S214058

Court of Appeal Case No.B242054

Super.Ct No. BC452239
IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
PATRICIA J. BARRY,
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent,
vs.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner.
__________________________________
RESPONDENT PATRICIA BARRYS APPLICATION FOR RELIEF
FROM DEFAULT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF
AND REQUEST TO REMOVE CRAIG KAMANSKY AS MCLE
PROVIDER BASED ON HIS NOTORIOUS HISTORY AS
A PROBABLE PEDOPHILE AND CJP PUBLIC REPROVAL
FOR ERASING WHAT HIS VICTIM CLAIMED WAS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY;
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA J. BARRY; EXHS. 1, 2
PATRICIA J. BARRY (State Bar No.59116)
634 S. Spring St., Ste 823
Los Angeles, Ca 90014
Tele.(213) 995-0734
Fax (213) 995-0735
pbarrylegal@gmail.com
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent in propria persona
1
S214058
Court of Appeal Case No.B242054
Super.Ct No. BC452239
IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
PATRICIA J. BARRY,
Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent,
vs.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner.
__________________________________
TO: HONORABLE CHIEF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TANI
G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE:

Respondent PATRICIA J. BARRY (Barry) requests the following
relief:
That she be permitted to file the attached Answering Brief.
She also requests that Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye
remove Craig Kamansky as MCLE provider. Attached as Exh. 1 is a flier
advertising him as MCLE actually teaching Elimination of Bias.
Attached as Exh. 2 is an accurate account of Kamanskys notorious history
and reputation of being a pedophile. He paid $300,000.00 to Jason Bumpus
for sexually abusing him, including for sodomy. Kamansky received a
public reproval from the Commission on Judicial Performance for erasing
2
video which his victim Jason Bumpus claimed had child porn on it.
Bumpus ended up a suicide.
This is a hard slap by the Bar in the face of all children who have
been sexually abused. Barry is deeply offended by the Bars preference,
ratification, and support of someone like Kamansky. It reinforces Barrys
argument that the Bar, like the Courts, the D.A., and police regularly deny
equal court, D.A., and police services to protective parents and their abused
children, and regularly reward batterers and pedophiles as in this case.
Please remove Kamansky as a MCLE provider and bar him from
ever serving in that capacity.
DATED: September 25, 2014
PATRICIA J. BARRY
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA J. BARRY
I, PATRICIA J. BARRY, declare the following:
1. I am the attorney/plaintff/appellant/respondent in this
proceeding. I testify to the following based on my own direct knowledge.
To the extent the information is based on my understanding or belief, I
believe the matters to be true.
2. I request relief from default. Time absolutely got away from
me. I have been working nonstop with only a parttime employee. In the
3
last three months, I have filed briefs in two state court appeals and four in
the Ninth Circuit. One of the cases, is for a battered woman and her two
children, involving San Mateo courts, the D. A., and the sheriff. I spent
days and days on the brief. I could not reduce the word count to 14,000
words. It is a 20,000 word brief discussing what is happening to most
mothers alleging abuse of their children in family and juvenile court.
3. I do apologize for the delay. I request that the Court accept
the attached Answering Brief. It is, except for the Statement of the Issue,
the Brief which I filed in the Court of Appeal.
4. I also request that Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye
immediately remove Craig Kamansky as a MCLE provider and bar him
from ever serving in that capacity again. Attached as Exh. 1 is a flier
advertising him as a MCLE provider on, of all things, an expert on
elimination of bias. Really?
5. How can any attorney find him credible? His reputation is
that of a serial pedophile. Jason Bumpus, one of his victims, sued him in
federal court. The Harris sisters were going to be witnesses, testifying that
he sexually abused them as well. Desperate to hide the facts of his crimes
against children, aided and abetted by a corrupt San Bernardino Sheriff
Dept, Mr. Kamansky settled Mr. Bumpus case for $300,000.00. I attach
4
as Exh. 2 an extensive internet article on Mr. Kamansky. I have the
federal complaint filed by Mr. Bumpus against Mr. Kamansky. I may be
able to obtain more documentation of what evidence came out in the case
against Mr. Kamansky.
6. This is shameful misconduct on the part of the Bar. It is
however consistent with the misogyny it shows given who gets prosecuted
by the Bar and who does not.
7. I request, for the sake of us all, that Her Honor issue an order
barring Mr. Kamansky from serving as a MCLE provider ever.
I declare the foregoing to be true and correct under penalty of
perjury. Executed this 25th day of September 2014 in Los Angeles,
California.

