And thanks also, to deputy clerk L. Resado, for the part he played in the action.
**UPDATE—January 14, 2025 (restatement after accidental deletion)
BRAY V. KENEFICK, ET.AL. : THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
I have now filed a notice of appeal and the 9th Circuit has issued a briefing Order.
**UPDATE—January 17, 2025 THIS BLOGPOST IS MY CONTRIBUTION TO M.L.K. JR. DAY
BRAY V. KENEFICK, ET.AL. : A RETREAT BY THE COURT : ASTONISHING ! BUT, MY MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL PROVIDES THE EXPLANATION SOUGHT
On Monday, January 6, 2025, after the Court had issued a briefing Order, I filed a motion for summary reversal of the district court’s decision, arguing that the merits were so clear that they need not await briefing for a decision. The motion was to arrive at the Court by January 10th. However, on January 14th, I received an Order from the Court, stating “It appears that this appeal may be frivolous”, while ordering me to explain why it isn’t. Astonishing! After the Court had ordered briefing. The Order is dated January 8, 2025. I have now received info from the Clerk’s Office that the summary reversal motion was docketed on the 10th. That means my motion apparently arrived after the Court issued its January 8th Order. Thus, my summary reversal motion will be my explanation for why the appeal is not frivolous. Again, astonishing! But, don’t just take my word for it, check this out :
First, the title of the case in the Court’s Order , in part :
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURACK D. BRAY No. 24- 7622
Plaintiff - Appellant.
v.
Mr. MATTHEW SCOTT KENEFICK,
Esquire, Attorney, individually and as
partner in Jfeffers Mangels; et al., *ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.
Now, especially for my attorney readers, how often do you see this in the title of a case : an attorney being called or titled “Mr.” and being designated “Esquire” and “Attorney” in the title ? Answer : Never, or nearly never for the so few or rare occasions it may occur. But, I am also an attorney, so why wasn’t I, a Black man, addressed as “Mr.” and “Esquire” and “Attorney” ? And, guess what else, for you readers who did not know, I am a member of the Ninth Circuit Bar, as is Kenefick, from my understanding. So why is Kenefick, a member of the Ninth Circuit Bar, addressed as Mr., Esquire, and Attorney, and I, as a member of the same Ninth Circuit Bar, not addressed as Mr. or Esquire or Attorney? And, it was Kenefick who defamed me, not me who defamed him. I charge racial bias, and/or discrimination, evolving from the title of the case. And, the actions demonstrated by the title of the case supports the Court stating that my appeal may be frivolous. Both matters support Kenefick and his law firm. I will decide who I will complain to. It may be several bodies.
Next, I presume a judge ordered the briefing after reviewing my direct application to the Ninth Circuit for IFP status, whereby I identified the issues I intended to raise on appeal. This judge must have found the issues I intend to raise on appeal meritorious, or at least, colorable, in order to prompt him or her to order briefing. Otherwise, he or she could have issued the same Order that has now been issued by the Court, through the clerk, Molly Dwyer. It seems to me it is disrespectful to the judge who ordered briefing to now turn around and state that it appears the appeal may be frivolous. It reflects on the judge’s competency to determine a frivolous appeal from a non-frivolous appeal. So, now the Court has essentially ordered me to raise the same issues I raised before the initial judge, so that some other judges can determine whether the initial judge was competent or not. That is, the Court is questioning the competency of the first judge. I believe briefing was ordered by a judge, after an IFP application was submitted directly to the Ninth Circuit, as opposed to the district court, which is normally the case, and after determining the appeal was meritorious upon review of the issues raised in the application.
Third, the Court offered two alternatives : voluntarily dismiss the appeal or explain, again, after now 2 IFP applications, why the appeal is not frivolous. Why would I dismiss the appeal ? After at least one judge has found that the appeal has merit, sufficient to order briefing. And, after I have filed a motion for summary reversal ? So, now I must present the same issues once again, to give different judges an opportunity to review them and deny them. Justice ?
Finally, in order to find that the appeal is frivolous, the Court must find :
1. A likely question of first impression in the 9th Circuit regarding sec. 1981 is frivolous.
2. My discretionary *due process right to appointment of counsel is frivolous.
3. My right not to be defamed is frivolous.
4. My right not to be discriminated against is frivolous.
5. A district judge’s use of false statements to support his decisions is frivolous.
6. A district judge falsely accusing me of failing to comply with an order, when in fact I complied with the Order, is frivolous.
7. My discretionary *due process right to IFP status in order to bring my claims against Kenefick and his partners is frivolous.
8. A U.S. Supreme Court case which supports my position regarding sec. 1981 is frivolous.
9. The *9th Circuit judge’s decision ordering briefing is frivolous.
More and more, it appears that I will be traveling to President-elect Donald Trump’s Justice Department, picking up passengers along the way. And, while I do not know what will happen once I get there, I do know this : my most positive results in turning to the Justice Department for help has come from a Republican Administration, i.e., George W. Bush, and his FBI.
**UPDATE—January 19, 2026 THE REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING’S (MLK’S) HOLIDAY
Dr. King: A document in recognition of you and your day is forthcoming.
