Mr. Eastman,

Right now it is virtually impossible to hear your side of these allegations. I approach things to understand and seek to read differing opinions. In this instance, I could not. Simple searches on all engines returned only one side. That lead me here. Is it legal for you to release the approximate 100 pages with referenced material mentioned in your response to the BAR request? I honestly think your best hope is in the court of the individual citizen. Many still retain the ability to discern for themselves. I will assist in dissemination. It may take longer than the establishment, but I believe in time you will be heard and truth will prevail, whatever it is found to be and wherever it leads.

Thank you.

Expand full comment

Dear Mr. Eastman:

I hope this post finds you well.

I just watched your interview by Steve Bannon, and I wish to offer sincere advice as a fellow member of the Bar who faced disciplinary action and chose to take it to trial, as well as someone that like yourself, believes it is important to stand by your principles even when facing backlash by today's leftist authoritarians.

I will not bore you with the details of my Bar case (though I would be more than happy to another time if you would like); but I will tell you that my experience of a California State Bar "trial" was:

(1) Unjust;

(2) Unfair;

(3) Unlawful;

(4) Unreasonable;

(5) Unproductive;

(6) Unscrupulous; and, most significantly

(7) Dumb and a pointless waste of time.

If my experience is illustrative, I say with confidence that you have an unfair proceeding ahead of you in which the deck is flagrantly stacked.

That said - here is some basic advice (take it or leave it):

(1)  Strategize based on the assumption that the Court is lazy and plans to copy-and-paste the OCTC's allegations into its Decision -- in other words: Do not waste time and effort pointing out the flaws in the Bar's case since that requires consideration and is therefore unlikely to resonate with the Court -- Instead, establish an ordinate amount of irrefutable facts such that the Review Department has to adopt your position (the Review Department is much more reasonable than the Hearing Department);

(2)   Do not argue points based on legal/constitutional principles, common sense, logic, or commonly accepted notions of human values -- focus on making it easy for the Court to agree with you without appearing to in any way support Trump/republicans;  

(3)  In that same vein -- try to incorporate as much woke ideological crap into your position if possible -- remember: The Bar's prerogative is optics -- approval by the LGBTQIA+/%U*9((@#$ community is more important to the Bar than fidelity to the law.

Obviously, this advice is intended as tongue-in-cheek, but, unfortunately, not as much as you may think.



Gil Arbel

** Suffice it to say that no one ever filed a Complaint against me with the Bar.

The Bar used me as a patsy essentially for misconduct by a notorious criminal fraud that in fact I was the victim of as a direct result of the Bar's actions.

The only thing that I HAVE to give credit to the Bar Court and OCTC was remarkable for managing, against all odds, to violate nearly every single one of the Bar's own rules of procedure in a single one-and-a-half day hearing.

The following is a fair and accurate summary of my "trial":

(A) Virtually all of my evidence was excluded without reason or explanation beyond the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) objecting as "not relevant" (OCTC and the Bar judge did not know that probative value is supposed to be balanced with prejudicial effect, undue consumption of time, etc.).

(B) All of my motions were denied without any indication they were looked at, much less considered (this includes basic Requests for Judicial Notice); and

(C) ALL of my proposed witnesses were excluded, including an expert witness and, remarkably, one of the OCTC investigators in my case.

Consequently, I was the one and only witness the Bar presented and, therefore, my testimony was the foundation for their case.

But that did not stop the Hearing Department's issuance of a Decision I can only characterize as border-mentally challenged, in which it somehow found me culpable (much of which was overturned by the Review Department) AND simultaneously falsely characterizes my testimony as not credible since the judge had a hard time comprehending basic facts I testified about (I think it was literally her very first trial).

Expand full comment

John! You and Elizabeth are awesome inspirations! Thank you so very much for the great work you are doing to shine a light on the Constitution that continues to liberate billions of people, not just in the United States, but around the world. This current fight against the injustice of the California Bar is an opportunity to spread your beautiful message even more brilliantly. Shine On!!!!

Expand full comment

Been thinking about you, John. Thank you for continuing the fight. Appreciate your sacrifices. Katie from the Vos meeting.

Expand full comment