PATRICIA J. BARRY

EXH. 1
EXH. 2
1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/2569?o=1&d=-1
Judge Kamansky May Have Paid $300,000 to Settle Molestation case.
Kamansky was on the election ballot for March 7, 2000. Please help with a
letter writing campaign
Fearing revelations in open court that could have threatened his judicial and
legal career. San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Craig Kamansky
elected to settle a lawsuit against him out of court by agreeing to pay
$300,000 to a 24-year-old man who alleged he had been molested by the judge.
According to Valley Wide Newspaper.
Valley Wide Newspaper
Kamansky May Have Paid $300,000 To Settle Molestation Case
By Mark Gutglueck- 06-18-98
Fearing revelations in open court that could have threatened his judicial and
legal career. San Bernardino County, California Superior Court Judge Craig
Kamansky last month elected to settle a lawsuit against him out of court by
agreeing to pay $300,000 to a 24-year-old man who alleged he had been
molested by the judge nine years ago. Valley Wide Newspapers has learned.
Former California Assemblyman Terry Goggin an attorney representing Jason
Bumpus, accepted the terms of settlement offered by Kamansky's attorney,
Thomas Brayton, two weeks before the matter was scheduled to come to trial in
Los Angeles Federal Court on May 26.
In the lawsuit first lodged in 1995, Goggin maintained that Bumpus, who was
only 15 when he first was brought before Kamansky as a criminal defendant in
juvenile court in 1989, had been victimized by Kamansky, the juvenile court
system and juvenile authorities in both San Bernardino and Riverside
counties. In the first two years after the suit was filed, all defendants
except Kamansky were excused from the case.
In 1989, Bumpus was arrested for pilfering cigarettes at a San Bernardino
County store. It was at that point that Bumpus came before Kamansky, who was
then assigned to San Bernardino County Juvenile Court as part of routine
rotation.
Almost immediately afterward, Kamansky made arrangement, through contact with
juvenile authorities in Riverside County and by trading on his authority as a
judge, to allow the youth to take up residence in Kamansky's home in Highland.
2
In 1991, Bumpus stole a pickup from a dealership in Chino and drove it to
Beaumont. When a policeman confronted him, the teen attempted to flee. The
policeman drew his gun and wounded the suspect in a hail of gunfire.
On the mend from his injuries, the youth told counselors at Riverside County
Juvenile Hall's medical ward that while he was living with Kamansky, the
judge had sexually abused him.
A complaint regarding the entire range of circumstances pertaining to
Kamansky's interaction with Bumpus, both privately and on the bench, was made
to the Commission on Judicial Performances, the state agency charged with
overseeing the comporliment of judges.
During the course of its investigation, the Commission requested from
Kamansky several items of evidence, including the video tapes noted as being
present in the Kamansky residence by sheriff's investigators when they
carried out their search. Bumpus told investigators that he had viewed
several of those videotapes with Kamansky as a prelude to the sexual activity
Kamansky initiated with him.
After reviewing the matter, The Commission on Judicial Performance in
September 1992 publicly reproved Kamansky for having altered evidence, though
it fell short of rendering a judgment on the validity of Bumpus allegations.
Judge Kamansky's actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice that brings the judiciary into disrepute," a letter
signed by the commission's chief counsel, Victoria Henly, stated. The
commission came to to that conclusion, according to Henly, as the result of
the judge's "bad faith" attempt to alter evidence, requested by the
commission during the course of its investigation.
The commission declined to clarify the matter any further than to explain
that certain videotapes had been requested from Kamansky, that Kamansky had
deliberately recorded other material on the tapes before releasing them to
the commission, and that Kamansky had repeatedly denied altering the tapes
until finally admitting the erasures and recordings when confronted with
evidence that he had done so.
Kamansky accepted the rebuke without comment, in so doing keeping the events
that had prompted the investigation under wraps and thus dodging a bullet
that conceivably would have ended his judicial and legal career.
Three years later, however, Goggin took up Bumpus' cause and succeeded in
3
convincing the federal court to hear the matter, despite the arguments of
Kamansky's legal team that the case could not be pursued because statute of
limitations had expired. Goggin was able to successfully argue, however that
the clock on the statute did not begin to toll until Bumpus was out of
custody, as an incarcerated juvenile he had no realistic opportunity to
pursue a lawsuit against Kamansky or anyone else.
The lawsuit threw into sharp relief a host ruinous revelations, the
substantiation of which appeared poised to not only compromise Kamansky as a
judge but substantially damage the credibility of the sheriff's department.
Beyond highlighting Kamansky's own behavior and willingness to destroy
evidence. Goggin was armed with forensic evidence showing that the sheriff's
investigators and the district attorney's office had hedged on the
presentation of evidence implicating him in the sexual molestation of Bumpus
as well as other juveniles who had the misfortune on coming into Kamansky's
courtroom.
This evidence included demonstrations of how the sheriff's department's had
botched forensic tests on the souvenir baseball bat used in the instrumental
sodomization of Bumpus that were later contoverted by more exacting state
forensic tests and the sherrif's department's failure to gather the video
evidence from Kamansky's home. when that opportunity presented itself.
Additionally, Bumpus' case was strengthened by evidence ready for
presentation that would have shown that Kamansky had successfully rallied the
district attorney's office to his defense in 1992 after an Upland man, Robert
Kenneth Harris, had come forward with information alleging that Kamansky had
molested his daughters. Kamansky had presided over a child dependency case in
1988 pertaining to the eventual placement of Harris' three children, who were
then 14, 16, 18. Upon Kamansky's insistence, Harris was subsequently
prosecuted by the district attorney's office for making "terrorist threats"
against Kamansky.
When numerous legalistic ploys by Kamansky's defense team failed to stave off
the prospect of a trial and with the opening of that trial set for only weeks
away, Kamansky gave his consent to a settlement with sources place "in the
$300,000 range," which Brayton has worked out with Goggin.
Included in the deal was the implicit arrangement that there would be no need
to put on the testimony from Bumpus or the Harris daughters detailing the
molestations and no supportive testimony from other witnesses establishing
Kamansky's "homosexual tendencies" or "bisexual orientation." Explicit in the
4
arrangement was that a confidentiality agreement in which it was agreed
between the parties that no information pertaining to the terms of the
agreement would be publicly disclosed by either party.
"We settled a few weeks before the file date, " Goggin said. "The court
record is the court record and you ought to take a look at the court record.
I can't tell you a damn thing, because it's confidential. We've set a
confidential agreement. I can't tell you anything other than to say that the
settlement was in the best interest of my client."
Both Kamansky and Brayton declined to make any comment on the case.
REPROVAL LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IN
ADOBE
ACROBAT READER FORMAT:
http://exposerancho.org/kamansky-reproval.pdf
All imprinted with permission of:
"ExposeRancho.org"